What Is a ParaGard IUD?
A ParaGard intrauterine device (IUD) is a medical product that can provide birth control to women for up to 10 years after being inserted. Intrauterine devices are often referred to as a non-hormonal IUD option. The ParaGard device is comprised of a T-shaped plastic frame with copper wire coiled around it. The device is then inserted into the uterus and the copper wire creates an inflammatory reaction that is toxic to the sperm and eggs (ova)—preventing pregnancy.
Although the ParaGard IUD is intended to be easily removable and allow for women to conceive after the device has been removed, there can be painful complications if the device fractures or breaks. Now dozens of lawsuits are being filed by women who claim that the ParaGard broke during the removal procedure.
Injuries from ParaGard IUDs
Since 2010, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has received more than 1,600 reports of ParaGard breakage, with more than 700 reports classified as ‘serious.’ A study published by the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology found that ParaGard users may experience higher expulsion rates and unwanted pregnancies compared to other IUDs.
Other injuries from ParaGard IUDs include:
- ParaGard device becomes embedded in the uterus
- ParaGard device becoming “stuck” in the uterus
- Perforation of the uterine wall
- Movement or migration of the device which can lead to organ damage
- Device breakage during surgery
- Inflammation and other injuries from the copper left in the body
- Scarring inside of the uterus
- Possible hysterectomy or uterus removal required
- Ectopic pregnancy
- Pelvic pain
State Court Cases in Pennsylvania
Currently, 21 ParaGard lawsuits have been filed in Philadelphia in the Court of Common Pleas. The lawsuits are currently overseen by Judge Daniel Anders.
ParaGard IUDs were originally manufactured by Teva Women’s Health Inc. before the company sold the product to Cooper Pharma.
Petition to Consolidate ParaGard IUD Lawsuits Into MDL
A group of plaintiff attorneys filed a petition with the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) on September 24, 2020 to transfer the ParaGard IUD lawsuits to the United States District Court for the Central District of California for pretrial consolidation and coordination.
The petition notes that there are currently 55 lawsuits pending in 29 different judicial districts across the United States and that a multidistrict litigation (MDL) is relevant due to how similar the cases are. The lawsuits are claiming that the IUD devices were defectively designed and manufactured and that the manufacturer Teva Pharmaceuticals failed to warn that the device could break during removal and failed to warn of the device’s potential negative side effects. The petition states that “in this instance, transfer, coordination, and consolidation is appropriate because many common questions of fact and law exist, including but not limited to the following: whether ParaGard was defectively designed; whether the ParaGard lots at issue contained manufacturing defects; whether ParaGard was marketed with an adequate label; whether Defendants conducted adequate pharmacovigilance of ParaGard; and whether Defendants engaged in negligent conduct resulting in Plaintiffs’ injuries.” The JPML will consider an argument from parties involved during a hearing session scheduled for December 3, 2020, in San Antonio, Texas.
GoldenbergLaw Can Help
The Minnesota Defective Medical Device Attorneys at GoldenbergLaw has over thirty years of experience representing victims who have been harmed by a defective medical device. Contact us today and leave the sleepless nights to us.