Attorney Jessica Paluch-Hoerman, founder of TruLaw, has over 28 years of experience as a personal injury and mass tort attorney, and previously worked as an international tax attorney at Deloitte. Jessie collaborates with attorneys nationwide — enabling her to share reliable, up-to-date legal information with our readers.
This article has been written and reviewed for legal accuracy and clarity by the team of writers and legal experts at TruLaw and is as accurate as possible. This content should not be taken as legal advice from an attorney. If you would like to learn more about our owner and experienced injury lawyer, Jessie Paluch, you can do so here.
TruLaw does everything possible to make sure the information in this article is up to date and accurate. If you need specific legal advice about your case, contact us by using the chat on the bottom of this page. This article should not be taken as advice from an attorney.
Question: Is there a lawsuit against Depo Provera?
Answer: Yes, there are ongoing lawsuits against Depo-Provera’s manufacturer, Pfizer, alleging that the contraceptive injection can cause brain tumors (specifically meningiomas).
On this page, we’ll answer this question in further depth, legal claims in Depo-Provera lawsuits, how to file a Depo-Provera lawsuit, and much more.
Lawsuits against the manufacturer of Depo-Provera (Pfizer) focus on allegations that the company knew or should have known about the increased risk of brain tumors associated with the use of their product.
The primary claims include:
Individuals who have used Depo-Provera and been diagnosed with a brain tumor may be eligible to join these lawsuits.
To pursue a claim, individuals should:
If you or a loved one has developed a brain tumor after using Depo-Provera, you may be eligible to seek compensation.
Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page to receive an instant case evaluation and determine whether you qualify to join others in filing a Depo-Provera lawsuit today.
Our Depo-provera attorney at TruLaw is dedicated to supporting clients through the process of filing a Depo-provera lawsuit.
With extensive experience in handling pharmaceutical litigation, Jessica Paluch-Hoerman provides personalized support and advocacy to clients who have developed meningioma brain tumors after using Depo-provera.
We understand the challenges and emotional toll that a brain tumor diagnosis brings, and we’re committed to simplifying the legal process of seeking the compensation you deserve.
Meet our lead Depo-provera attorney:
At TruLaw, we believe financial concerns should never stand in the way of justice.
That’s why we operate on a contingency fee basis—with this approach, you won’t face any upfront costs for your legal representation.
Our fee is only collected if we are successful in securing compensation on your behalf.
This arrangement not only removes the financial risk of pursuing your case, it allows us to focus our resources on achieving a positive outcome in your case by:
Our investment in representing you demonstrates our unwavering commitment to seeking the compensation you deserve.
If you or a loved one developed a meningioma brain tumor after receiving Depo-provera injections, you may be eligible to seek compensation.
Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page to receive an instant case evaluation and determine whether you qualify to join others in filing a lawsuit against Depo-Provera today.
Women filing Depo-Provera lawsuits base their cases on several legal theories, primarily focusing on product liability claims against Pfizer and its subsidiaries.
These lawsuits allege the pharmaceutical giant failed in its duty to protect consumers by withholding key safety information about brain tumor risks while continuing to market the injectable contraceptive as safe for long-term use.
Most cases involve plaintiffs who received multiple Depo-Provera injections over periods exceeding one year before developing meningiomas.
Their legal teams must establish a direct causal link between the medication and their brain tumors while demonstrating that Pfizer knew or should have known about these risks based on available scientific data and regulatory actions in other countries.
Lawsuits against Pfizer center on claims that the company knew about meningioma risks but failed to warn U.S. patients while providing clear warnings in other markets.
The Canadian Depo-Provera label has mentioned meningiomas as a potential “post-market adverse drug reaction” since approximately 2015, nearly a decade before similar warnings appeared on U.S. packaging.
European Union and United Kingdom labels explicitly list meningioma under “special warnings and precautions for use,” yet identical U.S. labels lacked these warnings despite containing the same medication formulation.
A study published in the British Medical Journal reports a 5.6-fold increased risk of meningiomas with prolonged use has become central to plaintiffs’ claims that Pfizer should have identified and disclosed these risks much earlier.
Beyond warning failures, lawsuits argue Pfizer had safer alternatives but chose not to promote them to protect market share for the original formulation.
Legal filings point to Depo-SubQ Provera 104, a subcutaneous version containing the same active ingredient but administered differently, as a potentially safer alternative that Pfizer “hardly markets in the US.”
The standard 150mg intramuscular injection delivers a substantially higher hormone load than many alternative contraceptive methods, which may directly contribute to the increased tumor risk.
Plaintiffs argue Pfizer should have either promoted the subcutaneous option or redesigned the original formula to mitigate risks while maintaining effectiveness as a contraceptive.
These design defect claims focus on whether Pfizer prioritized profits over user safety by continuing to market the higher-dose version without adequate warnings, even after developing alternative delivery methods.
Thousands of women who received Depo-Provera injections may qualify for legal action if they later developed meningiomas.
As litigation expands, attorneys have established specific medical and legal criteria to determine eligibility for joining the MDL or filing individual claims against Pfizer.
Women considering legal action should consult with an attorney experienced in pharmaceutical litigation to evaluate their specific circumstances.
While each case is unique, clear patterns have emerged regarding who qualifies based on medical history, timing, and documentation requirements.
You may qualify to file a Depo-Provera lawsuit if doctors diagnosed you with a meningioma brain tumor after receiving at least two Depo-Provera injections.
Most law firms require documentation confirming you received multiple injections, as research shows the risk increases substantially after one year of use (typically equivalent to four quarterly injections).
The timeframe for Depo-Provera use must fall after 1992 when the FDA approved the drug for contraceptive purposes in the United States, though some firms accept cases with usage dating back to the 1960s when the medication was prescribed off-label.
Your meningioma diagnosis must be formally confirmed through medical imaging (MRI or CT scan) and potentially biopsy results or surgical records if the tumor was removed.
Attorneys typically prioritize cases involving tumors requiring surgical intervention, radiation treatment, or causing neurological symptoms, though all confirmed meningioma diagnoses may qualify.
Each state enforces different statutes of limitations for product liability claims, typically ranging from 1-3 years from either your meningioma diagnosis or when you reasonably should have known about the connection to Depo-Provera.
Some states apply a “discovery rule” that extends the filing deadline if you couldn’t reasonably have known about the link between Depo-Provera and meningiomas until the recent publicity about this connection.
Your legal residency may impact where your case can be filed, though the MDL consolidation means federal cases will proceed through the Northern District of Florida regardless of where you live.
To prove your case, you’ll need comprehensive documentation including:
A qualified Depo-Provera attorney can help you obtain these records and determine if your case meets the established criteria for pursuing compensation through the current litigation.
Filing a claim related to Depo-Provera brain tumor injuries follows a structured legal pathway with multiple stages.
The process helps potential plaintiffs set realistic expectations about what lies ahead as they pursue compensation for their injuries.
The consolidation of cases into an MDL creates a more streamlined approach while still preserving the individual nature of each claim.
This balance allows for efficient handling of common issues while recognizing the unique aspects of each woman’s situation.
The process begins with a free initial consultation where attorneys evaluate your medical history, Depo-Provera usage, and meningioma diagnosis to determine if you have a viable claim against Pfizer.
After agreeing to representation, your legal team collects comprehensive medical documentation, including records from gynecologists who prescribed Depo-Provera, pharmacy records confirming injections, and all diagnostic and treatment records related to your meningioma.
Your attorney then prepares and files a complaint in either federal or state court, detailing how Depo-Provera caused your injuries and specifying the damages you’re seeking, including medical expenses, lost income, pain and suffering, and other losses.
The appointment of Judge Rodgers, known for her efficient handling of mass tort cases, suggests this litigation may move faster than typical MDLs, which often take 3-5 years to resolve.
Her prompt selection of five pilot cases for early trials signals an accelerated timeline.
Several factors could influence how quickly cases proceed:
While no guarantees exist regarding timeframes, legal experts anticipate developments within 12-24 months, with possible settlement discussions beginning after the completion of the first bellwether trials, likely in late 2025 or early 2026.
Women considering filing should act promptly given statute of limitations concerns, as waiting too long could permanently bar their right to pursue compensation, regardless of the strength of their case.
Depo-Provera lawsuits are being filed by individuals across the country who developed meningiomas after using the contraceptive injection.
TruLaw is currently accepting clients for the Depo-Provera litigation against Pfizer.
A few reasons to choose TruLaw for your Depo-Provera lawsuit include:
If you or a loved one developed meningiomas after using Depo-Provera, you may be eligible to seek compensation.
Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page to receive an instant case evaluation that can determine if you qualify for the Depo-Provera litigation today.
More than 70 federal cases have been consolidated into the Depo Provera MDL in the Northern District of Florida under Judge M. Casey Rodgers as of March 2025.
The depo provera multidistrict litigation focuses on women who developed meningioma brain tumors after using contraceptive injections.
Women who received at least two injections of medroxyprogesterone acetate and were later diagnosed with a meningioma brain tumor may qualify to file a new depo provera lawsuit against Pfizer.
Candidates must have medical documentation confirming both their injectable contraceptive depo provera usage and meningioma diagnosis through imaging or surgical records.
The primary claims in the Depo-Provera brain tumor lawsuit center on failure to warn allegations, stating that Pfizer knew about meningioma risks but didn’t properly warn U.S. patients.
Additional claims involving prolonged Depo Provera usage include manufacturing and design defect arguments, suggesting safer alternatives were available but not promoted.
The statute of limitations for women experiencing severe headaches and other symptoms varies by state, typically ranging from 1-3 years from either your meningioma diagnosis or when you reasonably should have known about the connection to the birth control.
Some states apply a discovery rule that extends the filing deadline based on when the connection became known.
Required documentation includes medical records confirming prolonged depo provera use, pharmacy records showing injection dates, and complete diagnostic records of your meningioma.
Additional documentation should include surgical records and evidence of how the condition has impacted your quality of life.
Legal experts anticipate significant developments within 12-24 months, with depo provera lawyers suggesting possible settlement discussions beginning after the first bellwether trials in late 2025 or early 2026.
Managing Attorney & Owner
With over 25 years of legal experience, Jessica Paluch-Hoerman is an Illinois lawyer, a CPA, and a mother of three. She spent the first decade of her career working as an international tax attorney at Deloitte.
In 2009, Jessie co-founded her own law firm with her husband – which has scaled to over 30 employees since its conception.
In 2016, Jessie founded TruLaw, which allows her to collaborate with attorneys and legal experts across the United States on a daily basis. This hypervaluable network of experts is what enables her to share the most reliable, accurate, and up-to-date legal information with our readers!
You can learn more about the Depo-Provera Lawsuit by visiting any of our pages listed below:
Here, at TruLaw, we’re committed to helping victims get the justice they deserve.
Alongside our partner law firms, we have successfully collected over $3 Billion in verdicts and settlements on behalf of injured individuals.
Would you like our help?
At TruLaw, we fiercely combat corporations that endanger individuals’ well-being. If you’ve suffered injuries and believe these well-funded entities should be held accountable, we’re here for you.
With TruLaw, you gain access to successful and seasoned lawyers who maximize your chances of success. Our lawyers invest in you—they do not receive a dime until your lawsuit reaches a successful resolution!
Do you believe you’re entitled to compensation?
Use our Instant Case Evaluator to find out in as little as 60 seconds!
AFFF Lawsuit claims are being filed against manufacturers of aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF), commonly used in firefighting.
Claims allege that companies such as 3M, DuPont, and Tyco Fire Products failed to adequately warn users about the potential dangers of AFFF exposure — including increased risks of various cancers and diseases.
Suboxone Tooth Decay Lawsuit claims are being filed against Indivior, the manufacturer of Suboxone, a medication used to treat opioid addiction.
Claims allege that Indivior failed to adequately warn users about the potential dangers of severe tooth decay and dental injuries associated with Suboxone’s sublingual film version.
Social Media Harm Lawsuits are being filed against social media companies for allegedly causing mental health issues in children and teens.
Claims allege that companies like Meta, Google, ByteDance, and Snap designed addictive platforms that led to anxiety, depression, and other mental health issues without adequately warning users or parents.
Transvaginal Mesh Lawsuits are being filed against manufacturers of transvaginal mesh products used to treat pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI).
Claims allege that companies like Ethicon, C.R. Bard, and Boston Scientific failed to adequately warn about potential dangers — including erosion, pain, and infection.
Bair Hugger Warming Blanket Lawsuits involve claims against 3M — alleging their surgical warming blankets caused severe infections and complications (particularly in hip and knee replacement surgeries).
Plaintiffs claim 3M failed to warn about potential risks — despite knowing about increased risk of deep joint infections since 2011.
Baby Formula NEC Lawsuit claims are being filed against manufacturers of cow’s milk-based baby formula products.
Claims allege that companies like Abbott Laboratories (Similac) and Mead Johnson & Company (Enfamil) failed to warn about the increased risk of necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) in premature infants.
Here, at TruLaw, we’re committed to helping victims get the justice they deserve.
Alongside our partner law firms, we have successfully collected over $3 Billion in verdicts and settlements on behalf of injured individuals.
Would you like our help?