Paragard Lawsuit | Paragard IUD Lawsuits
- Last Updated: July 14th, 2025
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.
Legally Reviewed
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.
Fact-Checked
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.
Paragard lawsuits filed for women experiencing a break in the Paragard IUD birth control device during removal causing painful complications and removal surgery.
The Teva Paragard IUD birth control device has been linked to a defect which can cause the device to break during removal and embed in the uterus requiring a painful removal surgery.
Currently there are two FDA approved IUDs available in the U.S. today – the copper T-380A (Paragard) and the levonorgestrel intrauterine system (Mirena).
Both are now subjects of support groups and lawsuits filed by women that believe they should be removed from the market.
Although IUDs are the most widely used method of reversible contraception in the world today, women in the U.S. use them at smaller rates because of negative repercussions that started with the Dalkon Shield in the 1970’s.
The Dalkon Shield hit the market in the late 1960s and early 1970s and became known as a “veritable instrument of torture.”
The public learned very quickly that the Shield was not effective at birth control and it was dangerous.
The string that was supposed to be used in removal of the medical device deteriorated inside women’s bodies resulting in infections, sometimes deadly.
Although many argue that current medical devices face more regulation since the Dalkon Shield came to market prior to the regulation of medical devices in 1976.
This is simply not true.
Many medical devices on the market today, including Paragard, were able to avoid extensive clinical testing because they were grandfathered in through the 510(k) Clearance process.
The FDA 510(k) clearance process “lacks the legal basis to be a reliable premarket screen of safety and effectiveness” according to the Institute of Medicine (IOM).
Although IOM was appointed by the FDA in 2011 to tackle the important issue of patient safety, the recommendations that resulted have not been acted upon in any substantial way by the FDA.
For this reason, women must receive full information about the risks an IUD carries before they make important health decisions.
Table of Contents
What is the Paragard IUD?
The Paragard IUD is marketed as a simple, safe, hormone free, and effective intrauterine device.
The T-shaped device is made of plastic and then wrapped with copper.
This long-term birth control device is placed in the uterus in minutes during a regular office visit to the doctor and is supposed to last for ten years.
Removal is marketed as a nonsurgical procedure done in just a few minutes during an office visit.
According to the manufacturer, the copper in Paragard interferes with sperm so that it does not reach the egg.
At over 99% effective, Teva claims Paragard prevents pregnancies as well as sterilization.
But, according to a Facebook group with more than 11,000 members, complications due to copper toxicity and breakage of the device happen more frequently than Teva warns women.
According to this Facebook page, the side effects of this medical product are not worth it – these prior users are warning other women, when it comes to Paragard – “Don’t get one”
Paragard Lawsuits Filed
Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc, the manufacturer of Paragard, is currently facing lawsuits alleging that it inadequately warned that its Paragard intrauterine contraceptive device could break during removal.
According to the Paragard lawsuit, the break during removal can lead to a painful removal surgery when the device ultimately embeds in the uterus.
Paragard lawsuits allege that Teva put women at risk as a result of a defect in the device. Teva continues to risk our reproductive health by not warning women of this risk.
Was Teva Warned of the Risk of Paragard Complications?
According to Paragard lawsuits, Teva knew that Paragard can and does cause serious harm to individuals who use it through undetected breakage while implanted or breakage while being removed.
Further, Teva knew of the risk from the trials they performed and post-marketing experience and complaint but took no action to adequately warn women of these dangers.
In 2015, the Open Journal of Clinical & Medical Case Reports published a study of physicians within a three-year time frame in a single gynecological practice in Chicago.
This study found seven issues over the course of three years with all but one requiring hysteroscopic removal of the IUD’s arm. One 28-year old client was unable to completely remove the broken arm, despite the use of operating room procedures.
This Chicago study suggested that, while still rare, the complications from Paragard are under reported.
Furthermore, this study found that broken IUDs present a unique challenge to practitioners because the blind removal anticipated by the manufacturer is not possible.
Studies and real-life events shared on the Facebook page similarly show that even when women follow all of the proper procedures, attempts to remove the IUD intact by pulling the threads, can be unsuccessful and may result in serious side-effects.
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!
Additional Paragard Lawsuit resources on our website:
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!
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.
Depo Provera Lawsuit claims are being filed by individuals who allege they developed meningioma (a type of brain tumor) after receiving Depo-Provera birth control injections.
A 2024 study found that women using Depo-Provera for at least 1 year are five times more likely to develop meningioma brain tumors compared to those not using the drug.
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?
