Paragard IUD Lawsuit Settlement Amounts

Our lawyers are handling Paragard IUD lawsuits for women throughout the United States. These cases allege that the copper IUD can fracture during removal, leaving one or both plastic arms inside the uterus and sometimes forcing the patient to undergo another procedure or surgery.

The federal litigation now includes more than 4,000 filed cases. The first bellwether trial ended in a defense verdict in February 2026. That was a real loss for plaintiffs, and it changed the settlement calculus maybe a bit. But it is just one case, and all that can be turned around with a win in September 2026 when we have the next trial.

So there is no Paragard settlement deal as of August 2026. Our lawyers still believe these claims may eventually be resolved through a negotiated settlement, but the first defense verdict makes it harder to predict when that could happen or what defendants will be willing to pay. We discuss our estimated Paragard settlement values below.

Legal review by Ronald V. Miller Jr. This page was last substantively updated on July 27, 2026. It provides general information and is not medical advice or a prediction of the result in any individual case.

Paragard Lawsuit Updates

See More Paragard Lawsuit Updates

Third Bellwether Put on Hold During Appeal Process

May 3, 2026

Teva asked Judge May to certify part of an earlier ruling for an interlocutory appeal. An interlocutory appeal allows an appellate court to address a controlling legal question before the case reaches a final judgment.

The dispute concerns federal preemption and the FDA’s Changes Being Effected regulation. Teva argues that a failure to warn claim cannot proceed unless the company actually possessed newly acquired safety information that would have permitted it to change the label without prior FDA approval. Plaintiffs argue that the analysis should also account for safety information the company could have developed by properly evaluating data already available to it.

The appeal issue does not stop the Robere trial. It does affect the third bellwether, Braxton, which has been stayed. The court also directed the parties to propose another group of bellwether cases. That keeps the litigation moving while the appellate question develops.

Court Dismisses Dormant and Abandoned Cases

May 1, 2026

Judge May resolved a group of cases previously identified for failure to comply with a court order. Plaintiffs who corrected the deficiencies kept their cases. Claims belonging to plaintiffs who did not respond, could not be located by their attorneys, or chose to abandon their lawsuits were dismissed.

You see this commonly in MDLs with thousands of claims.  Not all of them are viable.

Second Trial Moved to the Fall

March 4, 2026

Judge May moved the second bellwether trial from the spring to the fall of 2026. That delay extended the time before plaintiffs would have another jury result following the defense verdict in the first trial. The court has since scheduled Robere for September 28.

Teva Wins the First Bellwether Trial

February 5, 2026

Teva secured a complete defense verdict in the first federal Paragard bellwether. After a trial lasting approximately two weeks, the jury rejected the plaintiff’s failure to warn, design defect, misrepresentation, and fraudulent omission claims.

There is no sensible way to call that a good result for plaintiffs. Defendants can point to the verdict when resisting settlement demands, and the outcome reduced the immediate pressure created by the start of the bellwether program.

But the remaining lawsuits are not clones of the first case. Medical histories, implant dates, warnings, removal circumstances, retained fragments, follow-up procedures, and state law vary. The next trials will show whether the first result reflects a durable defense advantage or the facts and presentation of one case.

Judge Criticizes Inconsistencies in Teva’s Opening

January 22, 2026

During the first bellwether, Judge May criticized Teva for presenting themes in its opening statement that appeared inconsistent with positions it had taken while seeking to exclude evidence before trial. The disputed subjects included comparisons with other IUDs, overall contraceptive effectiveness, and the risks associated with IUDs generally.

First Bellwether Reaches a Jury

January 21, 2026

The court allowed central design defect and failure to warn claims to proceed to trial. Plaintiffs presented evidence that the Paragard warning did not adequately communicate the risk and consequences of breakage during removal. They also offered expert testimony concerning the device materials and the tendency of an arm to fracture.

The jury later rejected those claims. The pretrial ruling remains significant because it allowed the plaintiff to present the merits of the case rather than losing solely on a threshold legal issue.

Mediator Appointed

January 13, 2025

Retired Judge M. Gino Brogdon Sr. was appointed as settlement mediator.

What Paragard Is and How Breakage Occurs

Paragard is a nonhormonal intrauterine contraceptive. The device has a T-shaped polyethylene frame with copper wire wrapped around the vertical stem and copper collars on its horizontal arms. A trained healthcare provider places it at the fundus of the uterine cavity. The device is approved to prevent pregnancy for up to ten years.

For routine removal, a healthcare provider uses forceps to pull gently on the exposed threads. The arms are supposed to fold upward as the device is withdrawn. The current FDA-approved prescribing information recognizes that breakage or embedment can make removal difficult, and that hysteroscopy or other instruments may be needed.

The lawsuits focus on cases in which an arm fractured during removal. A retained piece may be found immediately when the doctor examines the removed device. In other cases, imaging or a later procedure is required to locate it. The medical consequences vary considerably. Some patients undergo a relatively limited retrieval procedure. Others allege prolonged pain, bleeding, unsuccessful removal attempts, invasive surgery, scarring, or harm to their reproductive health.

Who May Qualify for a Paragard Lawsuit?

The strongest claims generally begin with documented breakage during removal. A difficult removal by itself is not always enough. Our lawyers want to see what happened to the device, whether a fragment remained inside the patient, and what treatment followed.

You may have a potential case if:

• Your healthcare provider attempted to remove a Paragard IUD and one or both arms fractured.
• A medical record, photograph, imaging study, or operative report documents a missing or retained piece.
• You required hysteroscopy, laparoscopy, laparotomy, or another procedure to retrieve a fragment.
• A fragment remains in your body because removal was unsuccessful or considered medically inadvisable.
• You experienced documented pain, bleeding, infection, scarring, uterine injury, or reproductive harm associated with the breakage and retrieval process.

Not every reported Paragard complication is part of this litigation. Most filed cases concern breakage during removal, particularly where the fracture caused another medical procedure or a lasting injury. A claim based only on cramping, heavier periods, dissatisfaction with the device, or an uncomplicated removal is materially different.

Records That Help Us Evaluate a Claim

• The Paragard insertion record and approximate date of implantation
• The removal note describing the fracture
• A photograph of the removed device, if one exists
• Ultrasound, X-ray, CT, or other imaging used to locate the fragment
• Hysteroscopy, laparoscopy, or other operative reports
• Records documenting pain, bleeding, infection, infertility, or additional treatment
• The device itself, if it was returned to you or preserved by a provider

Do not worry if you do not have every record in hand. A lawyer can often obtain the chart directly from the provider. What helps at the beginning is the name of the facility, the approximate dates, and your best account of what happened.

Claims Against Teva and CooperSurgical

The federal lawsuits generally assert design defect and failure to warn claims against companies involved in manufacturing and selling Paragard. Teva and CooperSurgical are both named in the litigation, although the proper defendant and available claims may depend on when the device was made, sold, and implanted.

Design Defect Allegations

Plaintiffs allege that the polyethylene frame loses flexibility or becomes too brittle over time, making an arm more likely to snap when the device is removed. Expert proof about the composition, aging, oxidation, manufacturing specifications, shelf life, and expected performance of the frame has therefore been central to the cases.

Defendants dispute that Paragard is defectively designed. They point to product testing, regulatory history, the device’s overall performance, and the number of removals that occur without a fracture. The first bellwether jury accepted the defense position in the case before it. Future juries will hear different patient histories and may receive a different mix of state law instructions and case specific evidence.

Failure to Warn Allegations

The warning claims ask whether the label adequately communicated the frequency, circumstances, and potential consequences of breakage. Plaintiffs allege that adverse event information and other safety data should have led to a clearer warning sooner. They also contend that a physician who received a stronger warning could have discussed the risk differently, recommended another contraceptive, or approached removal with additional precautions. Ultimately, while there are other claims, the core of this litigation is the failure to warn claim.

The defense argues that Paragard labeling disclosed the possibility of breakage and difficult removal and that prescribing physicians understood the relevant risks. That dispute is heavily dependent on the label in effect at the time of implantation, what information was legally available for a label change, and the testimony of the patient’s healthcare providers.

The FDA-approved prescribing information now states that breakage or embedment can make removal difficult and that the device should be examined after removal to confirm that it is intact.

Paragard Lawsuit Settlement Amounts

There is no Paragard global settlement. There was rampant speculation at one time of a settlement, but it never came to pass.

Our lawyers believe that a future resolution will likely use categories or points instead of paying every claimant the same amount. That is common in mass tort settlements because the difference between an uncomplicated fragment retrieval and permanent loss of fertility is enormous.

The first bellwether defense verdict reduced immediate settlement pressure and added uncertainty to every prediction made before February 2026.  So we have pulled back from suggesting that a settlement is imminent. We have not abandoned our judgment about the relative value of these injuries. A strong claim involving major surgery or permanent reproductive harm is still worth far more than a claim involving a brief procedure and a full recovery.

Our Estimated Value Ranges

Based on our experience evaluating injury claims and medical device litigation, our current estimates remain approximately:

These are our estimates. Make sure you put them in context.  This is just a prediction. They could be completely off base one way or another. But we want victims to know how we are viewing these claims in July 2026.  There is a lot of range in these projections because the injuries in this litigation vary wildly. Cases involving permanent infertility could exceed the upper range. A successful trial involving a young woman who lost the ability to have children could produce a verdict far above the value of the same claim in a negotiated mass settlement. Trials carry more upside and far more risk, as the first defense verdict showed us.

Factors That Could Drive an Individual Payout

How a Global Settlement Could Work

If the parties negotiate a global resolution, claimants would probably submit medical records to an administrator. A points system could assign greater weight to permanent injury, invasive surgery, retained fragments, documented pain, age, fertility history, and the strength of the causal record. Claims with weak documentation or serious statute of limitations problems could receive less or be excluded.

Defendants generally want enough eligible plaintiffs to enroll before committing substantial money. Plaintiffs would need enough compensation and a fair enough allocation process to make participation worthwhile.

When Could the Litigation Settle?

No one knows. The September 2026 trial is the next clear pressure point. A plaintiff verdict could encourage serious negotiations. Another defense verdict could delay settlement or lower what defendants are prepared to offer. The pending preemption appeal and the next round of bellwether cases may also affect timing.

We would not tell a client to count on receiving money in 2026. A resolution remains possible, but it would require an agreement, claimant review, participation decisions, lien resolutions, and an allocation process.

Even after a deal is announced, payment usually takes time. So the reality is we may be looking at late 2027 or 2028 for compensation to reach victims even under the best of circumstances.

Paragard Lawsuit Statute of Limitations

The deadline to file a Paragard lawsuit depends on the law governing your claim. States use different limitation periods, discovery rules, statutes of repose, and tolling doctrines. The date of removal may be critical, but it is not safe to assume that every state starts the clock on the same event. It is not safe to assume anything, really, without talking to a lawyer.

Some Paragard claims have faced dismissal because defendants argued they were filed too late. Waiting can also create practical problems even when the deadline has not expired. Medical offices close, records become harder to obtain, memories fade, and physical evidence disappears.

If your device broke, speak with a lawyer promptly. A general statement on a website cannot determine the deadline in your case. A lawyer needs the implant date, removal date, date you learned of the retained fragment or injury, state of treatment, and state where you live.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is the Paragard litigation a class action?

No. The federal cases are coordinated in multidistrict litigation, or an MDL. Each plaintiff keeps an individual lawsuit and must prove her own exposure, breakage, injuries, and damages. People commonly search for a Paragard class action lawsuit, but an MDL is legally different from a conventional class action in which one result applies to an entire class.

What is the current status of the Paragard lawsuits?

More than 4,000 cases are pending in the federal MDL in the Northern District of Georgia. Teva won the first bellwether trial in February 2026. The next bellwether, Robere v. Teva, is scheduled for September 28, 2026.

No global settlement has been announced. The third bellwether has been stayed while an interlocutory appeal issue proceeds, and the court has directed the parties to prepare another group of potential trial cases.

How much could a Paragard settlement be worth?

There are no official Paragard settlement amounts. Our estimates range from approximately $10,000 to $380,000 for many claims, depending primarily on the procedure required and whether the patient suffered permanent reproductive harm. Some exceptional infertility or hysterectomy cases could be worth more. The first defense verdict makes all current estimates less certain.

What injuries are involved in these claims?

Claims commonly involve a fractured IUD arm, a retained fragment, an unsuccessful office retrieval, hysteroscopy, laparoscopy, pain, bleeding, scarring, or alleged reproductive injury. The presence of a broken device does not establish every claimed complication. Medical records must connect the fracture to the treatment and injury for which compensation is sought.

What should I do if my Paragard broke during removal?

Contact your treating healthcare provider and follow the medical plan recommended for you. Request the removal note, imaging, operative report, and a record stating whether the device was intact. You can then speak with a lawyer about the legal significance of the breakage and your filing deadline.

Has Paragard been recalled?

There has not been a broad Paragard recall based on the fracture allegations at issue in the MDL. The device remains available. Plaintiffs’ central argument is that earlier warnings did not adequately disclose the risk and potential consequences of breakage during removal.

Did the first defense verdict end the litigation?

No. It gave defendants useful leverage, but it resolved only the claims of the plaintiff in that trial. More cases are being prepared for trial, beginning with Robere. The weight of the first verdict will become clearer after juries evaluate additional plaintiffs with different facts.

How much does it cost to hire a Paragard lawyer?

Our firm handles these cases on a contingency fee. There is no upfront legal fee, and we receive a fee only if we obtain compensation for you. The representation agreement explains the fee and case expense terms before you hire us.

Speak With Our Paragard Lawyers

If your Paragard fractured during removal, the details that usually tell us the most are what the removal note says, whether a piece remained inside you, and what your doctors had to do next. You do not need to diagnose the legal problem yourself. Tell us what happened and where you were treated, and our lawyers can evaluate the records.