Attorney Jessie Paluch, founder of TruLaw, has over 25 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: What is the lawsuit against the Depo Shot?
Answer: The lawsuit against the Depo Shot (Depo-Provera) alleges that Pfizer failed to warn users about the increased risk of meningiomas associated with long-term use of their birth control drug.
Studies have shown that using Depo-Provera for over a year can increase the risk of developing meningiomas by up to 5.6 times.
Plaintiffs are seeking compensation for medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering resulting from Pfizer’s alleged negligence in not disclosing these serious health risks.
Individual claims have been filed nationwide against Pfizer Inc., the manufacturer of Depo-Provera, and other associated entities.
On this page, we’ll discuss this question in further depth, an overview of the Depo-Provera lawsuit, steps to file a Depo-Provera shot lawsuit, and much more.
The basis of these legal actions focuses on the manufacturer’s negligence and failure to adequately disclose the risks of developing brain tumors to plaintiffs using the Depo Provera shot.
A study published in the British Medical Journal found that women injected with medroxyprogesterone acetate (the active ingredient in Depo-Provera shots) had a 5.6-fold higher risk of developing meningiomas (brain tumors).
The defendants named in these lawsuits include:
The litigation is still in the early stages, with more lawsuits expected to be filed as awareness of the potential link between Depo-Provera and brain tumors increases.
If you or a loved one developed severe health conditions 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 learn if you qualify to file a Depo-Provera lawsuit today.
The lawsuit against the Depo-Provera shot centers on claims that the birth control injection, manufactured by Pfizer, has led to severe and lasting health complications for some users.
Plaintiffs argue they were not adequately warned about the risks of taking Depo-Provera.
The Depo-Provera shot has been linked to a variety of side effects, some of which may have serious long-term consequences for users.
Individuals who have received this contraceptive injection may experience the following:
These side effects vary widely in intensity, with some users experiencing only minor symptoms while others face more severe, life-altering health impacts.
As litigation progresses, affected individuals are seeking compensation for medical costs, pain and suffering, and other damages associated with the side effects of this birth control shot.
Extensive research and scientific studies have explored the potential health risks associated with Depo-Provera, with findings suggesting significant concerns for long-term users.
The data collected from various studies have raised alarms about potential links between Depo-Provera use and serious medical conditions, including bone density loss and neurological impacts.
Plaintiffs in these lawsuits cite this growing body of research to argue that they were not adequately warned about severe risks, including the possibility of brain tumors and other life-altering complications.
These scientific findings are critical to ongoing legal arguments that aim to hold the manufacturer accountable for any associated harm.
Recent scientific studies indicate a possible association between Depo-Provera use and an increased risk of certain types of brain tumors.
Though more research is needed to establish causation conclusively, studies have found that users of progestin-based contraceptives, like Depo-Provera, may face a higher risk of developing brain tumors such as meningiomas.
Meningiomas are typically benign but can lead to severe complications, including headaches, vision changes, and neurological deficits, particularly if they grow or are located near critical areas of the brain.
The presence of progestin, a hormone in Depo-Provera, is thought to stimulate meningioma growth in individuals predisposed to these tumors.
Findings from studies linking Depo-Provera to brain tumor risks include:
Although a definitive cause-and-effect relationship has yet to be proven, the association between Depo-Provera and meningiomas is becoming a pivotal area in litigation.
Depo-Provera lawyers argue that had they been informed of this risk, then plaintiffs may have opted for alternative forms of contraception.
In addition to the potential brain tumor risk, Depo-Provera has been linked to various other severe health risks that can significantly impact a patient’s quality of life.
Long-term users of the drug report conditions that affect their bone health, cardiovascular health, and even metabolic balance.
These severe risks have led to heightened scrutiny of the contraceptive injection Depo Provera in medical and legal circles, with numerous studies suggesting that the risks may outweigh the benefits for some patients.
Some of the major health risks associated with Depo-Provera include:
These health risks underscore the importance of thorough medical counseling before using Depo-Provera birth control, especially for patients who may have predisposing factors for these conditions.
The lawsuit argues that Depo-Provera’s manufacturer failed to provide adequate warnings and research to ensure patient safety.
If you or a loved one developed severe health conditions 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 learn if you qualify to file a Depo-Provera lawsuit today.
As Depo-Provera lawsuits continue to grow, an expanding list of defendants includes companies involved in the drug’s manufacturing, marketing, and distribution.
The primary manufacturers and distributors named in federal lawsuits include:
Numerous federal lawsuits have been filed across the U.S., with plaintiffs pursuing claims against Depo-Provera’s manufacturers in states including California, Indiana, and Texas.
The following are notable individual claims filed in federal courts against Depo-Provera manufacturers:
With similar claims emerging by Depo-Provera users across various federal courts, these cases may be consolidated into a multi-district litigation (MDL) to streamline the legal process.
Consolidation through MDL allows for shared handling of evidence and witness testimony, which can increase efficiency and consistency in addressing plaintiffs’ claims nationwide.
If you or a loved one developed severe health conditions 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 learn if you qualify to file a Depo-Provera lawsuit today.
If you or a loved one have experienced severe health complications due to Depo-Provera use, filing a lawsuit may provide an opportunity to seek compensation for medical expenses, lost wages, and other damages.
Legal action involves several steps, including assessing eligibility and gathering evidence to strengthen your claim.
To qualify for filing a Depo-Provera lawsuit, plaintiffs must meet specific criteria to demonstrate that their health complications are directly linked to the contraceptive shot.
Plaintiffs should generally consider the following eligibility factors:
Meeting these criteria can improve the strength of your lawsuit and demonstrate that Depo-Provera’s side effects substantially impact your health.
Consulting with an experienced product liability lawyer at TruLaw can provide an instant case evaluation and additional guidance on building a case.
Building a strong Depo-Provera lawsuit involves compiling comprehensive evidence to establish a link between Depo-Provera use and your health complications.
Evidence gathering is a critical step, as it forms the foundation of your case and can significantly influence the outcome.
To prepare for your claim, gather the following key evidence:
If you or a loved one developed severe health conditions 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 learn if you qualify to join others in filing for the Depo Provera meningioma lawsuits today.
The lawsuit against Depo-Provera primarily alleges that prolonged use increases the risk of developing meningiomas (brain tumors). Studies show women injected with the active ingredient had a 5.6-fold higher risk of developing these brain tumors.
Pfizer Inc. is the primary defendant as the main manufacturer of Depo-Provera, along with other companies, including Viatris Inc., Greenstone LLC, and Prasco Laboratories.
These companies manufacture and distribute both brand-name and generic versions of the drug.
The Depo-Provera lawsuit statute varies by state, typically ranging from one to six years.
This period generally begins either from the date of injury or from when the plaintiff reasonably became aware of the connection between Depo-Provera use and the development of a brain tumor or other serious health condition.
No, there is no current Depo-Provera class action lawsuit.
Instead, individual claims are being filed in federal courts nationwide.
This increase in individual claims may eventually lead to the consolidation of cases into a mass tort or multidistrict litigation (MDL), where each plaintiff’s claim is treated individually within a coordinated legal process.
Unlike a class action, where plaintiffs are grouped into a single lawsuit with a shared outcome, mass torts allow each claim to be evaluated based on its unique circumstances and damages.
In 1978, the FDA refused the request of Depo-Provera’s manufacturer, the Upjohn Company, to approve the drug for contraception in the U.S.
However, it was approved and used for treatment of endometrial and renal cancer during that time.
After further studies and evaluations, the FDA approved Depo-Provera for contraceptive use in 1992.
Therefore, while it was not banned, its approval for contraceptive purposes was delayed due to earlier safety concerns.
Experienced Attorney & Legal SaaS CEO
With over 25 years of legal experience, Jessie 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 reliable legal information with her 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?