Please support THE CITIZEN'S VOICE with a donation HERE!
|
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
| Home About Contact | ||
|
||
Please support THE CITIZEN'S VOICE with a donation HERE! | ||
|
|
||
Defense Against Compensation Claims Over COVID Vaccinations! Wanted: Doctors Who Administered the Corona Shot!What had previously been discussed behind closed doors has now suddenly appeared in black and white in the official medical journal: The state of NRW is calling on doctors to assist in defending against compensation claims related to COVID vaccinations. The background is an explosive ruling by the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) with far-reaching consequences for liability, informed consent obligations, and possible recourse claims. The following article shows why this development carries major political and legal implications – and why it could become equally delicate for vaccination doctors, injured parties, and the state itself. 
Dear Community, In the Westphalian Medical Journal, issue 4/2026, on page 15, a call from the NRW state government has been published directed at doctors who administered the COVID injection to their patients during the period in which it was officially recommended. The doctors are being asked to assist in defending against compensation claims asserted by vaccine-injured individuals against the state of NRW. https://www.aekwl.de/presse/wes... As we recall: In its ruling of October 9, 2025 – III ZR 180/24, the Federal Court of Justice classified all doctors who participated in the COVID vaccination campaign as public officials in terms of liability law for that specific period. The key consequence: If such a doctor failed to properly inform a patient before administering the corona shot, liability falls not on the doctor personally, but on the employing public body, i.e. the state (Art. 34 sentence 1 German Basic Law, § 839 German Civil Code). One may debate whether the individual federal states are truly to be regarded as the employing body or whether this role actually belongs to the federal government. However, the NRW state government apparently fears that courts in NRW could identify the state itself as the appropriate liable party. If this happens, the state of NRW will face the challenge in liability lawsuits brought by COVID vaccine-injured individuals of responding to the claimant’s allegation that they were not properly informed. The state of NRW will not be able to excuse itself by claiming that the Ministry of Health had no insight into what specifically took place in doctors’ offices and vaccination centers — courts will not accept such a so-called declaration of ignorance (§ 138 para. 4 German Code of Civil Procedure). If the state of NRW fails to counter the claimant’s allegation of inadequate informed consent, it will be treated as though it admitted the failure of informed consent (§ 138 para. 3 German Code of Civil Procedure). And more than that: Should the courts apply the standards known from medical malpractice law to liability cases involving COVID vaccine injuries, the state of NRW would bear the burden of demonstrating and proving that the claimant was properly informed (see § 630h para. 2 German Civil Code as well as case law established even before this provision came into force). The state of NRW therefore has no choice but to ask COVID vaccination doctors for support when responding to lawsuits by vaccine-injured individuals, because those doctors are the only ones who can provide information about whether and how they informed the vaccine recipients. The text of the appeal published in the Westphalian Medical Journal subtly conveys the following message: Dear doctors, if you help us, we will leave you alone even if mistakes may have been made. But if you stonewall and we therefore lose the case, we will seek recourse against you (Art. 34 sentence 2 German Basic Law, § 48 NRW Civil Servants Status Act). Doctors who administered the COVID injections will only be able to effectively help the state of NRW defend against compensation claims if they did everything correctly during the informed consent process. Numerous potential sources of error arise here (just a few examples are listed below; regarding the obligations of COVID vaccination doctors, see also Gebauer/Gierhake NJW 2023, 2231): 1. Was an individual informed consent discussion conducted at all? Was there an individual medical history assessment before the injection? Especially in vaccination centers where, according to reports, 120 vaccine recipients per hour allegedly received the injection [1], this seems difficult to imagine. Doubts grow further when considering that very early on the goal was to administer several million vaccine doses per week nationwide [2], and that by the end of April alone office-based physicians had already administered more than 5.4 million doses [3]. This raises the concern that the goal of “vaccination speed” was prioritized over obtaining the informed consent of each individual recipient. 2. Were possible alternatives to vaccination discussed during informed consent? Doubts arise when one learns that a doctor working in a Berlin vaccination center was no longer welcome there after it became known that he extended the vaccination briefing to include precisely this issue [4]. 3. Was it disclosed during informed consent that the COVID injections — at least until October 2022 — were only conditionally approved and that therefore no exhaustive data on safety and efficacy existed? (Strictly speaking, such data still do not exist today, but that is another matter entirely.) 4. Did vaccination doctors recommend the COVID injection on the grounds that it would also protect others — even though publicly accessible reports from the EMA’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use already showed that such transmission protection was never part of the clinical studies? 5. Was it disclosed that the mechanism of action of the COVID injections represented an entirely new method, i.e. a mechanism never before used in this way? 6. Were side effects disclosed during the vaccination briefing, especially those documented in the manufacturers’ “Red Hand Letters”? Even if such side effects allegedly occurred very rarely? The fact that a complication occurs very rarely after taking a medication does not relieve a doctor of the obligation to inform patients about the corresponding risk. 7. Was each vaccine recipient asked whether they were getting vaccinated under pressure (for example, out of fear of losing their job)? Doubts arise when reading, for instance, that a doctor who refused to administer COVID injections in his practice because he recognized that people did not truly want the injection voluntarily, but only because they were under pressure from society and employers and wanted to escape restrictions on freedom, lost his teaching assignment at Leipzig University — and was subsequently dragged through the mud in the media [5]. Should vaccination doctors admit to their own failures here, they may nevertheless be spared recourse claims as long as they cooperate with the state of NRW in defending against compensation lawsuits. However, they may then face trouble from another direction: If they are considered public officials in terms of state liability law, then they are also public officials in criminal law terms. Consequence: A vaccination administered without sufficient informed consent constitutes not merely simple bodily harm (§ 223 German Criminal Code), but bodily harm in office (§ 340 German Criminal Code; see Gierhake MedR 2026, 428). Prosecutors who become aware of this and fail to intervene (even due to ministerial instructions) may themselves become criminally liable for obstruction of justice in office (§ 258a German Criminal Code). In liability proceedings brought by a vaccine-injured individual against the state of NRW, the doctors may be called as witnesses and — provided they are released from medical confidentiality obligations — may testify about whether and how they informed the respective claimant. For an attorney representing such a vaccine-injured claimant, the question arises whether to advise their client to release the vaccination doctor from confidentiality obligations: a) In favor of doing so is the fact that otherwise the court may accuse the vaccine injury claimant of obstructing the state of NRW’s ability to present evidence and could conclude from this that informed consent was properly obtained. A complete refusal therefore appears strategically unwise. b) However, legal counsel should insist that documentation of the vaccination briefing be presented. Releasing the vaccination doctor from confidentiality can and should be made conditional upon the presentation of such documentation. Such conduct cannot be considered bad-faith obstruction of evidence, especially since the law itself — albeit expressly only for private medical treatment contracts — explicitly requires documentation of medical informed consent (§ 630f para. 2 German Civil Code). c) The attorney for the vaccine injury claimant should also insist that the vaccination doctor be informed of their right under § 384 no. 2 German Code of Civil Procedure to refuse to provide any information regarding the vaccination briefing because they may expose themselves to the risk of criminal prosecution. If the state of NRW cannot produce documentation of the informed consent discussion, or if the vaccination doctor refuses to testify, there is a chance that the court will order the state of NRW to pay compensation on the grounds that it was unable to prove proper informed consent. Sources [1]-[5]: [1] Wirtschaftswoche dated May 7, 2021 https://www.wiwo.de/.../impftempo.../27167584.html [2] RTL dated April 8, 2021 https://www.rtl.de/.../dank-hausaerzten-rki-vermeldet... [3] Ärzteblatt dated April 30, 2026 https://www.aerzteblatt.de/.../arztpraxen-zuenden... [4] WELT dated June 24, 2022 https://www.welt.de/.../Corona-Berliner-Arzt-weist-auf... [5] stern dated November 15, 2021 https://www.stern.de/.../leipzig--arzt-wollte-nicht-gegen...
Author: AI-Translation - Martin Schwab | |
|
| Other articles: |
 | Protest Convoy with the Farmers! Monday Demo Zeitz! April 29, 2024A video about the car convoy of the Monday demo in Zeitz on April 29... zum Artikel |
 | Spontaneous Demo: Never Again War: A Call for Peace in Turbulent TimesThe words "Never Again War" blaze in large yellow letters on the poster promoting the peace rally at the marketplace in Weißenfels on Wednesday, October 9, 2024.... zum Artikel |
 | Why am I just so resentful?Maybe because I live in a world where every other person smiles in my face while stabbing me in the back – and then wonders why I don’t just say "let bygones be bygones."... zum Artikel |
|
Support the operation of this website with voluntary contributions: via PayPal: https://www.paypal.me/evovi/12 or via bank transfer IBAN: IE55SUMU99036510275719 BIC: SUMUIE22XXX Account holder: Michael Thurm Shorts / Reels / Kurz-Clips Imprint / Disclaimer |