Paragard Lawsuit | Paragard IUD Lawsuits

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”

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.

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.