How to File A Depo Provera Lawsuit Claim

The Depo-Provera multidistrict litigation (MDL) has grown to 435 cases as of July 1, up from 348 in June—marking the largest monthly increase since the litigation began.

Plaintiffs allege that the birth control injection led to serious long-term health issues, including bone density loss and other complications.

The litigation remains in its early procedural stages, with current efforts focused on coordinating claims and establishing effective case management.

TruLaw is actively reviewing Depo-Provera claims and assisting individuals with documenting their use of the drug and evaluating how related health problems, including brain tumors, have affected them financially.

If you believe you’ve been harmed by Depo-Provera, contact TruLaw for a free consultation, or use the chatbot on this page to instantly check your eligibility to file a claim.

On June 11, U.S. District Judge M. Casey Rodgers issued a case management order in the Depo-Provera multidistrict litigation (MDL), signaling that generic manufacturers Greenstone, Viatris, and Prasco may soon be dismissed from the proceedings.

This follows a May 30 case management conference where plaintiffs’ counsel indicated these companies are likely to be released pending further evaluation of their involvement.

The MDL includes over 400 lawsuits alleging that Depo-Provera birth control injections caused meningioma brain tumors, and that Pfizer and other brand-name manufacturers failed to warn of this risk.

More than 300 cases have been consolidated since March 2025.

Discovery is currently underway, with deadlines for preemption and general causation document production having passed on May 11.

Judge Rodgers confirmed that bellwether trials are expected to begin in late 2026 or early 2027 to test liability and help guide settlement discussions.

On September 29, 2025, U.S. District Judge M. Casey Rodgers will hear arguments on Pfizer’s motion to dismiss more than 400 lawsuits in the Depo-Provera brain tumor multidistrict litigation (MDL).

Pfizer is seeking dismissal based on federal preemption, claiming it cannot be held liable under state failure-to-warn laws because the FDA previously rejected a warning about brain tumor risks.

According to Pfizer, federal law overrides any state requirement to include a warning the FDA did not approve.

Plaintiffs counter that Pfizer has not met the legal threshold to invoke preemption and argue that drugmakers may still face liability when new evidence of danger becomes available.

Recent studies linking Depo-Provera to increased risk of brain tumors are central to their position.

The court’s ruling—expected in October—will decide whether the litigation proceeds into discovery or is stopped at this early stage.

Pfizer has formally petitioned the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas to establish a mass tort program to manage lawsuits alleging that its contraceptive injection, Depo-Provera, caused brain tumors.

Although only two cases have been filed in Philadelphia so far, one includes claims from more than 100 plaintiffs.

On May 30, nearly all of those claims were severed and dismissed without prejudice, allowing plaintiffs to refile individually.

Pfizer anticipates a wave of new filings in the near future.

The pharmaceutical giant argues that consolidating these cases under a mass tort program would improve efficiency and streamline proceedings.

Legal experts note that the court’s decision could significantly influence how the Pennsylvania docket evolves moving forward.

The Depo-Provera multidistrict litigation (MDL) added 59 new cases from May to June, increasing the total case count to 348.

Lawyers are currently analyzing medical records and expert evaluations as preliminary discovery begins to define the central issues in the case.

If you or a loved one developed a brain tumor after using Depo-Provera, you may be entitled to seek compensation through a Depo-Provera Lawsuit. 

Our lawyers are accepting new clients for the Depo-Provera Lawsuit across the United States. 

Contact our Depo-Provera Lawyers today for a free consultation, or use the chatbot on this page to instantly find out if you qualify for a claim.

As the Depo-Provera brain tumor litigation expands, a lower-dose version of the contraceptive—Depo-SubQ Provera 104—is drawing increased scrutiny.

Legal and medical experts are questioning why this alternative, which may have posed fewer risks, was not more widely adopted.

Developed by Pfizer, Depo-SubQ Provera 104 delivers 104 mg of medroxyprogesterone acetate via subcutaneous injection—significantly lower than the 150 mg intramuscular dose used in the standard Depo-Provera shot.

Some medical experts believe the reduced hormone exposure from this formulation could have meaningfully decreased the risk of developing meningiomas, a type of non-cancerous brain tumor linked to long-term synthetic hormone use.

The theory is that lower cumulative hormone levels may reduce hormone buildup in the body, thereby lessening the risk of tumor growth.

However, attorneys for plaintiffs in the Depo-Provera multidistrict litigation (MDL) argue that Pfizer failed to adequately promote the lower-dose version, choosing instead to focus on the higher-dose product for market-driven reasons rather than patient safety.

This growing focus on Depo-SubQ Provera 104 may play a significant role in the ongoing MDL, where thousands of women claim they developed brain tumors after receiving Depo-Provera injections.

A newly published peer-reviewed study from February 2025 has added critical support to the claims at the center of the Depo-Provera brain tumor litigation.

Researchers at the University of British Columbia conducted a large-scale, nested case-control study using U.S. insurance data to compare women who used Depo-Provera with those who used a standard oral contraceptive.

The results were striking—women who used Depo-Provera for over one year were 3.5 times more likely to develop meningioma, a typically benign brain tumor.

Importantly, the study addressed prior limitations in the research by including an active comparator group and controlling for the timing of tumor development.

The risk increased over time, with adjusted incidence rate ratios of 2.95 after two years, 3.17 after three years, and 3.50 after four years of Depo-Provera use.

Researchers pointed to a possible biological explanation: meningiomas often overexpress progesterone receptors—the same target affected by Depo-Provera’s mechanism of action.

While the European Medicines Agency has already called for meningioma warnings on Depo-Provera’s label, the FDA has yet to require similar updates in the United States.

The study is expected to play a central role in the ongoing Depo-Provera multidistrict litigation (MDL), where plaintiffs allege that Pfizer failed to adequately warn about long-term tumor risks.

With more than a million prescriptions filled each year, these findings could significantly influence discovery and upcoming bellwether trials.

The Depo-Provera multidistrict litigation (MDL) experienced its largest monthly increase to date, with 159 new cases added in April 2025.

This surge reflects growing public awareness of the potential link between Depo-Provera and brain tumors such as meningiomas.

The federal MDL is moving swiftly, with Judge M. Casey Rodgers actively managing proceedings to determine which defendants will remain in the case.

The court has imposed strict deadlines and confirmed that early depositions will not be required at this stage, streamlining the discovery process as the litigation continues to expand.

The Depo-Provera brain tumor multidistrict litigation (MDL) is steadily advancing under the leadership of U.S. District Judge M. Casey Rodgers.

Recent court orders have addressed the involvement of generic manufacturers Greenstone, Viatris, and Prasco in the growing litigation.

After initially missing deadlines, Greenstone and Viatris submitted court-required affidavits affirming their roles in distributing the birth control shot linked to brain tumors such as meningiomas.

Judge Rodgers accepted the affidavits and ruled that early depositions are not necessary at this time, preserving plaintiffs’ rights to revisit the generics’ liability later.

Attorneys representing plaintiffs are also finalizing a stipulation that could lead to Prasco’s dismissal from the MDL.

Greenstone and Viatris, however, remain active defendants and must comply with discovery requests involving their product distribution practices.

With thousands of women alleging brain tumors after Depo-Provera use, Judge Rodgers’ enforcement of deadlines and discovery procedures is keeping the litigation on track.

The court has made clear that noncompliance will not be tolerated as the MDL continues to expand.

If you or a loved one developed a brain tumor after using Depo-Provera, you may be entitled to seek compensation through a Depo-Provera Lawsuit. 

Our lawyers are accepting new clients for the Depo-Provera Lawsuit across the United States. 

Contact our Depo-Provera Lawyers today for a free consultation, or use the chatbot on this page to instantly find out if you qualify for a claim.

The federal judge overseeing all Depo-Provera brain tumor lawsuits has scheduled monthly case management conferences through 2025, aimed at keeping the litigation on track for early bellwether trials.

These lawsuits, centralized in a multidistrict litigation (MDL) before U.S. District Judge M. Casey Rodgers in the Northern District of Florida, involve claims that Pfizer and other manufacturers failed to warn about the risk of meningioma brain tumors linked to long-term use of the birth control injection.

As of now, at least 130 cases have been filed, though that number is expected to grow significantly.

In a proactive move, Judge Rodgers independently selected five pilot cases for early trials and is pushing both sides to make consistent progress.

The next status conference is scheduled for May 30.

While early trials may not begin until late 2026 or early 2027, their outcomes are expected to shape future settlement negotiations and influence the direction of thousands of similar claims.

If you or a loved one developed a brain tumor after using Depo-Provera, you may be entitled to seek compensation through a Depo-Provera Lawsuit. 

Our lawyers are accepting new clients for the Depo-Provera Lawsuit across the United States. 

Contact our Depo-Provera Lawyers today for a free consultation, or use the chatbot on this page to instantly find out if you qualify for a claim.

U.S. District Judge M. Casey Rodgers is taking a firm stance in the Depo-Provera brain tumor multidistrict litigation (MDL), issuing an Order to Show Cause after Greenstone and Viatris failed to meet a critical court deadline.

Under Case Management Order No. 2, all generic drug manufacturers were required to file a Notice of Compliance within a specified timeframe.

While Prasco met this requirement on time, Greenstone and Viatris missed the deadline.

This prompted the judge to demand formal explanations from both companies, a move that underscores the importance of court compliance in complex litigation.

Though Greenstone and Viatris eventually submitted affidavits confirming they did not manufacture the drug at issue, Judge Rodgers made clear that similar delays in the future will not be tolerated.

The order signals the court’s commitment to maintaining efficiency and accountability as the Depo-Provera litigation advances.

If you or a loved one developed a brain tumor after using Depo-Provera, you may be entitled to seek compensation through a Depo-Provera Lawsuit. 

Our lawyers are accepting new clients for the Depo-Provera Lawsuit across the United States. 

Contact our Depo-Provera Lawyers today for a free consultation, or use the chatbot on this page to instantly find out if you qualify for a claim.

In the ongoing multidistrict litigation (MDL) involving Depo-Provera, a recent court order has introduced a structured process to help plaintiffs confirm their use of the medication.

As part of the new requirements, individuals involved in the case must complete and submit a “Plaintiff Proof of Use/Injury Questionnaire” within 120 days of March 14, 2025—or within 120 days of filing, in the case of new claims.

Recognizing that many plaintiffs may have received Depo-Provera injections years ago, making traditional medical records difficult to obtain, the court has approved a process to retrieve documentation from third parties.

These third-party sources—such as pharmacies, healthcare providers, insurers, and military medical services—must supply any records that could verify medication use.

Acceptable forms of evidence may include prescription purchase data, shipping information, or insurance claim records indicating administration of Depo-Provera or its generic equivalent, DMPA.

To streamline the record-gathering process, the court has authorized the use of a standardized, HIPAA and HITECH-compliant release form, along with a provider identification form.

If a provider does not respond voluntarily, plaintiffs’ attorneys are permitted to issue subpoenas without facing procedural delays.

Importantly, third-party entities are required to comply with these subpoenas or requests without placing undue barriers on plaintiffs.

The order prohibits unnecessary demands such as exclusive proprietary forms, original signature requirements, or excessive processing fees that could hinder access to needed records.

Overall, the directive is aimed at improving the efficiency and fairness of the litigation process by making it easier for plaintiffs to access vital proof of medication usage—particularly in cases where older records may be hard to retrieve.

If you or a loved one developed a brain tumor after using Depo-Provera, you may be eligible to seek compensation through a Depo-Provera Lawsuit.

Our team is currently accepting new clients.

Contact TruLaw’s Depo-Provera Lawyers for a free consultation or use the chatbot on this page to find out if you qualify for a claim instantly.

A new court order in the Depo-Provera multidistrict litigation (MDL) has established a clear process for plaintiffs to verify their medication history.

Plaintiffs must now submit a “Plaintiff Proof of Use/Injury Questionnaire” within 120 days of March 14, 2025, or within 120 days of filing for new cases.

To help confirm whether a person received Depo-Provera or its generic version, DMPA, the court approved a process for retrieving third-party records.

Since many plaintiffs were treated years ago, traditional medical records may be incomplete or unavailable.

The order allows for alternative forms of verification, including pharmacy logs, shipping records, and insurance payments.

Plaintiffs may use standardized HIPAA and HITECH-compliant release forms, along with a provider identification form, to request documentation.

If a provider refuses to comply, legal teams may issue subpoenas without added obstacles.

The order also blocks third parties from requiring proprietary forms, original signatures, or excessive fees.

This procedural change makes it easier for plaintiffs to gather the records needed to support their claims, ensuring a more efficient and fair litigation process.

Additionally, the Depo-Provera Lawsuit experienced a significant increase in new filings between March and April 2025.

Between February and March, the litigation saw 78 new cases filed.

By April 1st, the number of Depo-Provera Lawsuits pending surged to 130, an increase of 52 new cases.

This notable rise in filings reflects growing attention to the potential risks associated with Depo-Provera, particularly in relation to claims of brain tumor risk linked to its use.

If you or a loved one developed a brain tumor after using Depo-Provera, you may be eligible to seek compensation through a Depo-Provera Lawsuit.

Our team is currently accepting new clients.

Contact TruLaw’s Depo-Provera Lawyers for a free consultation or use the chatbot on this page to find out if you qualify for a claim instantly.

The Depo-Provera Lawsuit is ongoing.

Judge M. Casey Rodgers, who oversees the federal Depo-Provera multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the Northern District of Florida, has issued a case management order allowing plaintiffs to file their lawsuits directly into the MDL.

This move is expected to significantly streamline the litigation process as more women come forward with claims against the makers of the birth control shot.

The lawsuits allege that Depo-Provera increases the risk of meningioma, a type of benign brain tumor, and that manufacturers failed to adequately warn both patients and healthcare providers.

Unlike many other MDLs, the court will not require a master complaint, short-form complaints, or a Science Day, determining that these steps are unnecessary for the litigation at this time.

Judge Rodgers has also appointed 63 attorneys to leadership roles, assigning them responsibilities over discovery, expert coordination, and trial preparation.

Five pilot cases have already been selected for early bellwether trials, which could help shape the direction of future proceedings.

The court has launched an official MDL webpage for public access to case updates, and the date of the next status conference is expected to be announced soon.

If you or a loved one developed a brain tumor after using Depo-Provera, you may be eligible to seek compensation through a Depo-Provera Lawsuit.

Our team is currently accepting new clients.

Contact TruLaw’s Depo-Provera Lawyers for a free consultation or use the chatbot on this page to find out if you qualify for a claim instantly

The multidistrict litigation (MDL) involving Depo-Provera is moving forward under the oversight of Judge Rodgers.

Both parties have established a structured case management plan, streamlining the legal process.

Plaintiffs now have the ability to file claims directly into the MDL, helping to accelerate case progression.

A pilot case schedule has been implemented, outlining deadlines for amendments to complaints, discovery procedures, expert witness disclosures, and dispositive motions.

A central issue in the litigation is whether expert testimony is required for preemption arguments.

Plaintiffs insist it is necessary, while Defendants aim for an early dismissal based on legal grounds alone.

Several key agreements have been reached, including measures for confidentiality, proof of Depo-Provera use and related injuries, and the requirements for Pfizer’s document production.

Plaintiffs have secured 35 days of depositions for Pfizer representatives, with additional time allocated for other Defendants.

Depositions can be conducted remotely and via video when necessary.

Furthermore, cases involving generic distributors Greenstone and Prasco may be dismissed if Plaintiffs did not use their specific products.

Special Master David Herndon and CPA Randall Sansom will play a role in case management and attorney compensation oversight.

Both parties have also determined that a Science Day is not required at this time, and medical monitoring class actions remain on hold.

With discovery now in progress, further updates are expected in the coming months.

If you or a loved one developed a brain tumor after using Depo-Provera, you may be eligible to seek compensation through a Depo-Provera Lawsuit.

Our team is currently accepting new clients.

Contact TruLaw’s Depo-Provera Lawyers for a free consultation or use the chatbot on this page to find out if you qualify for a claim instantly

A recent case report raises concerns that Depo-Provera birth control shots could heighten the risk of severe blood clots, following a 21-year-old woman’s multiple pulmonary embolisms shortly after the injection.

Physicians at Cape Fear Valley Medical Center shared the case in the Cureus journal, detailing how the patient developed phlegmasia cerulea dolens (PCD), a rare and dangerous form of deep vein thrombosis (DVT).

She required intensive medical treatment, including thrombectomy and anticoagulation therapy.

This comes after a recent JAMA study linked Depo-Provera to the highest risk of serious blood clots among hormonal contraceptives.

Additionally, Depo-Provera lawsuits related to brain tumors are rapidly increasing, with nearly 70 cases consolidated into multidistrict litigation (MDL) in Florida.

More lawsuits are anticipated as women diagnosed with intracranial meningiomas associate their condition with the long-term use of the contraceptive.

The court is preparing for bellwether trials to gauge jury reactions to evidence.

If settlements are not reached, individual trials may follow.

If you or a loved one developed a brain tumor after using Depo-Provera, you may be eligible to seek compensation through a Depo-Provera Lawsuit.

Our team is currently accepting new clients.

Contact TruLaw’s Depo-Provera Lawyers for a free consultation or use the chatbot on this page to find out if you qualify for a claim instantly.

Judge Casey Rodgers, the U.S. District Judge overseeing the federal Depo-Provera Lawsuit, has urged female attorneys to apply for leadership roles within the multidistrict litigation (MDL).

The MDL was formed after research linked Depo-Provera, a widely used birth control injection, to an increased risk of brain tumors, specifically meningiomas.

With all plaintiffs in the case being women, Judge Rodgers stressed the importance of having appropriate female representation in the leadership team. While not all positions need to be filled by women, she emphasized that proper representation is essential.

Applications for attorney positions are due by March 7, 2025.

Those selected will be responsible for managing discovery, overseeing evidence, and advocating for the plaintiffs in the MDL.

Although these cases will not be binding, they are expected to shape settlement discussions by offering insights into jury reactions to similar claims.

This call for female leadership has drawn criticism from the “Article III Project,” a conservative judicial group, which filed a complaint accusing Judge Rodgers of prioritizing gender over merit.

Despite the complaint, Depo-Provera injury attorneys have strongly defended the need for gender diversity, emphasizing its importance for fair representation of the female plaintiffs.

If you or a loved one developed a brain tumor after using Depo-Provera, you may be eligible to seek compensation through a Depo-Provera Lawsuit.

Our team is currently accepting new clients.

Contact TruLaw’s Depo-Provera Lawyers for a free consultation or use the chatbot on this page to find out if you qualify for a claim instantly.

The first status conference in the Depo-Provera multidistrict litigation (MDL) is set for Friday, February 21.

This conference serves as an initial court meeting where the judge, attorneys, and involved parties will outline case management procedures, establish deadlines, and coordinate discovery efforts.

This hearing will play a critical role in shaping the structure and timeline of the lawsuits against Depo-Provera manufacturers, including Pfizer.

Key issues such as pretrial motions, expert testimony deadlines, and the selection process for bellwether trials may be addressed.

As the litigation moves forward, this conference will provide insights into how the cases will proceed. More updates will follow as developments unfold.

If you or a loved one developed a brain tumor after using Depo-Provera, you may be eligible to seek compensation through a Depo-Provera Lawsuit.

Our team is currently accepting new clients.

Contact TruLaw’s Depo-Provera Lawyers for a free consultation or use the chatbot on this page to find out if you qualify for a claim instantly.

The Depo Provera MDL has been officially established and assigned to Judge Rodgers in the Northern District of Florida.

This choice came unexpectedly, as plaintiffs favored California and defendants leaned toward New York, but the JPML panel ultimately selected the Northern District of Florida, citing Judge Rodgers’ extensive experience in mass tort cases.

Judge Rodgers, recognized for overseeing the 3M earplug litigation, now takes on another major mass tort as that case nears its end. This new case could span the next five years.

While plaintiffs didn’t get their preferred venue, they remain hopeful about Judge Rodgers’ ability to efficiently steer the litigation toward bellwether trials and resolution.

This decision represents a significant turning point in the Depo Provera litigation.

If you or a loved one developed a brain tumor after using Depo-Provera, you may be eligible to seek compensation through a Depo-Provera Lawsuit.

Our team is currently accepting new clients.

Contact TruLaw’s Depo-Provera Lawyers for a free consultation or use the chatbot on this page to find out if you qualify for a claim instantly.

On January 30, 2025, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) held a hearing in Miami, Florida, to discuss the potential consolidation of Depo-Provera cases into a multidistrict litigation (MDL).

Although the panel agreed to establish an MDL, a decision regarding the location of the centralized proceedings was not made.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys argued that California would be the ideal venue, given that most Depo-Provera lawsuits are already filed there.

They also noted that California law permits lawsuits against brand-name drug manufacturers even if the plaintiff used a generic version.

Additionally, many affected women have undergone brain surgery and may find California more accessible for trial. Pfizer, the drug’s manufacturer, is advocating for the MDL to be based in New York, where the company is headquartered.

Pfizer maintains that key witnesses and evidence are in New York, and the lawsuits are distributed across various states.

A ruling on the venue is expected in the near future. Attorneys for generic drug manufacturers suggested that the concentration of early cases in California could have been a strategic move to influence the MDL’s location.

Once the JPML determines the venue, all federal Depo-Provera lawsuits will be transferred to that district for pretrial proceedings.

The creation of an MDL is expected to streamline the legal process, offering both sides a more efficient path forward.

If you or a loved one developed a brain tumor after using Depo-Provera, you may be eligible to seek compensation through a Depo-Provera Lawsuit.

Our team is currently accepting new clients.

Contact TruLaw’s Depo-Provera Lawyers for a free consultation or use the chatbot on this page to find out if you qualify for a claim instantly.

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) is set to convene on January 30, 2025, to evaluate whether federal lawsuits related to Depo-Provera should be consolidated into a single multidistrict litigation (MDL).

The lawsuits, brought against Pfizer and additional manufacturers of the contraceptive injection, allege that the drug raises the likelihood of developing intracranial meningiomas—potentially dangerous brain tumors.

If approved, the MDL would centralize both existing and future cases before one judge, facilitating coordinated pretrial proceedings, discovery, and early bellwether trials.

Pfizer and the manufacturers of generic versions of Depo-Provera recognize the need for consolidation, though they remain divided on where the cases should be centralized.

While the MDL would streamline pretrial matters, each lawsuit will continue to proceed as an individual claim.

If you or a loved one developed a brain tumor after using Depo-Provera, you may be eligible to seek compensation through a Depo-Provera Lawsuit.

Our team is currently accepting new clients.

Contact TruLaw’s Depo-Provera Lawyers for a free consultation or use the chatbot on this page to find out if you qualify for a claim instantly.

A new class action lawsuit was filed on January 17 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, seeking medical monitoring for women who received Depo-Provera injections for at least one year.

The plaintiff, Patricia Bonilla, argues that long-term users of the birth control shot face a heightened risk of developing meningiomas and should have access to ongoing medical surveillance, such as MRIs and CT scans.

The lawsuit requests the establishment of a nationwide class or state-based subclasses to address these concerns.

Since its introduction in 1992, Depo-Provera has been prescribed to over 70 million women in the U.S. Although Bonilla has not been diagnosed with a tumor, she asserts that her 11-year use of the drug necessitates lifelong health monitoring.

This medical monitoring class action is distinct from the numerous personal injury claims filed by women who have already developed meningiomas, many of whom have undergone surgery and experienced severe health effects.

The central legal question in these cases is whether Pfizer and other drug makers failed to disclose critical safety risks linked to Depo-Provera, potentially leaving thousands of women vulnerable to serious health consequences without proper warnings.

If you or a loved one developed a brain tumor after using Depo-Provera, you may be eligible to seek compensation through a Depo-Provera Lawsuit.

Our team is currently accepting new clients.

Contact TruLaw’s Depo-Provera Lawyers for a free consultation or use the chatbot on this page to find out if you qualify for a claim instantly.

The number of lawsuits alleging a connection between Depo-Provera and the development of meningioma brain tumors is rapidly growing and may soon be consolidated into multidistrict litigation (MDL).

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) has scheduled a key hearing for January 30, 2025, at the Wilkie D. Ferguson, Jr. U.S. Courthouse in Miami, Florida.

This hearing will determine whether the cases should be centralized under an MDL, a decision that could significantly influence the course of this litigation.

The choice of MDL venue is a crucial factor in this decision, with New York and California emerging as the primary contenders.

The venue will directly impact the litigation due to the issue of Innovator’s liability, which governs plaintiffs’ rights.

Innovator’s liability is a legal principle that holds original manufacturers accountable for injuries caused by their products, even if the injuries stem from generic versions.

Plaintiffs are advocating for the MDL to be established in California, where innovator liability laws allow claims against Pfizer by individuals who used generic forms of Depo-Provera.

Notably, 18 of the 22 original lawsuits included in the MDL motion were filed in California.

On the other hand, Pfizer is pushing for the MDL to be located in New York, where innovator liability is not recognized.

If the MDL is centralized in New York, individuals who have used generic drug versions may be excluded from pursuing legal action.

MDL consolidation is an efficient way to manage complex pharmaceutical cases involving numerous plaintiffs with varying injuries.

Unlike class actions, MDLs preserve the individual nature of each case while centralizing pre-trial proceedings under one federal judge.

This structure is particularly suitable for Depo-Provera litigation, where injuries like meningiomas associated with high-dose progestin require personalized evaluations of damages and circumstances.

Once the MDL is established, plaintiffs can file short-form complaints linked to a master complaint, simplifying the process for new claimants and their attorneys.

The MDL will then proceed toward resolution, including individual settlements or a broader global settlement agreement.

A global settlement could involve creating a compensation fund to address claims collectively, using a settlement matrix to determine payouts.

This approach ensures fairness and efficiency by considering each plaintiff’s unique circumstances and injuries, offering victims a streamlined path to justice.

If you or a loved one developed a brain tumor after using Depo-Provera, you may be eligible to seek compensation through a Depo-Provera Lawsuit.

Our team is currently accepting new clients.

Contact TruLaw’s Depo-Provera Lawyers for a free consultation or use the chatbot on this page to find out if you qualify for a claim instantly.

Legal actions involving Depo-Provera are gaining traction not only in the United States but also in Australia, where women have reported developing brain tumors after prolonged use of the contraceptive injection.

In Australia, a class action lawsuit is being filed against Pfizer, the manufacturer of Depo-Provera, with more women coming forward to report side effects and claim they were not adequately warned about the risks.

A study published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) found that women who used Depo-Provera for more than one year had a significantly higher risk—five to six times—of developing meningiomas compared to non-users.

This alarming finding has led to lawsuits in several countries, including Australia, where the drug has been a widely used contraceptive for decades.

Law firms are currently seeking participants for a class action lawsuit, arguing that Pfizer failed to properly inform users of the potential for serious risks, including brain tumors.

The Australian lawsuit encompasses women who received Depo-Provera prescriptions from 1992 to the present, a period during which over 3.5 million prescriptions were dispensed in the country.

Many of these women allege they were prescribed the injection for more than a decade, far exceeding medical guidelines that recommend a two-year maximum.

Legal professionals in both Australia and the United States are investigating whether Pfizer neglected to disclose these risks, leaving millions of women unaware of the potential consequences.

If you or a loved one developed a brain tumor after using Depo-Provera, you may be eligible to seek compensation through a Depo-Provera Lawsuit.

Our team is currently accepting new clients.

Contact TruLaw’s Depo-Provera Lawyers for a free consultation or use the chatbot on this page to find out if you qualify for a claim instantly.

The Depo-Provera Lawsuit is ongoing. 

As Depo-Provera lawsuits against Pfizer continue to gain momentum in federal court, plaintiffs have filed a motion to consolidate all cases related to the injectable contraceptive before a single judge.

While Pfizer has agreed to the consolidation proposal, it disagrees with the plaintiffs’ suggested venue.

Currently, more than 22 Depo-Provera lawsuits are pending in various U.S. District Courts across the country, including six in the Northern District of California, the venue proposed by the plaintiffs for centralizing discovery and pretrial proceedings.

The plaintiffs have petitioned to combine the lawsuits into multidistrict litigation (MDL) to streamline the legal process and avoid duplicating efforts in multiple courts.

Pfizer has supported the MDL consolidation but recommends transferring the cases to the Southern District of New York, citing its proximity to Pfizer’s corporate headquarters as beneficial for accessing key witnesses and evidence.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) is scheduled to review the venue and consolidation request at a hearing on January 30, 2025.

If approved, all current and future Depo-Provera claims will be overseen by a single judge for pretrial motions.

Individual cases may still go to trial if settlements are not reached.

Depo-Provera has been linked to a significantly increased risk of developing meningiomas, a type of brain tumor.

Research suggests that women who used the drug face a five-fold greater risk compared to those who did not.

Most lawsuits allege that Pfizer failed to adequately warn consumers about these risks, making the MDL proposal a critical step in ensuring consistency in how these claims are handled.

If you or a loved one developed a brain tumor after using Depo-Provera, you may be eligible to seek compensation through a Depo-Provera Lawsuit.

Our team is currently accepting new clients.

Contact TruLaw’s Depo-Provera Lawyers for a free consultation or use the chatbot on this page to find out if you qualify for a claim instantly.

Researchers at the University of Plymouth are spearheading a project to investigate meningiomas in NF2-related schwannomatosis (NF2-SWN), a condition caused by the loss of the NF2 gene.

Although meningiomas are generally non-cancerous, they can significantly impact patients’ quality of life.

Supported by the Children’s Tumor Foundation, the project focuses on developing a humanized model to study interactions between human immune cells and meningioma tumors.

This research is essential for advancing new therapies, particularly as meningiomas have shown resistance to chemotherapy.

While surgery is the primary treatment for most meningiomas, recurring or aggressive cases often require additional drug therapies, highlighting the need for improved treatment options.

Recent findings have also suggested a possible connection between Depo Provera, a hormonal contraceptive, and an increased risk of meningiomas.

Over 75 million women globally have reported using this drug.

Dr. Liyam Laraba leads the research at the University’s Brain Tumor Research Center of Excellence.

Her team is working to create the humanized model by implanting human immune cells into mice, providing a more realistic approach to evaluating treatments prior to clinical trials.

This initiative is part of the Children’s Tumor Foundation’s NF Preclinical Hub Funding Program, aimed at expediting drug discovery and preclinical research for neurofibromatosis disorders.

Building on successful frameworks such as the NF Preclinical and Therapeutics Consortium, the program strives to accelerate the development of therapies for patients.

The project holds promise for delivering more effective treatments for meningiomas and improving outcomes for individuals with NF2-SWN.

If you or a loved one developed a brain tumor after using Depo-Provera, you may be eligible to seek compensation through a Depo-Provera Lawsuit.

Our team is currently accepting new clients.

Contact TruLaw’s Depo-Provera Lawyers for a free consultation or use the chatbot on this page to find out if you qualify for a claim instantly.

The Depo-Provera Lawsuit is ongoing.

A new lawsuit has been filed in the Eastern District of Louisiana against several pharmaceutical companies regarding the birth control drug Depo-Provera.

The plaintiff alleges that long-term use of Depo-Provera led to serious health conditions, including intracranial meningioma and paradoxical vocal cord dysfunction.

She began quarterly injections of Depo-Provera in 1992, shortly after the FDA approved the drug, and continued for three to four years.

In February 2020, she was diagnosed with intracranial meningioma, a condition linked to long-term use of Depo-Provera, as supported by numerous studies.

The lawsuit claims the defendants failed to warn her or her healthcare providers about the potential risks associated with extended use of the drug.

The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages for medical expenses, lost income, and other harm, as well as punitive damages for alleged negligence.

Currently, over 22 federal Depo-Provera lawsuits are pending across the United States, with the majority filed in California.

If you or a loved one developed a brain tumor after using Depo-Provera, you may be eligible to seek compensation through a Depo-Provera Lawsuit.

Our team is currently accepting new clients.

Contact TruLaw’s Depo-Provera Lawyers for a free consultation or use the chatbot on this page to find out if you qualify for a claim instantly.

Women who have used Depo-Provera, an injectable contraceptive produced by Pfizer, are pursuing legal action after experiencing severe side effects, including brain tumors.

Meningioma, a type of brain tumor that forms in the membranes surrounding the brain, can cause symptoms such as headaches, vision disturbances, and seizures.

The lawsuits allege that Pfizer failed to provide adequate warnings about the potential dangers of long-term Depo-Provera use.

Approved by the FDA in 1992 as a contraceptive, Depo-Provera contains medroxyprogesterone acetate, an ingredient used in other treatments since 1959.

The drug was promoted as a convenient birth control option, requiring only four injections annually, catering to individuals seeking reliable and low-maintenance contraception.

However, plaintiffs argue that this convenience came at the expense of unreported health risks.

A French study published in March 2024 found that using Depo-Provera for one year or more increased the risk of developing meningioma by 5.55 times.

The research analyzed data from over 18,000 women who underwent surgery for meningiomas between 2009 and 2018, supporting claims that prolonged Depo-Provera use significantly raises the risk of these tumors.

One plaintiff, referred to as T.C. for privacy reasons, stated she used Depo-Provera for three years and was later diagnosed with a meningioma.

During her use, she experienced prolonged bleeding, intense headaches, and severe fatigue.

After her diagnosis, T.C. underwent regular MRIs and treatments to monitor the tumor’s growth, which she describes as an ongoing source of anxiety.

Plaintiffs and their lawyers are advocating for increased awareness of the risks associated with Depo-Provera, urging women to consult medical professionals if they notice adverse symptoms and to consider legal action if a brain tumor develops.

If you or a loved one developed a brain tumor after using Depo-Provera, you may be eligible to seek compensation through a Depo-Provera Lawsuit.

Our team is currently accepting new clients.

Contact TruLaw’s Depo-Provera Lawyers for a free consultation or use the chatbot on this page to find out if you qualify for a claim instantly.

Another California resident has initiated legal proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, claiming that her use of Depo-Provera for approximately eight (8) years led to the development of an intracranial meningioma.

The lawsuit targets Pfizer, Inc., Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. LLC, and Pharmacia LLC — alleging strict liability, negligence, and breach of warranty.

The plaintiff contends that the defendants failed to provide adequate warnings about the risks associated with long-term use of Depo-Provera, particularly the potential for meningioma development.

Having used the contraceptive from 1994 to 2002, she was diagnosed with a meningioma in 2015 after experiencing severe neurological symptoms.

This case adds to the growing number of long-term usage claims and further solidifies California’s position as a focal point for Depo-Provera litigation, strengthening the argument for MDL consolidation in the state.

A new lawsuit has been filed in the Court of Common Pleas for Philadelphia County by a local resident, alleging that extended use of Depo-Provera resulted in the development of a debilitating meningioma.

The plaintiff, who began using the injectable contraceptive as a teenager, claims that the manufacturers (including Pfizer and affiliated companies) failed to adequately warn users about the risks associated with medroxyprogesterone acetate — the active ingredient in Depo-Provera.

The plaintiff, who has undergone multiple brain surgeries and continues to suffer from physical and cognitive impairments, is seeking both compensatory and punitive damages.

The lawsuit also names healthcare providers affiliated with the University of Pennsylvania Health System as defendants — alleging their failure to disclose safer contraceptive alternatives.

This case underscores the anticipated strong Depo-Provera docket in Philadelphia.

Legal representatives are observing a higher-than-expected incidence of inoperable meningiomas in Depo-Provera cases.

These tumors, which cannot be safely removed due to their location or involvement with critical brain structures, pose significant challenges for patients and medical professionals alike.

The impact of these inoperable tumors is profound, often resulting in persistent symptoms and ongoing health risks.

Patients frequently report severe headaches, vision loss, memory problems, and other neurological impairments.

Treatment options for these cases are limited, often restricted to radiation therapy or long-term monitoring, leaving patients to cope with both the physical and emotional toll of their condition.

Legal experts anticipate that lawsuits against Depo Provera manufacturers will likely be consolidated into a multidistrict litigation (MDL) rather than a traditional class action.

This approach, common in complex pharmaceutical cases, allows for efficient handling of numerous claims while preserving individual case integrity.

In an MDL, each plaintiff retains their own lawsuit, unlike a class action where one representative speaks for all.

Cases are transferred to a single federal court, where a judge oversees pre-trial proceedings, addressing common issues such as the alleged link between Depo Provera’s high-dose progestin and meningiomas, and the adequacy of warning labels.

The MDL structure offers benefits including individualized case consideration, streamlined pre-trial processes, and the option for either individual settlements or a global settlement agreement.

This approach is particularly suited to the Depo Provera situation, where injuries and circumstances vary significantly among plaintiffs.

Attorneys representing plaintiffs in Depo-Provera lawsuits have filed a motion to centralize all related cases into a federal multidistrict litigation (MDL).

The plaintiffs claim that Depo-Provera, a hormonal contraceptive containing medroxyprogesterone acetate, significantly increases the risk of developing brain tumors, with recent studies indicating a fivefold increase in risk for women using the product.

These lawsuits accuse the drug’s manufacturers of failing to adequately warn both users and the medical community about these potential dangers.

Many affected women have undergone invasive surgeries to treat their brain tumors and now face long-term consequences, including vision loss, seizure disorders, and lasting neurological damage.

On November 26, a motion was submitted to the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML), seeking to consolidate at least 22 lawsuits currently pending in eight district courts nationwide.

The proposed MDL would be based in the Northern District of California, where six of the cases are already filed.

Plaintiffs argue that centralization is necessary because the lawsuits share nearly identical allegations and legal questions, which would help streamline pretrial proceedings, prevent inconsistent rulings, and reduce legal expenses.

They also note that the litigation is expected to grow significantly, with additional claims anticipated in the coming months.

If the JPML grants the motion, all current and future Depo-Provera lawsuits will be assigned to a single judge for coordinated pretrial proceedings, including discovery and motions.

If you or a loved one developed a brain tumor after using Depo-Provera, you may be eligible to seek compensation through a Depo-Provera Lawsuit.

Our team is currently accepting new clients.

Contact TruLaw’s Depo-Provera Lawyers for a free consultation or use the chatbot on this page to find out if you qualify for a claim instantly.

Legal representatives for twenty-two (22) women have initiated federal proceedings against six (6) manufacturers of Depo-Provera and its generic counterparts.

The motion for multidistrict litigation (MDL) consolidation identifies Pfizer, Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. LLC, Greenstone LLC, Viatris Inc., Pharmacia LLC, and Prasco LLC as defendants.

Should the consolidation occur, these entities could face liability for producing and marketing a contraceptive associated with brain tumor development in numerous women.

Plaintiffs in the Depo-Provera lawsuits have filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) to consolidate the cases into a single multidistrict litigation (MDL).

With 22 cases currently pending, they have suggested the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California as the venue, citing its track record with major MDLs, including Roundup.

The next hearing on the motion is set for December 5th, 2024 — meaning the JPML will not review this litigation until 2025.

If granted, it could become the first significant mass tort of the new year.

Plaintiffs argue that centralized pretrial proceedings through an MDL are critical to addressing the complexities of Depo-Provera lawsuits, which allege serious health issues (including meningiomas) that are linked to prolonged use of the contraceptive.

However, defendants are expected to oppose the motion and may propose transferring the cases to a District Court in New York.

Karen Caldwell, the panel chair, will preside over the hearing scheduled for early 2025, with multiple filings expected in the interim.

The Depo-Provera litigation centers on allegations that Pfizer neglected to adequately disclose critical side effects on product labels and possessed knowledge of the contraceptive’s link to brain tumors.

Individuals diagnosed with brain tumors or meningiomas post-Depo-Provera use may be eligible for legal recourse.

TruLaw and other legal experts investigating the Depo Provera Lawsuit have evaluated over 7,000 related claims for this case.

TruLaw provides complimentary case assessments for those experiencing severe adverse effects.

You can use the chat on this page for an instant case evaluation to see if you may qualify for the Depo-Provera brain tumor lawsuit.

A recent lawsuit filed on November 15th, 2024, in the Superior Court of California in Alameda County, has named not only the manufacturers of Depo-Provera but also healthcare entities and pharmacies as defendants.

The plaintiff, Madison Le, alleges that these entities (including Kaiser Permanente International, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc., and the Permanente Medical Group Inc.) were aware of the dangers associated with Depo-Provera through their own research but continued to administer and profit from the drug.

This lawsuit underscores the expanding scope of liability in Depo-Provera cases — highlighting the role of healthcare providers and pharmacies in the administration of the drug.

Recent findings have highlighted that some brain tumors associated with Depo-Provera use are inoperable due to their location or infiltration into critical brain structures.

This means that affected women may require alternative treatments such as radiation therapy, hormone therapy, or participation in clinical trials — which can prolong their suffering and significantly impact their quality of life.

The inoperability of these tumors underscores the severe consequences of Depo-Provera use and the need for comprehensive preoperative imaging to assess treatment options.

A woman in Nevada has filed a lawsuit against Pfizer, alleging that her 20-year use of Depo-Provera led to the development of three intracranial meningiomas.

Tina Stephens-Smith experienced symptoms such as headaches, blurred vision, and speech problems before discovering the densely calcified tumors.

Her case highlights the long-term risks associated with Depo-Provera and the failure of Pfizer to adequately warn U.S. women about these dangers.

A review article in the Journal of Neuroimaging emphasizes the critical role of preoperative imaging in managing intracranial meningiomas linked to Depo-Provera use.

The article underscores the need for a strong foundation in the latest meningioma imaging techniques to optimize preoperative planning and improve patient outcomes.

This highlights the importance of targeted imaging for women who have used Depo-Provera and developed brain tumors that can be treated surgically.

Lawsuits claim that Depo-Provera (a contraceptive medication manufactured by the defendants) caused significant harm, with scientific research linking the active ingredient in Depo-Provera, medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA), to meningiomas.

A recent database analysis found that the injectable form of MPA raised the risk of developing meningiomas by 53%, with the risk increasing the longer the drug was used.

Additionally, data from 2004 to 2015 show a notable rise in meningioma cases, particularly among females, African Americans, and younger individuals.

Plaintiffs argue that the defendants were aware of this danger for decades but failed to warn U.S. patients and healthcare providers.

In contrast to the U.S., warnings about meningiomas have been added to the labels for Depo-Provera in Europe and Canada.

Depo-Provera’s known risks include:

• Bone Mineral Density Loss: Long-term use (over two years) may lead to permanent bone loss, especially in adolescents and high-risk individuals.
• Thrombosis: Discontinuation of the drug is recommended if thrombosis occurs, with further assessment required for any vision or neurological issues.
• Cancer Risks: Some users may experience an increased risk of breast and cervical cancers, particularly those with a family history of breast cancer.
• Ectopic Pregnancy: Severe abdominal pain or suspected pregnancy should prompt evaluation for an ectopic pregnancy.
• Adverse Reactions: Includes anaphylaxis, weight gain, depression, and irregular bleeding.

A study by David Bailey from January 2024 provides critical evidence for Depo-Provera lawsuits.

The study shows that stopping progesterone drugs like Depo-Provera can lead to the regression of meningioma size.

This finding supports both general and specific causation claims, bolstering the argument that Depo-Provera can cause an increased risk of meningioma and that it caused the meningioma in specific plaintiffs.

Concerns about the potential risk of developing brain tumors (particularly meningiomas) after using Depo-Provera continue to escalate.

Meningiomas are slow-growing tumors that can cause severe health issues due to increased pressure on brain tissue, nerves, and blood vessels.

As more evidence emerges about the link between Depo-Provera and brain tumors, legal actions against Pfizer for failing to appropriately update the contraceptive’s warning label are intensifying.

Pfizer has included a warning about the association between Depo-Provera and meningiomas in its product monograph for Canadian patients since at least 2016.

However, no such warning is included in the prescribing information for U.S. women.

This discrepancy has led to numerous lawsuits against Pfizer, alleging that the company failed to adequately warn U.S. women about the dangers of Depo-Provera.

Mayra Valencia has filed a lawsuit in the Eastern District of California, alleging that her 23-year use of Depo-Provera led to the development of a brain tumor.

The complaint states that Pfizer knew or should have known about the risk of meningioma associated with Depo-Provera and failed to warn U.S. women.

The lawsuit also highlights studies dating back to 1983 that show a correlation between progesterone use and meningioma.

Depo-Provera settlement amounts are projected to be substantial due to several factors.

First, studies have shown a significant increase in the risk of brain tumors — with a 5.5x increased risk being one of the highest observed in mass torts.

Second, the type of injury (brain tumors) is particularly severe.

Additionally, Pfizer is well-funded and can afford significant settlements.

Given the relatively low number of potential lawsuits (estimated to be between 5,000 to 30,000), settlement values could be higher than in other mass torts — potentially exceeding $1,000,000 per case.

Depo-Provera has been scrutinized for its potential health risks, including an increased risk of meningiomas and possibly breast cancer.

A 1988 study highlighted criticisms about the drug’s safety, including animal studies suggesting an increased cancer risk.

While current lawsuits primarily focus on meningiomas, there may also be a link to an increased risk of breast cancer for long-term users of Depo-Provera.

A California woman, Anjanna Lawson, has filed a lawsuit against Pfizer and other defendants after being diagnosed with an intracranial meningioma.

Lawson started receiving Depo-Provera injections at age 16 and continued until September 2024.

Despite undergoing a right pterional craniotomy in July 2023 to remove the tumor, a residual tumor was discovered in early 2024, necessitating five sessions of stereotactic radiosurgery.

The tumor remains uneradicated, causing Lawson to suffer from vision loss, facial spasms, and a burning sensation in her face.

Her lawsuit seeks damages from Pfizer, Inc., Viatris, Inc., Greenstone, LLC, Prasco, LLC, Pharmacia & Upjohn LLC, and Pharmacia, LLC — alleging that these entities failed to adequately warn about the risks associated with Depo-Provera use.

Key notes regarding Anjanna Lawson’s Depo-Provera lawsuit:

• Plaintiff: Anjanna Lawson (a California resident).
• Defendants: Pfizer, Inc., Viatris, Inc., Greenstone, LLC, Prasco, LLC, Pharmacia & Upjohn LLC, and Pharmacia, LLC.
• Allegations: Failure to warn about the risks of developing intracranial meningiomas associated with Depo-Provera use.
• Symptoms: Vision loss, facial spasms, and a burning sensation in the face due to an uneradicated tumor.
• Treatment: Right pterional craniotomy and stereotactic radiosurgery.
• Lawsuit Focus: Seeking damages for the harm caused by Depo-Provera use.

If you or a loved one developed a brain tumor after using Depo-Provera, you may be entitled to seek compensation through a Depo-Provera Lawsuit. 

Our lawyers are still accepting new clients. 

Contact our Depo-Provera Lawyers today for a free consultation, or use the chatbot on this page to find out if you qualify for a claim instantly.

The Depo-Provera lawsuit is ongoing. 

Depo-Provera Lawsuits continue to be actively filed in federal courts, with projections suggesting over 30 cases could be filed by the end of November.

These filings are primarily concentrated in the Northern District of California and the Southern District of Texas.

A significant Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) hearing (to consider the potential for case consolidation into an MDL) is set for December 5th, 2024. 

However, the formation of an official multidistrict litigation (MDL) is not expected before year-end.

An MDL typically forms when 25 or more related cases, addressing similar legal issues and involving the same defendants, are pending in various federal courts.

This threshold is anticipated to be met with the Depo-Provera cases.

While plaintiffs may prefer California as the coordination venue, defendants are expected to oppose this and suggest New York instead.

The Depo-Provera lawsuit is ongoing. 

A new case has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, accusing the makers of Depo-Provera of contributing to the development of a meningioma brain tumor in a woman who used the birth control shot for nearly 25 years.

The plaintiff is bringing legal action against Pfizer, Viatris, Greenstone, Prasco, and Pharmacia & Upjohn — claiming the companies did not provide adequate warnings in the U.S. regarding the risk of brain tumors (a warning that has been included on Canadian labels since 2015).

According to the lawsuit, the plaintiff began using Depo-Provera injections in 2000 and received a total of 91 doses over her treatment period.

In 2020, she started experiencing severe symptoms (including headaches, blurred vision, vertigo, and ear itching) — leading to the diagnosis of a calcified meningioma brain tumor that continued to grow.

Due to its calcified nature, surgical removal has been deemed too dangerous, leaving her with chronic pain and ongoing symptoms.

The complaint further alleges that Pfizer and related companies failed to adequately research and disclose the potential risks of long-term Depo-Provera use, which could include the development of meningiomas.

This case adds to the increasing number of Depo-Provera lawsuits being filed nationwide.

An Indiana woman, Lesley Noble, has filed a lawsuit against Pfizer, alleging that her 20-year use of Depo-Provera caused her brain tumor and subsequent injuries.

Noble underwent invasive surgery to remove her intracranial meningioma in 2017, but the tumor aggressively regrew after six months.

She then underwent 36 rounds of radiation while still taking Depo-Provera, unaware of its potential causation.

Noble and her husband, Justin Noble, are demanding a jury trial for her injuries.

Pfizer and its co-defendants, including Viatris, Inc., Greenstone LLC, Prasco Labs, and Pharmacia & Upjohn, face nine allegations of wrongdoing in a federal Depo-Provera lawsuit filed by Kristina Schmidt in California.

The charges include Failure to Warn, Design Defect, Negligence, Negligent Failure to Warn, Negligent Design Defect, Negligent Misrepresentation, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Breach of Express Warranty, and Breach of Implied Warranty.

These allegations accuse Pfizer and the other defendants of knowingly designing, marketing, and manufacturing a drug that could cause intracranial meningiomas without proper warning.

Recent studies have linked Depo-Provera use to brain tumors, specifically intracranial meningiomas.

New research is focusing on meningiomas that form on the spinal cord.

An article in Neuro-Oncology Advances notes that while less than 13% of meningiomas are on the spinal cord, they make up about a quarter of spinal cord tumors.

The article suggests that external hormone sources, such as Depo-Provera injections, may be linked to a higher risk of developing meningiomas in the brain or spinal cord.

A central issue in the Depo-Provera lawsuit is whether Pfizer is legally responsible for meningiomas caused by generic versions of Depo-Provera.

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett states that generic drug manufacturers are not liable if their drug has the same active ingredient as an approved drug.

However, in the Depo-Provera case, the generic manufacturers are mostly wholly owned subsidiaries of Pfizer, and the drugs were manufactured at the same sites as Depo-Provera.

This issue is expected to be aggressively litigated as part of the lawsuit.

The Depo-Provera lawsuits have highlighted important legal issues regarding the statute of limitations in such cases.

There are two (2) key factors that may allow individuals to file lawsuits for Depo-Provera-related injuries without being hindered by the statute of limitations:

1. The “Discovery Rule”
2. The Doctrine of Fraudulent Concealment

The first is the “Discovery Rule” — which is recognized in many states and allows the statute of limitations to be extended.

This rule delays the filing deadline until the injured party becomes aware of both the injury and its cause.

In the case of Depo-Provera, recent studies have uncovered a possible link between the drug and brain tumors, a connection that was not widely known before.

Because this evidence has only recently emerged, plaintiffs were not expected to know about the potential link between their conditions and Depo-Provera until now.

The second factor is the Doctrine of Fraudulent Concealment, which could also apply.

This legal doctrine allows the statute of limitations to be paused if the defendant deliberately hides key safety information.

Plaintiffs claim that Depo-Provera’s manufacturers concealed the drug’s risks by altering safety warnings and product labeling — making it difficult for consumers to identify the potential connection between Depo-Provera and brain tumors like meningiomas.

This alleged concealment means plaintiffs may argue they were unable to learn of the risks in time — effectively extending their window to file a lawsuit.

Together, the discovery rule and fraudulent concealment may provide a strong foundation for plaintiffs to challenge statute of limitations issues in the Depo-Provera lawsuits.

Kristina Schmidt has filed a lawsuit against Pfizer in the Northern District of California, alleging that Depo-Provera caused her intracranial meningioma.

Her attorneys claim that Pfizer knew or should have known for decades that Depo-Provera could cause or substantially contribute to the development of meningiomas.

Since her diagnosis, Schmidt has endured significant, invasive treatments and experienced serious injuries.

This case is part of a growing number of lawsuits against Pfizer for their injectable contraceptive.

Lawyers are highly interested in pursuing Depo-Provera lawsuits because early studies indicate that the drug makes the diagnosed injury over five times more likely to occur, one of the highest increases in cancer rates among commercially available drugs.

This contrasts with the Roundup lawsuit, where lawyers argued that Roundup causes a 69% increase in the likelihood of cancer — leading to several verdicts over $1 billion.

The proof in the Depo-Provera case is believed to be even stronger.

If you or a loved one developed a brain tumor after using Depo-Provera, you may be entitled to seek compensation through a Depo-Provera Lawsuit. 

Our lawyers are still accepting new clients. 

Contact our Depo-Provera Lawyers today for a free consultation, or use the chatbot on this page to find out if you qualify for a claim instantly.

The Depo-Provera lawsuit is gaining momentum as more potential plaintiffs become aware of the allegations against Pfizer.

A French study has established a link between Depo-Provera injections and meningiomas (tumors that arise from the protective membranes covering the brain and spinal cord).

Symptoms of meningioma may include (but are not limited to):

• Headaches
• Vision changes
• Seizures
• Memory loss
• Dizziness

Further research is needed to understand why Depo-Provera may increase the risk of tumor growth.

With 74 million women worldwide having used the drug, the potential scale of this litigation is significant.

Depo-Provera’s journey has been marked by regulatory ups and downs since its development in 1959.

Initially approved by the FDA in 1974, the drug’s approval was revoked in 1978 due to cancer-related concerns.

It regained FDA approval in 1992 as a contraceptive.

Recent research (including a study published in the British Medical Journal) has uncovered a potential link between Depo-Provera use and the development of meningiomas and other brain tumors.

Given its widespread use over five decades, experts anticipate a significant increase in lawsuits in the coming years.

Pfizer is facing renewed legal scrutiny regarding Depo-Provera.

A recent study revealed that women who received as few as two Depo-Provera injections have a more than fivefold increased risk of developing meningiomas.

This isn’t the first time the drug has been at the center of legal disputes.

Previous lawsuits (such as the 2008 case Cassandra Colville v. Pharmacia & Upjohn) focused on allegations of bone density loss associated with the drug’s use.

Since then, Pfizer has acquired the rights to manufacture and distribute Depo-Provera.

A 2020 analysis of 47 meningioma lawsuits has caught the attention of legal professionals investigating cases involving women who used Depo-Provera.

The study found that in 68.1% of cases, failure to diagnose was the primary basis for legal action.

Notably, the average verdict in these lawsuits amounted to $3,409,650.22 — with settlements averaging $867,555.56.

These figures suggest that meningioma cases could result in substantial compensation.

If a causal link between Depo-Provera and increased meningioma risk is established, legal experts project settlement values could reach several hundred thousand dollars — considering Pfizer’s financial capacity.

Approximately one-quarter of sexually active women have used Depo-Provera at some point in their lives.

As a result of its widespread use, numerous women diagnosed with brain tumors are now pursuing legal action against the drug’s manufacturers.

Legal experts anticipate that these cases will likely be consolidated in federal court — paving the way for coordinated legal proceedings against the pharmaceutical companies involved.

Depo-Provera faced multiple FDA rejections throughout the 1970s and 1980s before finally gaining approval in 1992.

Since its approval, the drug has been associated with reduced bone density and significant side effects upon discontinuation.

Originally developed by Upjohn, Depo-Provera is now manufactured by Pfizer.

Recent studies have further complicated the drug’s history by suggesting a potential link to brain tumors — adding to the existing health concerns surrounding its use.

If you or a loved one developed a brain tumor after using Depo-Provera, you may be entitled to seek compensation through a Depo-Provera Lawsuit. 

Our lawyers are still accepting new clients. 

Contact our Depo-Provera Lawyers today for a free consultation, or use the chatbot on this page to find out if you qualify for a claim instantly.