Paragard IUD Lawsuit Settlement Amounts

Our lawyers are handling Paragard IUD removal lawsuits in all 50 states. These lawsuits allege the Paragard intrauterine device breaks upon removal because it is made with inflexible plastic and degrades before the device expires. Over 2,500 lawsuits have been lodged against Teva Pharmaceutical and CooperSurgical by women who encountered issues such as breakage during removal or implantation or other complications associated with the Paragard birth control device.

This page provides an update on the Paragard class action lawsuit and speculates on the Paragard settlement amounts.

You can reach our lawyers at 800-553-8082 or get a free online consultation. You pay nothing unless you get a recovery for the injuries related to your Paragard breaking during removal.

• Another new birth control lawsuit: Depo Provera is said to be 5 times more likely to cause brain tumors

Paragard Class Action Lawsuit

Over one thousand women have filed a Paragard IUD lawsuit claiming that they were injured when a design defect in the popular IUD caused it to fracture during removal and leave foreign objects inside their bodies.

The Paragard lawsuits in the federal courts have been consolidated into an MDL in the Northern District of Georgia. The crux of the class action Paragard suit is that the device is prone to break inside a woman’s body because the IUD is not sufficiently flexible.

In this post, we give a 2024 Paragard lawsuit update. Our lawyers also speculate on how much a Paragard lawsuit might be worth if the litigation is resolved in a global settlement with the manufacturers. When could there be a settlement?  Soon.  These cases could potentially resolve in 2024 before the end of the year with victims getting paid in 2025. Is that the most likely scenario?  No. The more likely outcome in our minds is that these lawsuits will settle in early 2025 as the first trial grows near.

Paragard Class Action Lawsuit Updates 2024

December 10, 2024 – Discovery Battle Over Contention Interrogatories

Defendants had requested an extension of time to answer contention interrogatories, arguing that their responses should be delayed until the pretrial conference. Plaintiffs opposed the extension, citing the active state of discovery and the need for timely information to prepare their case.

The MDL judge sided with the defendants in granting an extension but stopped short of permitting a delay until the pretrial conference. Instead, the court has stayed defendants’ obligation to respond and stated it would revisit the matter at the next discovery conference.

December 2, 2024 – 38 Cases Added to MDL

The Paragard MDL added 38 new cases in November, marking a 1.3% increase, bringing the total number of cases to 2,862.  Our lawyers are still very bullish on these cases and the prospect of a settlement in the not-too-distant future.  If a Paragard settlement gets closer next year, you will see a surge of new lawsuits to get the case filed before there is a settlement.

November 25, 2024 – New Paragard Lawsuit Filed by California Woman

In a new lawsuit filed in the Paragard MDL last week, a California woman alleges that her Paragard IUD broke during its removal in February and May 2023, leading to physical and emotional injuries. She claims the device’s defective design and manufacturing caused breakage beyond the strings, necessitating multiple removal attempts and causing prolonged pain, mental anguish, and loss of reproductive health. The complaint further alleges, as all of these claims do, that Teva and failed to provide adequate warnings about the risks of breakage or offer sufficient guidance on proper removal techniques.

November 4, 2024 –  Trial Set for December 1, 2025

November 1, 2024 – 77 New Cases in MDL

After a dip in September, during which nearly 50 cases were dropped, the Paragard IUD multidistrict litigation surged back in October with the addition of 77 new cases, bringing the total pending cases to 2,824.

With bellwether trials on the horizon, this recent increase reflects heightened momentum in the litigation, as more women come forward with similar experiences. The hope is the litigation is pushing closer to more advanced settlement discussions aimed at compensating those affected by the Paragard IUD’s alleged defects.

October 24, 2024 – Production of Long Overdue Records

The court has set a firm deadline for December 11, 2024, by which defendants must complete the production of custodial files as ordered on October 7, 2024. The judge is requiring rolling production, allowing plaintiffs to begin reviewing documents as they become available. Additionally, while the court has warned defendants it will not extend this deadline, it has invited both parties to confer on ways to expedite specific parts of the production if feasible, provided that both sides can clarify their needs and any objections.

October 23, 2024 – FDA Reportedly Look at Paragard IUD Label

The FDA is reportedly reviewing stricter labeling for intrauterine devices, including Paragard, following ongoing reports of breakage complications during removal. This regulatory scrutiny, prompted by nearly 40,000 adverse events reported in the last decade and this litigation, could push manufacturers toward giving a much needed stronger warning and design modifications to make these products safer during removal.

It would not be a shock to see a new warning timed around a global Paragard settlement.

October 21, 2024 – Effort to Bring in Teva International Fails

We talked in our September 2 update about plaintiffs effort to bring in the parent Teva Pharmaceuticals that is based in Israel into the litigation.  That effort failed.

Judge May denied Plaintiffs’ motion to amend their master complaint. The motion sought to add Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., as a defendant alongside the U.S.-based Teva entities and CooperSurgical.

The judge ruled that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate the required diligence in filing the motion. The court pointed out that the plaintiffs had been considering adding Teva Ltd. as a defendant since early 2021, yet only filed the motion in mid-2024. The delay, combined with the fact that the plaintiffs had access to the necessary information long before the motion was filed, led the court to conclude that good cause to amend had not been shown. The judge’s order also points out the risk of slowing down the litigation by adding a new defendant at this stage of the game.

The judge is right that this was an unforced error.  Always name more defendants rather than less is the the rule.  You can dismiss them later. But this is not a big deal in the scheme of things.

October 20, 2024 – Stories of Women and Paragard Complications

This is a good article for women who are among many who share a common story.

October 18, 2024 – Paragard Warning Now

The Paragard IUD now includes a warning regarding the risk of breakage during removal. This warning was added to the device’s label by the FDA in 2019. The label mentions that “Paragard can break” and states that breakage “can make removal difficult.” If the IUD breaks during removal, pieces, such as the arms of the device, may become embedded in the uterus, potentially requiring surgical intervention to remove the fragments.

October 11, 2024 – Paragard Defendant to $450 Million to Settle Medicare Fraud

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. has agreed to pay $450 million to settle allegations that it used charitable organizations to cover Medicare patients’ out-of-pocket costs as a way to pay kickbacks and increase sales of its multiple sclerosis drug, Copaxone. This settlement includes $425 million to resolve a lawsuit filed in Boston in 2020 as part of a broader investigation into drugmakers’ financial support of patient assistance charities. Additionally, the settlement resolves claims that Teva conspired to fix prices for generic drugs​.

Maybe we can all agree that the allegations that Teva put profits over women’s best interest in the Paragard litigation are pretty plausible.

October 6, 2024 – New Lawsuits in October

We talked in the last update about the litigation slowing down in terms of newly filed cases.  Then 12 cases were filed in the first two days of October.

One of those lawsuits was on behalf of a Texas resident who has a story that will sound familiar.  Her Paragard device, which was placed in Idaho in 2019 and later removed in Texas in 2022, broke during the removal procedure. As a result, she experienced device breakage and embedment, necessitating additional attempts to remove the remaining fragments. The complaint alleges that the defendants failed to adequately test the product, misrepresented its safety, and concealed information regarding the risks of breakage.

October 1, 2024 – MDL Drops 49 Cases

The number of pending cases in the Paragard class action MDL actually decreased during September. The MDL lost 49 cases, bringing the total number of pending cases down to 2,747. This is the first monthly decrease in this MDL in 5 years.

September 23, 2024 – Motion to Dismiss

In our September 13 update, we talked about the motion to dismiss defendants filed on the statute of limitations.  The court set a schedule for motions practice on this issue.  Plaintiffs are scheduled to file their omnibus response to the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss by November 11, 2024. Following this, the Defendants are required to submit their omnibus reply no later than December 2, 2024. Additionally, on December 2, 2024, counsel for any individual Plaintiffs subject to the Motion to Dismiss who choose to file individual responses may do so. The Defendants may then file individual replies to any of these individual responses by December 16, 2024.

So the court is definitely dragging out briefing schedule before ruling.  If you look the list of cases the defendants seek to dismiss, most of them seem to argue the statute of repose, not the statute of limitations.  As we talk about more below, a statute of repose sets a fixed time limit after an event, such as the sale of a product or completion of construction, within which legal claims must be filed, regardless of when an injury or damage is discovered.  Most of the cases on the list of sought dismissals for the statute of repose are from Georgia, Illinois, North Carolina, Texas, and Virginia.

September 19, 2024: New Video on Paragard Litigation

We have a new video providing the latest news and updates on the Paragard lawsuits.

September 13, 2024: Statute of Limitations Dismissal

September 6, 2024: New Paragard Lawsuit

A Missouri woman has filed a new lawsuit Wednesday against Teva and Cooper in connection with injuries sustained from the use of the Paragard intrauterine device.

The plaintiff alleges – as every plaintiff in the MDL does – that the Paragard device broke during removal, causing injuries that include pain, suffering, mental anguish, and potential need for further surgeries. The lawsuit alleges

counts of strict liability, negligence, breach of warranty, violation of consumer protection laws, and fraud. The plaintiff is demanding a jury trial and reserves the right to allege further complications or injuries.

September 3, 2024: MDL Adds 57 New Cases

After decreasing slightly last month, the Paragard class action MDL added 57 new cases in August. That brings the current total of pending cases in the MDL up to 2,793.

September 2, 2024: Push Back on Adding Teva

Plaintiffs’ filed a motion for  Leave to Amend the Second Amended Master Personal Injury Complaint to include Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. as a named defendant.

Like everything else, the Teva is pushing back, claiming that Plaintiffs have not demonstrated the necessary diligence required for such an amendment.

The problem for the defendants is there is no prejudice in adding another Teva defendant. There is not a statute of limitations argument specific to this defendant. Moreover, in the real world, plaintiffs gain a better understanding of who should be the proper defendants and Teva Ltd.’s role in the issues central to the MDL has become more clear now that new documents have been produced.

August 27, 2024: Defendants Push Back on Motion to Compel

Defendants have filed a response opposing the plaintiffs’ motion to compel the production of custodial files.  The plaintiffs argue, as we discuss in the last update, that the defendants have failed to identify relevant custodians and produce their files, despite a previous court order.

The defendants counter that the court never required ongoing identification of custodians and that the responsibility to request specific custodial files lies with the plaintiffs. They further argue that the plaintiffs have not provided a justifiable reason for requesting additional custodial files at this stage, making the request unduly burdensome and disproportionate.

The defendants also contend that they have acted in good faith by providing an updated list of custodians and have met deadlines for producing custodial files. They emphasize that the plaintiffs’ motion lacks a credible basis, as the plaintiffs have been aware of the custodians in question for years and have not previously requested their files. Defendants request that the court deny the plaintiffs’ motion, asserting that the plaintiffs’ request for all 31 custodial files is excessive and unsupported by the facts of the case.

Excessive how? Defendants argue that the production of all 31 custodial files is excessive but they have not convincingly demonstrated how this request would be unduly burdensome, especially in light of the potential relevance of these documents to the case.

August 21, 2024: Custodians Finally Revealed Two Years After Court Order Required Their Identification 

Plaintiffs have filed a motion to compel the defendants to produce custodial files for 31 newly identified custodians who were revealed almost two years – two years! – after a court order required their identification.

This motion argues that the defendants delayed disclosing these custodians, thus hindering the plaintiffs’ ability to request and review pertinent custodial files as part of the discovery process. The plaintiffs contend that this delay has caused significant prejudice to their case, as the late disclosure has compressed their discovery timeline and limited their ability to conduct thorough investigations. They request the court to order the defendants to produce these files expediently and at the defendants’ expense to rectify the ongoing prejudice.

The back story is there are new lawyers representing the defendants, Teva and Cooper, who were formally appointed in September 2023 and February 2024, respectively. According to the motion, the previous attorneys for the defendants had failed to meet their obligations under the custodial file protocol by not timely identifying relevant custodians and producing the required custodial files. The new counsel, upon taking over, threw the old lawyers under the bus and acknowledged deficiencies in the previous productions and undertook additional efforts such as re-interviewing custodians and gathering more documents, which led to the identification of 31 new custodians with potentially relevant information.

August 13, 2024: Defense Lawyers File Motion To Dismiss Many Cases Based On SOL

The defendants have filed motions to dismiss many of these cases, arguing that they are barred by statutes of limitations or statutes of repose. While few cases are expected to be dismissed due to the statute of limitations, the statute of repose could pose an issue for some older cases in certain jurisdictions. A statute of repose sets a final deadline for filing claims, regardless of when the injury was discovered, which could lead to the dismissal of older claims.

This legal strategy foreshadows a potential settlement. Defendants want to get dismissed as many cases as possible through pretrial motions before entering settlement negotiations. By filing these motions, Teva and Cooper aim to reduce the number of active cases, limiting their liability and making the average settlement per case a more attractive number.

August 9, 2024: New Lawsuit Filed Directly In Paragard MDL  

Another new lawsuit was filed directly in the Paragard class action MDL using the short form complaint earlier this week. The plaintiff in this case originally had her Paragard IUD implanted in Georgia in 2017. Four years later when she had it removed at a Planned Parenthood clinic in New York, the IUD fractured. The fracture left pieces inside of her causing pain and requiring her to undergo further medical treatments.

July 10, 2024: Southern California Woman Joins Paragard MDL

A woman from southern California became the latest plaintiff to join the Paragard class action MDL. According to the short form complaint filed directly in the MDL, the woman attempted to have her Paragard IUD removed in July 2022. The IUD fractured during removal and she underwent a second procedure in October 2022 in a effort to retrieve the fractured pieces from inside her.

July 1, 2024: June Sees Slight Increase In Paragard MDL

There was a small increase in the Paragard IUD Products Liability Litigation, with active cases rising from 2,690 on June 1 to 2,736 July 1.

This is a small MDL and that is a good thing if you are a plaintiff.  Fewer cases and a more concentrated focus on common legal and factual issues make it easier for parties to manage and resolve disputes.

More importantly, it is easier easier economically for a company to settle 3,000 cases than 30,000. Few claims reduces the potential financial burden and allows for quicker and more manageable resolution, although this MDL sometimes moves at a snail’s pace.

June 29, 2024: State Law in The MDL

Even though multidistrict litigation is a national process designed to streamline complex cases involving many plaintiffs across different states, the laws applied to these cases are state laws, which can vary significantly. This presents a challenge in determining which state’s laws should govern each case within the MDL.

In the Paragard IUD MDL, specific guidelines were issued by the MDL judge to address this issue: For cases transferred from another federal district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1407, the state choice-of-law rules from the transferor court (the court where the case was initially filed) will apply unless the case was filed in an improper venue or jurisdiction. If the venue or jurisdiction was improper, defendants can challenge the application of those state rules.

For cases filed directly in the MDL, the state choice-of-law rules from the district and division identified in the Short Form Complaint will apply, provided the identified court has proper venue and jurisdiction; otherwise, defendants may challenge these rules.

Plaintiffs cannot alter the applicable choice of law by amending the venue in their complaints post-filing, except within a specific timeframe and with consent or court approval. Additionally, no motions to resolve choice-of-law issues can be filed until after the initial bellwether trials unless the applicable law is undisputed. Any changes to the court-set deadlines require court approval for good cause. This structured approach ensures that the diverse state laws are applied fairly and consistently in the consolidated MDL cases.

The law that is applied to the case can be a big deal.  One of the most significant differences lies in the treatment of punitive damages, which are awarded to punish defendants for particularly egregious behavior and to deter similar conduct in the future, especially when it comes to punitive damages.  Some states have caps on punitive damages or require a higher standard of proof to award them, while others do not have such limitations, potentially leading to significantly higher awards. These discrepancies can greatly affect the strategies of both plaintiffs and defendants, the potential compensation available.

June 11, 2024: MD Weighs In On Paragard Design

“The first thing they said was, ‘Who designed this stupid IUD?’  You don’t create anything in a true T [shape] because that doesn’t have stability.”

– Mitchell Creinin, MD, study co-author and a professor and director of the Complex Family Planning Fellowship in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at UC Davis Health, on conversations he had with engineers.

May 24, 2023: Lawyers Battle Over Application Of Choice-Of-Law Analysis 

One battlefield in mass tort cases is what law applies to cases in the MDL. The issue is how the choice-of-law analysis should be applied uniformly across the Paragard MDL-2974, which is crucial for determining which state laws govern the cases. Plaintiffs seek flexibility in determining the applicable law for each case individually; defendants advocate for a uniform approach.

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs are attempting to manipulate the choice-of-law process to their advantage without providing any solid legal basis for their position. Defendants maintain that the choice-of-law analysis is a purely legal issue that should be resolved on an MDL-wide basis to ensure consistency and fairness. They emphasize that resolving this legal question now will provide clarity and prevent delays in the litigation process.

In contrast, Plaintiffs argue that the choice-of-law issues are too individualized to be resolved collectively. They cite the need for case-specific determinations despite the defendants’ assertion that such an approach leads to unnecessary complications and delays.

May 6, 2024: Paragard Lawyers Dispute Issues Surrounding ESI Protocol and TAR

Paragard lawyers are disputing the interpretation and application of the ESI Protocol concerning its Technology Assisted Review (TAR) systems and its implications on document production transparency and timeliness.

Plaintiffs’ lawyers are frustrated. They feel left out of critical decisions and question the sufficiency and integrity of the document review process because of the defendants’ alleged unilateral modifications to TAR.

Specifically, the complaint is that this unilateral action violated the agreed-upon ESI protocol, which mandates that both parties meet and confer about the TAR methodology and workflow before its implementation. The plaintiffs were informed only during a document summit in February 2024 about the retraining of TAR despite the process being in motion for several months.

The defense lawyers argue that they have adhered to the necessary protocols and that the plaintiffs’ requests for further involvement and transparency are excessive and unfounded.

Judge May will decide whether the plaintiffs’ concerns justify a deeper inquiry into the defendants’ document production methodologies.

April 3, 2024: Spotlight Investigative Report Alleges That CooperSurgical Ignored FDA Warning

 A recent investigative report from Spotlight on America revealed that the FDA had told the maker of the Paragard IUD, CooperSurgical, that it had concerns about the potential for the IUD to break during removal, but CooperSurgical did nothing about it. The FDA concerns were submitted to CooperSurgical following an FDA inspection of one of its Paragard IUD manufacturing facilities. The company appears to have completely ignored this warning from the FDA.

March 21, 2024: Louisiana Woman Files Directly In Paragard MDL 

A Baton Rouge, Louisiana woman filed a Paragard lawsuit in the MDL yesterday alleging strict liability and negligence counts. She claims she suffered extensively, including enduring severe pain and the need for complex medical procedures to remove a fractured Paragard device. She says she has loss of reproductive health, permanent physical or cosmetic damage, and emotional distress.

March 8, 2024: Court Makes Several Decisions During Monthly Status Conference 

During its monthly status conference last week the court made several decisions, but nothing particularly interesting. It granted permission for counsel representing the Cooper defendants to file a motion to withdraw while Teva’s counsel will step in for the Cooper defendants.

Additionally, the defendants will present a motion to modify the Cooper leadership. Both parties will coordinate to schedule hearings regarding Plaintiffs’ letter briefs and an expected discovery motion. Letter briefs are concise written submissions typically exchanged between parties or submitted to the court to address specific legal issues, procedural matters, or requests for rulings without the need for a formal motion or hearing.

January 22, 2024: New Paragard Lawsuit Filed Friday 

A new Paragard lawsuit was filed on Friday. A Texas woman alleges injury from breakage when her OB/GYN attempted to remove the device in 2016.

How does she circumvent the statute of limitations? Her complaint alleges tolling/fraudulent concealment. Under this legal principle, the statute of limitations for filing a Paragard lawsuit is paused (or tolled) due to a defendant’s intentional hiding of their wrongdoing.

In such cases, the time limit to bring legal action does not begin until the plaintiff discovers or should have reasonably discovered the fraud or deceit. This principle ensures that plaintiffs have a fair opportunity to seek justice even when defendants have deliberately concealed their harmful actions.

January 2, 2024: Schedule Set For First Paragard IUD Lawsuit Trial 

Judge May set out the schedule for the first Paragard IUD lawsuit to trial. This order sets forth various deadlines for case-specific activities, including discovery, expert disclosures, and motions:

Event	Date
Close of case-specific fact discovery and general corporate discovery	April 9, 2024
Plaintiffs’ Rule 26 expert disclosure and reports	April 29, 2024
Defendants’ Rule 26 expert disclosure and reports	May 27, 2024
Deadline for rebuttal experts under Rule 26(a)(2)(D)(ii)	June 18, 2024
Close of expert discovery in first Bellwether/trial pool cases	June 9, 2024
Daubert Motion deadline in Bellwether trial eligible cases	July 23, 2024
Responses to Daubert motions	August 13, 2024
Replies to Daubert motions	August 27, 2024
Dispositive motion deadline in Bellwether trial eligible cases	September 10, 2024
Responses to dispositive motions	October 1, 2024
Replies to dispositive motions	October 15, 2024
Consolidated pretrial order deadline	November 15, 2024
Motion in limine deadline	November 22, 2024
Responses to motions in limine	November 29, 2024
Pretrial Conference	TBD
Final Pretrial Conference	TBD
First Bellwether Trial	TBD

October 31, 2023: Judge Responds To Unsubmitted Plaintiff Fact Sheet

Plaintiffs in this litigation must fill out a Plaintiff Fact Sheet (PFS) without biographical information and facts about their Paragard lawsuit. However, some did not turn theirs in on time. So, the MDL judge basically said, “Hey, if you didn’t do this, you need to tell us why, or we might drop your case.”

There are six categories for deficient plaintiffs who failed to file a PFS properly:

Category 1: People who didn’t give a reason for missing the deadline.

Category 2: People who agree their cases should be dropped.

Category 3: People who messed up their forms and won’t fix them.

Category 4: Cases where the lawyers can’t find the person anymore and admit the forms weren’t done right. The judge said their cases are officially dropped for these four categories and cannot be brought back.

Category 5: People who need more time to finish their forms. They had 21 days from the court’s order on October 5th to turn them in. If they don’t, their cases will be dropped too.

Category 6: People who turned in their forms late but after the Court’s warning. Their forms are accepted, and they’re good to go.

This is generally a good development. Getting rid of Paragard lawsuits that are now really lawsuits allows everyone to move forward on the real cases that matter.

October 2, 2023: Paragard MDL To Focus On Factual Discovery For Bellwether Candidate Pool Cases 

As set forth in the recent Case Management Order, the focus in the Paragard MDL for the next few months will be case-specific factual discovery in the bellwether candidate pool cases. Depositions of the plaintiffs in these cases will take place over the course of this month. The purpose of this discovery phase is to give the parties more information about bellwether pool cases so they can assess their strengths and weakness.

September 27, 2023: Paragard MDL Continues Slow Pace  

Of all the various class action mass torts we are involved in and regularly report on, the Paragard MDL is by far the slowest moving. The MDL has been pending for nearly three full years now, and we finally have a date set for the first bellwether trial: October 28, 2024.

By comparison, the 3M earplugs MDL actually completed over a dozen bellwether trials in roughly the same time that it has taken us to get the first trial date on the schedule in Paragard. The frustrating part is that the first trial date in MDLs almost always gets postponed, and that seems very likely to happen again in this MDL given Judge May’s pace so far. That means we probably wont see the first Paragard case go to trial until 2025.

September 23, 2023: MDL Judge Adjudicates Discovery Dispute 

Last week, a discovery dispute was adjudicated by MDL Judge Leigh Martin May in the Paragard MDL (1:20-md-2974). The purpose of this hearing was to address a dispute between the parties concerning the Cooper Defendants’ disclosure of adverse event documents and complaint file documents.

During the hearing, the plaintiffs requested a specific end date for this production. As a resolution, the Court established a firm deadline of 75 days from that date, initiating rolling production within three weeks. The Court emphasized that unless unusual circumstances arise, failure by the Defendants to meet this deadline will have consequences.

First Bellwether Trial In Paragard MDL Set For October 28th 2024

The first bellwether trial in the Paragard MDL is now set for October 28, 2024. The newly revised scheduling order issued by Judge May this week set that trial date and extended the dates for discovery and pretrial motions. Fact discovery in the bellwether pool cases will now close in February 2024 and expert discovery will last until May 2024. It is hard to understand why the first bellwether trial is happening next October instead of this October, considering this MDL has been pending for about five years already.

June 30, 2023: CMO Requires All Plaintiffs To Submit Plaintiff Fact Sheet

The Court’s PFS CMOs required all plaintiffs involved in MDL No. 2974 to submit a completed Plaintiff Fact Sheet (PFS) and signed authorizations to the Defendants by November 4, 2022. So… long ago. There are always mass tort plaintiffs who bring claims that either do not have viable claims or simply decide not to pursue a lawsuit. In this case, 132 Paragard plaintiffs are in that boat.

The deadline to submit the required information or provide an explanation for not doing so has passed and the MDL judge will likely dismiss those claims. This allows a greater focus on those with serious cases which may have pave the way for a future global settlement.

June 19, 2023: Paragard MDL Continues To Move Slow

This litigation is moving slowly. But the statute of limitations is an issue if you are looking to file a Paragard lawsuit.  The message: if you have a claim, call a Paragard lawyer – us, whoever – now.

June 2, 2023: Initial Bellwether Discovery Pool Close To Finalization 

The initial pool of Paragard bellwether discovery cases is close to being finalized. Over the next  weeks, these cases will go through an accelerated fact discovery phase involving depositions of the plaintiffs and other fact witnesses. The information obtained from this discovery phase will then be used to narrow down the pool to 6 cases.

May 1, 2023: Judge May Expresses Optimism Towards Possible Settlement 

At a recent court conference, Judge May closed a hearing expressing optimism that the Paragard settlement mediator, Gino Brogdon Sr., will be able to push settlement talks forward and encouraged the parties to get moving toward that end. This makes us optimistic but that optimism is chilled by how far away the first trial is. Because trial dates put on the pressure that leads defendants to offer reasonable settlement amounts.

April 18, 2023: 64 New Cases Added To MDL

In the Paragard class action MDL, 64 new cases were added, propelling the total number of plaintiffs to 1,780. The ongoing trend portends the prospect of crossing the 2,000 mark before the year’s end. Bellwether trials, frustratingly, remain 18 months away.

March 15, 2023: 34 New Cases Added To MDL  

Thirty-four new plaintiffs with pending cases were added to the Paragard class action MDL over the last 30 days. Last month, the MDL posted its second-highest monthly volume ever with 105 new cases, so this is a sharp drop off. The total number of pending Paragard IUD lawsuits in the MDL is 1,716.

February 25, 2023 Update: Judge Establishes Procedure For Selecting Bellwether Test Trial Representatives 

The presiding judge in the federal Paragard IUD lawsuits has established a procedure for selecting a group of 10 representative cases for the initial bellwether trials slated for 2024. Fifteen cases will be nominated by the plaintiffs for the bellwether pool, which will then be reduced to ten through a process of eliminations and challenges from both parties. These ten cases will undergo detailed, case-specific discovery, with three ultimately chosen to proceed in the initial bellwether trials starting in Georgia in March 2024.

What is a bellwether trial? A bellwether trial is a legal process employed in mass tort litigation to gauge how juries might respond to the evidence and testimonies that are expected to recur across many similar cases. This approach involves preparing a small, representative set of cases for early trial dates. The outcomes of these trials are used to guide decisions in future trials and potential settlements.

February 17, 2023: 105 New Cases Added To MDL

Over the last month, 105 new lawsuits were added to the Paragard class action MDL (1:20-md-2974). That marks the second-highest number of new cases in a month since the MDL began, bringing the currently pending cases up to 1,682. There is no indication that this steady case volume will do anything but continue this year.

February 5, 2023: Bellwether Process Remains A Work In Progress 

The bellwether process in the Paragard MDL remains a work in progress 25 months after the MDL class action was established. A status conference was held before Judge May this week. Still, instead of finalizing the bellwether process, she simply offered “guidance” to the parties on their competing proposals for how the bellwether program should be handled. In the meantime, corporate depositions are getting underway for the primary defendants, Cooper Surgical and Teva Pharmaceuticals.

January 25, 2023: Judge M. Gino Brogdon Sr. Appointed As Settlement Mediator 

Looking for some good news in the Paragard litigation? A retired Fulton County, Georgia judge,  M. Gino Brogdon Sr., was appointed by the Paragard class action judge to serve as a settlement mediator.

We don’t think Teva and Cooper Surgical are on the phone with this mediator right now trying to set up settlement talks. A trial is too far away for the defendants to feel any urgency to settle these lawsuits. Brogdon’s appointment was made by the Court and not at the parties’ request, so this is not a sign that a settlement might be in the works already. That said, any direction in the settlement path for victims who have already waited too long for compensation is good.

January 9, 2023: 934 Adverse Incident Reports Involving Paragard IUD Fracture Reported To FDA In 2022

934 adverse incident reports involving fracture of the Paragard IUD during removal were reported to the FDA Adverse Event Report Database in 2022. This is three times the number of events reported for the Paragard just two years ago, and it suggests that we could see continued growth in the number of Paragard product liability cases in the MDL in 2023. It also shows – importantly – that Paragard removal breakage is more common than the defendants claim.

About the Paragard Lawsuits

The Paragard is a type of birth control known as an intrauterine device (IUD). The Paragard is a Y-shaped device about the size of a quarter with a copper coil around the center. It has a plastic frame made of polyethylene and barium sulfate. Paragard, the only hormone-free IUD in the U.S., and controls 17% of the U.S. IUD market in 2024.

The IUD is placed at the base of the uterus by a doctor, and it remains there for as long as ten years, providing continuous protection against pregnancy. The Paragard was designed to be easily removed by pulling on a removal cord at the doctor’s office.

Unfortunately, the Paragard copper IUD design has a hidden defect that has led to problems during the removal process for many women. The plastic arms at the base of the Paragard are supposed to flex upwards when the device is pulled out for removal. In many cases, however, the plastic arms become rigid and break off inside the patient during removal. This results in sharp pieces of plastic inside the woman’s uterus.

Accordingly, the plaintiffs in the Paragard class action lawsuit are all women with a Paragard implant that later broke while still in their bodies. The IUD breaks because the flawed design does not provide sufficient flexibility. Specifically, Paragard lawsuits allege that Paragard raw plastic T units failed to meet the minimum flexibility requirements with the IUD’s approved expiration date (i.e., shelf life) before installing the copper sleeves. So the arms become more rigid over time, and these devices are marketed as a long-term solution.

Failure to Warn of Paragard Complications

There is also a failure to warn component to the Paragard class action lawsuit. Plaintiffs claim the defendants knew Paragard could cause serious harm to women due to its propensity to break in utero or during removal but failed to adequately warn doctors and patients of the risk. No one is arguing for a Paragard recall. Just warn doctors and women of what you know about the dangers.

The defendants in the Paragard lawsuits, including Teva Pharmaceuticals and CooperSurgical, could have been aware of the risks associated with the device breaking during removal based on numerous reports filed between 2009 and 2021. During this time, over 2,000 incidents of Paragard breakage were reported, indicating a recurring problem. Despite these reports, the information did not translate into enhanced warnings for doctors or patients. This failure to act raises significant concerns, as plaintiffs argue that the companies had ample opportunity to update the product’s labeling or issue stronger safety warnings to prevent harm.

Instead, the manufacturers continued to market Paragard without adequately disclosing the risks associated with the device’s fragility, particularly during removal. Breakage of the Paragard device can lead to severe complications, such as pieces of the IUD becoming embedded in the uterus, necessitating surgical interventions. The plaintiffs argue that had the risks been made clear, many women might have opted for alternative birth control methods or taken additional precautions during removal procedures.

This lack of transparency about known risks has fueled the litigation. Paragard lawsuits allege the defendants intentionally concealed the severity and frequency of the risks associated with Paragard’s removal. Why? The same reason any medical device company hides the risks of their product: a warning would decrease sales and decrease profits.

Eventually, to cut their losses, the warning label on the Paragard IUD was updated in 2019 to include the risk of breakage during removal. The label now cautions that the device may break, making removal difficult, and that fragments, such as the arms, can become embedded in the uterus. But for too many women, this warning was either too little or too late.

What Is the Status of the Paragard Class Action Lawsuit in 2024?

Lawyers are moving towards the first Paragard trial in the Paragard class action lawsuit. But we probably will not see a trial until the second half of 2025.  The hope is for a global Paragard settlement before the first trial.

Paragard IUD Lawsuits Will Be Resolved in a Global Settlement

The Paragard lawsuits will eventually be resolved with a global settlement. This is how almost all product mass torts are resolved that are not dismissed by a judge. The Paragard MDL was formed at the end of 2020 and new Paragard cases continued to get filed and added to the MDL. The MDL judge will oversee a consolidated “group discovery” process between the plaintiffs and defendants. The focus of the discovery process will be on the design flaw in the Paragard and what the defendants knew.

—

—

—