Paragard IUD Lawsuit: Copper IUD Breakage and Removal Injury Claims (MDL 2974)

What Is Paragard?

Learn more here

Reported Injuries

Learn more here

Filing a Claim

Learn more here

Table of Contents [hide]

[show]

Latest Paragard IUD Lawsuit Updates

(Copper IUD Breakage Claims, May 2026)

Our attorneys are reviewing claims from women whose Paragard copper IUD broke during removal, leaving fragments embedded in the uterus and requiring surgical retrieval, hysterectomy, or other corrective procedures.

Claims are consolidated in MDL 2974, In re: Paragard IUD Products Liability Litigation, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia before Judge Leigh Martin May.

To qualify, claimants generally need a documented Paragard removal in which the device broke, with imaging or surgical confirmation of retained fragments and a corrective procedure.

Fill out the form to check your eligibility for a free case review.

The litigation alleges that the Paragard T380A copper IUD has a design defect that causes the plastic arms to become brittle and break during removal. Plaintiffs allege the manufacturers failed to warn doctors and patients about the breakage risk.

Bellwether Track Update: The MDL is preparing for bellwether trials. Discovery has produced internal documents from Teva and predecessor manufacturers regarding device design and failure rates. Settlement discussions have not yet produced a global resolution.

Reported Injuries from Paragard Breakage

The injury pattern in Paragard cases is consistent. The device fractures during routine removal. Fragments stay behind. Without timely retrieval, those fragments can migrate, perforate, or cause infection.

The damages flow from what it takes to get the fragments out and from any complications along the way.

 

"What was supposed to be a routine removal turned into surgery, recovery, and in some cases, a hysterectomy I never wanted."

 


Paragard IUD lawsuit


Free Case Evaluation

FILL OUT THE FORM BELOW
TO REQUEST YOUR CASE REVIEW

    What Is Paragard and What Is the Alleged Defect?

    Paragard is a T-shaped copper-wire intrauterine device. It is the only non-hormonal IUD approved by the FDA in the United States. It can remain in place for up to 10 years.

    The device is constructed of a polyethylene plastic frame with copper wire wrapped around the stem and copper sleeves on each arm. The copper releases ions that prevent fertilization. The plastic frame is what allegedly causes the problem.

    Plaintiffs allege the polyethylene becomes brittle in the uterine environment over time. When the doctor pulls the strings to remove the device, one or both arms can fracture rather than fold inward as designed.

    The result: a broken IUD with fragments left in the uterus. The patient typically does not know until the doctor performs transvaginal ultrasound, hysterosalpingogram, or pelvic CT imaging to confirm the missing piece. From there, options include hysteroscopic retrieval, dilation and curettage (D&C), laparoscopic surgery if a fragment migrated through the uterine wall, or, in severe cases, hysterectomy.

    Note: this is the Paragard copper IUD litigation, not the Mirena hormonal IUD litigation. The two are separate legal tracks with different defendants (Bayer manufactures Mirena), different injury mechanisms (Mirena cases historically involved migration and pseudotumor cerebri), and different procedural posture. If your IUD was Mirena, ask a medical-device attorney to evaluate that claim separately.

    The litigation argues this failure mode is foreseeable, predictable, and known to the manufacturers, and that doctors and patients were not adequately warned.

     

    Why this litigation has traction:
    • FDA MAUDE database has logged thousands of breakage reports over the device's market life
    • Internal Teva documents discussed the breakage issue without resulting label changes
    • The injury pattern is consistent and reproducible across plaintiffs
    • Damages tend to be substantial when surgical retrieval was required

    Injuries and Outcomes Reported in Paragard Cases

    The MDL has organized claims by the severity of the corrective intervention and the long-term consequences.


    Embedded Fragments and Surgical Retrieval

    Hard Truth:    The most common claim pattern. The IUD breaks on removal. One or both arms remain in the uterine wall. Hysteroscopic retrieval under anesthesia is the typical first attempt. When that fails, dilation and curettage or laparoscopic surgery follows. Each procedure carries surgical risk, recovery time, and out-of-pocket cost.



    Uterine Perforation and Migration

    Hard Truth:    In some cases, fragments migrate through the uterine wall into the abdominal cavity. Migrated fragments require laparoscopic or open surgical retrieval. Perforation can cause bowel injury, bladder injury, or peritonitis. These cases involve longer hospitalizations, higher medical bills, and elevated complication risk.



    Hysterectomy

    Hard Truth:    When fragments cannot be retrieved through less invasive means, or when retrieval has caused complications such as scarring or infection, hysterectomy may be the only option. Loss of fertility in women who wanted future pregnancies is among the highest-value damages in the MDL. Surgical menopause where ovaries are also removed adds long-term hormonal consequences.



    Infection, Scarring, and Adhesions

    Hard Truth:    Retained fragments and the procedures needed to remove them can cause pelvic inflammatory disease, intrauterine adhesions (Asherman syndrome), and chronic pelvic pain. Some patients face fertility loss without hysterectomy because the damage to the uterine cavity is severe enough to prevent implantation.


     

    Named Defendants and Corporate Transfers

    Paragard's corporate ownership has changed over the device's market life. The litigation tracks each transfer:

    Defendants and Their Role

    Teva Pharmaceuticals

    Teva Pharmaceuticals (and its U.S. subsidiary Teva Branded Pharmaceutical Products) was the primary Paragard manufacturer through 2017. Teva acquired Paragard from Duramed Pharmaceuticals (a Barr Labs subsidiary) in 2008. Teva's marketing, regulatory communications, and label decisions during its ownership period are central to the litigation.

    CooperSurgical / The Cooper Companies

    CooperSurgical acquired Paragard from Teva in November 2017 for $1.1 billion. CooperSurgical is the current manufacturer. Its post-2017 conduct is also at issue. Both Teva and CooperSurgical are named in MDL 2974, with liability allocation depending on when each plaintiff received and removed the device.

    Predecessor Manufacturers

    Duramed and FEI Women's Health (a predecessor entity) appear in some filings. The corporate succession matters for liability allocation. Plaintiffs' counsel traces the chain of title to ensure all responsible entities are named and that bankruptcy or transfer arguments cannot defeat recovery.

    The Importance of Implant Date

    The date your Paragard was inserted determines which defendant manufactured the device. Devices implanted before November 2017 were Teva-manufactured; later devices are CooperSurgical's. Both can be named, but the case theory differs slightly. Pull your medical records to confirm the implant date.



    The MDL Structure and Why Cases Are Coordinated

    An MDL coordinates pretrial work for cases that share common questions. It does not merge them into a single class action. Each plaintiff retains her own claim, her own injury, her own settlement value.

    The common questions in Paragard: Did the device have a design defect? Did the manufacturers know about the breakage risk? Did they warn? Once those questions are addressed at the MDL level, individual cases proceed on specific causation and damages.

    Bellwether trials test the litigation. Their outcomes drive settlement. Cases that do not settle eventually return to their originating courts for individual trial.

    HARD TRUTH: Paragard cases require surgical and imaging documentation. Photographs of removed device fragments, hysteroscopy reports, and surgical operative notes are the backbone of any successful claim.



    At-a-Glance: MDL 2974

    • Case caption: In re: Paragard IUD Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2974
    • Court: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division
    • Judge: Hon. Leigh Martin May
    • Centralized: December 16, 2020, by the JPML
    • Pending cases: Continuing to grow
    • Defendants: Teva, Teva Branded, CooperSurgical, The Cooper Companies, predecessor entities
    • Bellwether status: Discovery and selection in progress; trials anticipated in coming terms
    • Once bellwether verdicts return, settlement discussions typically intensify. Until then, individual cases proceed through coordinated discovery and case-specific fact development.

    Who Qualifies to File a Paragard Lawsuit

    Eligibility centers on three things: a Paragard implant, a documented breakage on removal, and a corrective procedure. Eligibility criteria are similar to other active medical-device cases our attorneys are reviewing.


    • Paragard implant: Documented insertion of a Paragard T380A copper IUD by a healthcare provider
    • Breakage on removal: The device fractured during attempted removal; one or both arms remained in the uterus
    • Corrective procedure: Hysteroscopic retrieval, dilation and curettage, laparoscopic surgery, or hysterectomy to retrieve fragments or address complications
    • Documentation: Operative reports, imaging studies, and pathology if fragments were sent to pathology
    • Diagnosis date: Removal and corrective procedure within the applicable statute-of-limitations and discovery-rule window for your state

    Even if you do not have all the records, share what you have. Medical-record requests can fill in gaps.


    Compensation Available in Paragard Claims

    Damages cover both economic and non-economic losses.

    Economic damages: medical bills for retrieval surgery, hospitalization, follow-up care, fertility treatment if attempted, and any treatment for complications. Lost wages during recovery. Lost earning capacity if hysterectomy or chronic pain has affected your work.

    Non-economic damages: pain and suffering during the failed removal and corrective procedures, emotional distress, loss of fertility, loss of consortium, ongoing pelvic pain, and the psychological impact of an unwanted hysterectomy.

    Punitive damages: available where the evidence supports a finding that the manufacturers knew about the breakage risk and continued to market the device without adequate warnings. Internal corporate documents on the failure mode form the foundation of any punitive case.



    What Paragard Settlement Values May Look Like


    It is too early to project specific settlement tiers. Bellwether verdicts have not yet returned. Comparable IUD and pelvic-mesh cases have produced individual recoveries ranging from low five figures for cases requiring hysteroscopy alone to seven figures for cases involving hysterectomy or significant fertility loss.

    Hysterectomy cases, especially in younger women with fertility consequences, anchor the higher end. Cases where retrieval was straightforward and complication-free will sit toward the lower end.

    For broader context on injury valuation, see our explanation of what your injury case is worth and how the multiplier method and per diem method work.


    Filing Deadlines and Key Procedural Issues

    The Discovery Rule

    The SOL clock typically starts when the plaintiff knew or should have known that the broken IUD caused her injury. For most plaintiffs, that date is the day the failed removal occurred and imaging confirmed retained fragments. Some states apply additional discovery-rule analysis if the connection between breakage and ongoing complications was not immediately apparent.

    State-by-State Variation

    Product-liability statutes range from 1 year (Louisiana, Tennessee) to 6 years. Statutes of repose can also apply. Your home state determines your filing window and the substantive law applied to your case.

    Direct Filing in MDL 2974

    MDL 2974 has a direct-filing order that lets plaintiffs file in the N.D. Ga. while preserving home-state-law advantages. Direct filing avoids removal complications and locks in MDL status.

    Preemption Defenses

    The defendants have raised federal preemption arguments based on the FDA's premarket approval of Paragard as a Class III medical device. The court has addressed preemption motions in the MDL with mixed results, narrowing some claim theories but allowing others. The litigation continues despite preemption pressure.



    Defenses and Hurdles in Paragard Cases

    Three contested fronts dominate Paragard litigation.

    First, federal preemption. The defendants argue that FDA premarket approval of Paragard as a Class III device preempts state-law design and warning claims. The court has narrowed some claim theories but allowed others to proceed. Plaintiffs frame allegations around FDA-required reporting failures, manufacturing defects, and parallel state-law claims that survive preemption.

    Second, alternative cause. The defense will argue that any individual breakage was caused by physician technique, patient anatomy, or device positioning rather than design defect. Operative reports and detailed surgical records help rebut these arguments.

    Third, statute of limitations and product identification. The defense will challenge whether the device that broke was actually Paragard and whether the claim was timely. Insertion records and removal records anchor product identification.

    None of these defenses defeat the litigation. They shape timeline and per-case value. The closest medical-device parallel is the Philips CPAP recall litigation, where similar federal preemption arguments are being tested. For another reproductive-health-adjacent case involving manufacturer warnings to medical professionals, see the NEC infant formula litigation.


    How to File a Paragard Lawsuit

    The process is straightforward when you work with a firm familiar with MDL 2974.

    Step one: free case review. Share your insertion date, removal date, what happened during removal, and any corrective procedures.

    Step two: medical record collection. We pull insertion records, removal operative notes, imaging studies, and corrective procedure notes.

    Step three: filing. Most cases are filed directly in MDL 2974 in the N.D. Ga. under the direct-filing order.

    Step four: plaintiff fact sheet. The MDL requires a detailed fact sheet documenting medical history, device timeline, and damages.

    Step five: discovery and resolution. Through bellwether outcomes, individual settlement, or remand for trial.

    Contingency fee. No money out of pocket. No fee unless we recover for you.


    Time is Limited: Why Sooner Is Better Than Later

    Many states have short product-liability statutes. The discovery rule helps, but it has limits. Statutes of repose in some states cap claims regardless of when the breakage occurred. Documentation of the failed removal is easier to retrieve sooner rather than later.

    If your Paragard broke on removal and you needed corrective surgery, the case review costs nothing and clarifies your filing window. Waiting can close doors that did not need to close.



    Paragard IUD Lawsuit: Frequently Asked Questions

    Q: My Paragard broke during removal. Do I have a case?

    A:    If your Paragard T380A copper IUD fractured during attempted removal, fragments remained in your uterus, and you required hysteroscopic retrieval, D&C, laparoscopic surgery, or hysterectomy to address the breakage, you likely qualify to file a claim in MDL 2974. The strongest cases have operative reports, imaging studies confirming retained fragments, and pathology if fragments were sent to pathology. A Paragard attorney can confirm eligibility based on the specifics of your removal.

    Q: What is the average Paragard settlement amount?

    A:    A global settlement matrix has not been finalized. Bellwether trials are being prepared. Comparable copper IUD and pelvic-mesh cases have produced individual recoveries from low five figures (straightforward hysteroscopic retrieval, no complications) to seven figures (hysterectomy in younger women with fertility loss, perforation with bowel or bladder injury, or significant ongoing pelvic pain). Final values will turn on the procedure required, age at removal, fertility consequences, and ongoing complications.

    Q: I had a hysterectomy because of a Paragard breakage. What can I recover?

    A:    Hysterectomy cases anchor the higher end of the Paragard settlement matrix. Damages include the surgical costs, lost wages during recovery, ongoing pelvic pain treatment, hormone replacement therapy if ovaries were also removed, loss of fertility, the psychological impact of an unwanted hysterectomy, and loss of consortium. Younger women with documented intent to have future pregnancies recover more for fertility loss than women whose family planning was already complete. A Paragard hysterectomy lawyer evaluates each component.

    Q: My Paragard fragment migrated. Is that a different claim?

    A:    Same MDL, different injury severity. Migration cases (where a fragment moved through the uterine wall into the abdominal cavity, sometimes lodging near the bowel or bladder) typically involve laparoscopic or open surgical retrieval and can include perforation, peritonitis, or organ injury. These cases sit higher in the matrix because the medical course and recovery are more invasive. Operative records and post-op imaging are critical evidence.

    Q: I had pelvic inflammatory disease or Asherman syndrome after my Paragard. Does that count?

    A:    Yes, when the PID or Asherman syndrome (intrauterine adhesions) followed a documented Paragard breakage and corrective procedure. Chronic pelvic pain, ectopic pregnancy risk, and infertility from intrauterine scarring are recognized downstream injuries. Causation must trace from the breakage to the condition; medical records anchor the connection.

    Q: Is the Paragard lawsuit a class action?

    A:    No. MDL 2974 is multidistrict litigation, which is different from a class action. Each plaintiff retains her own individual claim, her own injury profile, and her own settlement value. The MDL coordinates pretrial work but does not merge the cases. You file individually, with the help of a Paragard IUD lawyer.

    Q: What does a Paragard lawyer cost?

    A:    Contingency fee. No upfront fees, no hourly billing, no out-of-pocket cost. The Paragard law firm only gets paid if and when you recover. The free case review puts no obligation on you.



    Talk to a Paragard Lawyer Today

    If your Paragard copper IUD broke during removal and you required surgical retrieval, hysterectomy, or other corrective treatment, you may qualify to file in MDL 2974.

    The case review is free and confidential. We handle Paragard cases on contingency. You owe nothing unless we recover compensation for you.

     

     

    References

     

     

     

     

    Free Case Evaluation

    FILL OUT THE FORM BELOW
    TO REQUEST YOUR CASE REVIEW

       

      External Resources
      Legal Representation

      "Speak with our medical-device attorneys for a free, confidential review of your potential Paragard claim. Past results vary based on the unique facts of each case."

      Find out more >>
      Let Us Help You

      "With the LawsuitLegal.com team you will receive the respect and fair treatment you deserve. Learn more about how we are changing the way law firms work, one client at a time..."

      Find out more >>