Depo Provera Lawsuit

Depo-Provera is a female contraceptive injection that has been around for many years. A new scientific study has shown that using Depo-Provera can cause brain tumors. Women who used Depo-Provera and subsequently developed a meningioma brain tumor can bring a Depo Provera lawsuit seeking financial compensation. This new evidence is expected to lead to a wave of Depo Provera lawsuits across the country.

This page will provide the latest news and updates on the Depo Provera lawsuits, explain how this litigation will work, and our prediction of the range of Depo Provera settlement amounts that victims can expect.

Our law firm is currently accepting Depo Provera lawsuits from anyone who used this drug at least two times and was later diagnosed with a meningioma brain tumor. If you meet these criteria, contact our Depo-Provera lawyers today at 800-553-8082 or contact us online.

Depo Provera Lawsuit News and Updates

Our firm is committed to providing victims with the latest news and information on this new litigation.

October 15, 2024: The Problem with “Benign” Brain Tumors

Calling meningiomas “benign” is like describing a ticking time bomb as harmless—just because it is not exploding now does not mean it does not upset the apple cart of your life.  Because in spite of the fact that most women do well with meningioma, you have to live with the possibility of “benign” graduating to something else.

Plaintiffs in the Depo-Provera litigation understand that these so-called “benign” tumors can quietly grow in the brain, exerting pressure on vital areas and triggering seizures, vision loss, and cognitive impairments.

Even when surgery successfully removes the tumor, the impact often lingers through chronic headaches, emotional challenges, or the need for lifelong medication. Recovery can require months away from work, along with continuous monitoring to ensure the tumor does not return. This litigation highlights that whether or not a tumor is benign, the resulting harm is undeniable. Pharmaceutical companies must be held accountable for failing to warn patients about the dangers of this ticking threat.

October 14, 2024: Depo Provera Settlement

What would a Depo Provera settlement look like?  Yes, it is too early to talk about settlement.  But women signing up for a Depo Provera lawsuit want to know that they are getting into and what they will likely be required to do to get to a settlement.

This litigation is almost certainly heading toward an MDL (multidistrict litigation), likely in both federal and state courts. Think of an MDL as a way to bundle individual cases under one roof—kind of like a class action, but with each case still standing on its own.

In an MDL, pretrial proceedings like discovery and motions are consolidated to speed things up and reduce redundancy. Lawyers test the waters with bellwether trials, early test cases that help set the tone for settlement negotiations. If those trials go really badly for Pfizer—and with the scientific evidence in these cases, that is a real possibility—the company will likely settle before there is even a first trial.

If history is any guide, most plaintiffs in the Depo Provera MDL will not need to show up in court. For most, it is submitting medical records and paperwork that is mostly done by the lawyers. Settlement payouts will probably be tiered, meaning those with confirmed meningiomas requiring surgery will get the largest settlement compensation.

We talk more about the per person settlement payouts victims might see in this litigation.

October 11, 2024: Two Shots or Four?

Depo-Provera lawyers are debating the criteria for determining eligibility in meningioma lawsuits, specifically the number of injections required to establish a causal relationship. While there is a clear dose-response relationship between Depo-Provera and the increased risk of meningioma, the precise threshold remains a subject of disagreement.

Our firm has set the criteria at two shots for two main reasons. First, the science does not definitively establish the minimum number of injections that could trigger meningioma development. With such uncertainty, it is safer to err on the side of allowing more women the opportunity to seek justice.

More importantly, the pivotal study indicates a risk ratio of 5.5, translating to a 450% increase in risk—an alarming figure that far exceeds typical risk increases seen in similar studies. Considering this elevated risk, if a woman developed meningioma after just two shots of Depo-Provera and lacks other significant risk factors—such as radiation exposure or rare genetic conditions associated with meningioma—it would be like handing a jury a jigsaw puzzle with only one piece missing. The conclusion they will almost certainly draw is that Depo-Provera is the missing piece causing the tumor.

October 8, 2024: Depo Provera Lawsuit Statute of Limitations

Many women reaching out to us are worried about the deadline for filing a Depo-Provera lawsuit.  Lawyers are always concerned about the statute of limitations.  But there should not be many statute of limitations issues in this case for women acting now.  There are two primary reasons why the statute of limitations should not be a major concern.

The first reason is the discovery rule which every state has, in varying forms. The discovery rule is a legal principle that delays the start of the statute of limitations until a plaintiff knows, or reasonably should know, about both the injury and its connection to the defendant’s conduct.

In the context of Depo-Provera meningioma lawsuits, women who developed brain tumors could not have reasonably suspected the link between their condition and Depo-Provera until recent scientific studies were published. Before these studies, neither the public nor the medical community widely recognized that Depo-Provera could be associated with brain tumors, making it unreasonable for plaintiffs to connect their diagnosis to the drug years earlier.

The second reason is the doctrine of fraudulent concealment.  We can convincingly argue that the defendants—manufacturers and marketers of the drug—willfully, intentionally, and deliberately concealed the known risks associated with long-term use of Depo-Provera.  By asserting that the defendants actively hid safety-related warnings, manipulated product labeling, and intentionally withheld crucial information regarding the dangers of intracranial meningiomas, fraudulent concealment allows the statute of limitations to be “tolled” or paused because the defendants’ deceptive actions prevented the plaintiffs from knowing about their potential claims.

October 7, 2024: Anxiety from Meningioma

As our lawyers dive deeper into these new lawsuits, we are really focusing on the pain and suffering aspect of these claims. What is it like being diagnosed with meningioma and what are victims experiencing? That is what the lawsuits will ultimately be about.

The short answer is clear: it is pretty awful. Even though these tumors are often non-cancerous, they still carry a heavy burden of anxiety, both before and after treatment. Meningiomas can cause significant anxiety due to their impact on neurological function, the possible need for surgical intervention, and general uncertainty about the future that getting diagnosed with a brain tumor brings.

Women we’ve spoken to who have signed up for this lawsuit describe intense anxiety that can disrupt day-to-day functioning and lead to significant cognitive and emotional shifts, making the anxiety all the more unbearable. Some research suggests that these emotional changes are compounded by hormonal shifts associated with the growth of meningiomas. Anxiety does not stop there—it’s compounded by the looming fear of the possibility of undergoing brain surgery, the potential for post-operative complications like hematomas, and the constant worry about whether the tumor could come back.

October 6, 2024: Depo Provera Lawsuits in Philadelphia

You are likely to see a large number of lawsuits from all over the country filed in state court in Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. Why would a case in Texas, New York, or California be filed in Pennsylvania state court?

The Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas is known for its experienced judiciary in handling complex mass tort and product liability cases, making it an attractive venue for plaintiffs’ attorneys. The court’s Complex Litigation Center (CLC) is widely regarded for its efficient management of large caseloads and has historically rendered significant verdicts and settlements in favor of plaintiffs.

Why are plaintiffs from other jurisdictions allowed to file in Pennsylvania?  One of the defendants in the litigation, Viatris Inc., has its headquarters in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania which allows plaintiffs to sue all defendants in state court in Pennsylvania.

Pennsylvania has procedural laws that provide some flexibility in consolidating cases, which can streamline litigation and make it more cost-effective for plaintiffs. Additionally, the state’s rules on expert testimony are often considered more favorable to plaintiffs, making it easier to present scientific evidence that might be challenged under stricter standards in federal court (although that does not appear to be a concern in this litigation).

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Philadelphia juries are often regarded as being particularly empathetic and fair to individuals who have suffered harm due to corporate negligence. Known for their willingness to hold large companies accountable, these juries tend to take a hard look at the impact on victims, making the city an attractive venue for plaintiffs seeking justice against powerful corporate defendants.

Our lawyers have seen time and time again how this this reputation can significantly influence the dynamics of litigation and settlement discussions. Pfizer and the other defendants may see the risk of facing a jury trial in Philadelphia as a compelling reason to make fair Depo Provera settlement offers.

So, ultimately, what our attorneys think you will see is a Depo Provera federal class action-type lawsuit (an MDL) and mini-class actions in various state courts around the country.

October 5, 2024:  When Will a Meningioma Warning Be Added?

Pfizer has already made changes to its Depo-Provera label in Europe, including a specific warning about the risk of meningiomas. But what about in the United States?  It is worth questioning why patients in Europe are receiving more detailed information about potential risks and we are not.

October 4, 2024: Risk Factors for Meningioma

Meningioma risk factors include both genetic and environmental components. The most significant genetic risk factor is neurofibromatosis type 2 (NF2), which greatly increases the likelihood of developing multiple meningiomas. Other genetic conditions associated with higher risk include Gorlin syndrome, multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 (MEN1), Turcot syndrome, Lynch syndrome, Li-Fraumeni syndrome, Cowden syndrome, and Von Hippel-Lindau disease.

Environmental factors, such as exposure to ionizing radiation, have also been strongly linked to an increased risk of meningioma, particularly in patients who have undergone radiation therapy for other conditions. Hormonal influences, particularly increased levels of progesterone and estrogen, may also play a role, as meningiomas are more commonly found in women. Additionally, prolonged use of hormonal contraceptives or hormone replacement therapy (HRT) has been associated with a higher risk of developing meningiomas.

Our lawyers are not taking cases with these exclusions.  But of the more than 150 women who have already reached out to us already, none of met any of these exclusions.

October 2, 2024: Potential Defendants For Depo-Provera Lawsuit

We added below a list of potential defendants in this litigation besides Pfizer, including the generic subsidiaries we discussed yesterday.

October 1, 2024: Lawyers Seek Compensation For Generic Depo-Provera Users

Can you sue for failure to warn if you were taking generic Depo Provera?  Usually, the answer to this question is no.  But plaintiffs’ lawyers have an argument around this problem to seek compensation for victims who used a generic.

The allegation is that Pfizer used its subsidiaries, Greenstone and Prasco, to market an “authorized generic” version of the drug. This generic is chemically identical to the brand-name product but sold under a generic label.

By doing so, Pfizer maintained market dominance and revenue while limiting liability for labeling and safety warnings, thus exposing consumers to the same risks without adequate disclosure. Plaintiffs’ attorneys will contend that even if an “authorized generic” is marketed by a subsidiary, Pfizer still has a duty to ensure that all versions of the drug, branded or not, contain appropriate warnings about known risks, such as the increased risk of meningiomas.

So these lawsuits will contend that Pfizer failed to include critical warnings about the risk of meningiomas on Depo Provera’s label, and this omission extended to the authorized generics distributed by Greenstone and Prasco.  It certainly follows that Pfizer should be liable for these failures because the authorized generic was essentially the same product under Pfizer’s control.

September 28, 2024: Projected Amount Of Depo-Provera Lawsuits

Depo Provera lawyers are trying to determine just how many possible lawsuits there could be. As we discuss in more detail below, this litigation was triggered by a study reporting that medroxyprogesterone acetate (Depo-Provera) increases the risk of meningioma by a statistically stunning 5.5 times.

So let’s walk through this.  There are approximately 2-3 million prescriptions for Depo-Provera filled annually in the United States. The overall incidence of meningioma in the US is estimated to be around 9.5 per 100,000 people per year.

If we assume that the increased risk applies uniformly to all users of Depo-Provera, then for every 100,000 Depo-Provera users, approximately 52.25 cases of meningioma could occur each year. This figure is derived by applying the 5.5-fold increase in risk to the baseline incidence rate (9.5 per 100,000).

Based on the number of victims calling our attorneys about filing a Depo Provera compensation claim, I feel like this is low. We just started talking to victims a few weeks ago and already signed up a dozen clients.  So something does not jive. But statistically, I think my logic is correct.

September 25, 2024:  Will There Be a Depo Provera Class Action Lawsuit?

Most likely, this litigation will be consolidated in an MDL. Why not a class action lawsuit?

A Depo-Provera class action lawsuit would combine all plaintiffs into a single, unified case, with one trial or settlement covering everyone.   Any compensation would be divided equally among participants, regardless of individual circumstances.  That does not work because the injuries women have suffered are so different.

An MDL works differently, allowing each plaintiff to retain their individual case, meaning their injuries and damages are evaluated on a case-by-case basis. In an MDL, pretrial proceedings are consolidated to make the process more efficient, but the cases remain separate. If a global settlement is not reached, individual cases still proceed to trial. This structure just makes more sense in a case like this.

In addition to federal MDLs, state MDLs can also be created when there are enough cases filed within a single state court system. State MDLs follow a similar process by grouping related cases under one judge for pretrial proceedings, but they remain within the jurisdiction of state courts rather than federal ones. This can happen in the Depo Provera litigation in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania , and  New York, where some of the Depo Provera corporate defendants reside so they can be sued there. In large pharmaceutical litigations like Depo-Provera, it’s common to see parallel MDLs at both the state and federal levels, each working toward a global resolution or individual trial outcomes.

September 22, 2024: Why Pfizer Should Be Responsible for the Generics It Owns

Many of the authorized generic manufacturers involved in the Depo-Provera litigation—Greenstone, Viatris, and Prasco—are either directly or indirectly connected to Pfizer, giving the pharmaceutical giant significant control over how these generics are manufactured, marketed, and labeled.

Greenstone was founded as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Pfizer and operated under Pfizer’s infrastructure, with its personnel reporting directly to Pfizer. Even after Greenstone was merged into Viatris through a spinoff in 2020, Pfizer retained a reported 57% ownership stake in Viatris, making it the majority stakeholder. Prasco, another authorized generic distributor, also relied heavily on Pfizer’s manufacturing and product pipeline to market “generic” versions of Depo-Provera.

Because Pfizer maintained control over these entities and their operations, it is reasonable to hold Pfizer responsible for any failures to warn associated with these products. Pfizer’s influence extends beyond manufacturing.  These generics did not simply replicate the original drug. They operated under Pfizer’s direct oversight, including the use of identical formulations and even infrastructure.

Plaintiffs’ lawyers can effectively argue that because these companies acted as extensions of Pfizer’s business, any failure to update the original Depo-Provera label with appropriate warnings about meningiomas applies to the generics as well. Pfizer should not be pretend it could not change the warning for the generics when it could change the warning for Depo Provera.  It would the height of insanity to let Pfizer shift liability to its subsidiaries or partners when it actively benefited from and de facto controlled their operations, creating a coordinated distribution network that profited handsomely from misleading labels across all versions of the product.

September 17, 2024: FDA Data Suggests Large Plaintiff Pool

The Depo Provera meningioma brain tumor lawsuits begin to get national attention from mass tort lawyers across the country. FDA data regarding the number of women who received the Depo-Provera birth control shot suggest that the size of the potential plaintiff pool could be very large.

July 14, 2024: Nurse Diagnosed With Brain Tumor Received Depo-Provera Injections

The New York Post recently reports on a nurse diagnosed with a brain tumor, which caused her to believe people were speaking different languages. She attributes the tumor to her use of hormone replacement therapy (HRT), Depo-Provera contraceptive injections, and IVF treatments, all containing the hormone progesterone. After experiencing severe headaches and struggling to understand speech, tests revealed a meningioma. She underwent surgery in May 2024 and is now recovering, although still dealing with memory issues.

July 12, 2024: Pfizer Yet To Make Changed To Depo-Provera Warning Label 

In response to the new evidence regarding meningioma brain tumors, Pfizer makes changes to the prescribing information and guidelines for Depo-Provera. But Pfizer has somehow not made any changes to the warning label for the drug.

April 25, 2024: Pfizer Releases Public Statement Addressing Links To Meningioma Brain Tumors 

The maker of Depo-Provera, Pfizer, released a public statement addressing the new BMJ study linking the birth control shot to meningioma brain tumors. Among other things, the statement from Pfizer indicated: “We are aware of this potential risk associated with long-term use of progestogens and, in collaboration with regulatory agencies, are in the process of updating product labels and patient information leaflets with appropriate wording.”

March 29, 2024: British Medical Journal Finds Link Between Prolonged Use Of Depo-Provera And Increase Risk Of Brain Tumors

A study published in the British Medical Journal found that prolonged use of Depo-Provera causes a significant increase in the risk of developing meningioma brain tumors. The study found that women who used Depo-Provera were more than 5 times more likely to be diagnosed with meningiomas compared to women who never used the birth control shot.

October 31, 2021: Canada Depo-Provera Class Action Reaches Settlement

A Canada-wide class action settlement was reached concerning Depo-Provera and its link to bone mineral density loss. The settlement applies to individuals who used Depo-Provera before May 31, 2010, and experienced osteopenia, osteoporosis, or fragility fractures. The settlement is awaiting approval from the Quebec Superior Court, with the claims deadline set for March 1, 2022. This development provides an important parallel to ongoing Depo-Provera litigation involving brain tumors. (Our Depo Provera lawyers are focused only on brain tumor claims.)

Depo-Provera

Depo-Provera is the brand name for medroxyprogesterone acetate. Often called the birth control shot, is an injectable form of contraception for women. It is administered by injection (in the arm or butt) every three months and provides a highly effective, long-lasting option without the need for daily attention, as long as it is taken on schedule.

Depo-Provera contains a special type of synthetic hormone called progestin. This hormone prevents pregnancy by blocking the release of eggs during ovulation and thickening cervical mucus to prevent sperm from reaching the egg It also thickens the mucus lining of the cervix which helps keep out sperm.

When administered regularly, Depo-Provera is over 99% effective at stopping pregnancy. Although Depo-Provera is approved and designed for use as a contraceptive, it is sometimes prescribed for other gynecological conditions. For example, Depo-Provera is commonly use to help treatment the symptoms of endometriosis.

Pfizer, one of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies, originally developed and patented Depo-Provera.  It was initially approved by the FDA for use in the U.S. back in 1992. Although Depo-Provera has been available in generic form for many years, most generic versions of Depo-Provera are actually still manufactured by Pfizer and then sold as generics by various companies.

Study Links Depo-Provera to Brain Tumors

In March 2024, a significant new scientific study was released which found a clear link between the use of Depo-Provera and the development of specific type of brain tumor called a meningioma. The study was published in the British Medical Journal, a very prominent and well respected medical journal.

The study investigated the relationship between the use of certain hormone medications, known as progestogens, and the risk of developing a type of brain tumor called meningioma. The research focused on a variety of progestogens, analyzing data from the French National Health Data System, which included women who had undergone surgery for meningioma in France.

The study included 108,366 women, with 18,061 women who had undergone surgery for meningioma. So this is a big study.

The findings were significant in a few areas:

• Long-term use (defined as more than one year) of specific progestogens, including medrogestone, medroxyprogesterone acetate, and promegestone, was linked to an increased risk of developing meningiomas.
• Conversely, the study found no increased risk associated with other hormonal treatments such as progesterone, dydrogesterone, and some types of hormonal intrauterine devices (IUDs).

Our lawyers review many studies in drug litigations. One of the big numbers is the odds ratio. The odds ratio represents the likelihood of developing a condition among users compared to non-users. For example, an odds ratio of 2 would mean that users are approximately twice as likely to develop the condition.

In this case, the study looked at medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA),  which is Depo-Provera.  For MPA, nine cases exposed out of 18,061 total cases (0.05%) vs. 11 controls exposed out of 90,305 total controls (0.01%). That is a stunning odds ratio of 5.55.  You rarely see a tort claim where there is a study as strong as this one.

Previous Studies Put Pfizer on Notice of a Problem

This was not the first study that suggested a risk of meningioma.  In 1983—that’s right, 1983—a study published in European Journal of Cancer & Clinical Oncology identified the presence of a high concentration of progesterone receptors  in human meningioma cells. The research demonstrated that meningioma cells possess a greater density of progesterone receptors compared to estrogen receptors.

This finding was significant because it established a biological mechanism by which progesterone could influence the growth and proliferation of meningiomas, as these receptors play a critical role in mediating hormonal signals that can affect cell growth and division.

The researchers concluded that the high presence of progesterone receptors suggests that progesterone, rather than estrogen, might be a key driver in the growth of these tumors. The study helps demonstrate that prolonged use of progesterone-based drugs like Depo Provera may significantly increase the risk of meningiomas should have been a concern as far back as 1983.

In 1991, a study published in Journal of Neurosurgery, explored the effects of mifepristone, an anti-progesterone agent, on meningiomas. Mifepristone competes with progesterone for binding to progesterone receptors, thereby inhibiting the action of progesterone on tumor cells.

The study demonstrated that mifepristone treatment resulted in a regressive effect on meningioma growth. This regression indicated that blocking progesterone receptors could effectively inhibit tumor progression, supporting the theory that progesterone plays a significant role in meningioma growth.

Because Depo-Provera contains a high dose of synthetic progesterone, it can stimulate the same receptors and potentially promote tumor growth. This finding supports the argument—as does this 1990 study—that Depo Provera could cause or exacerbate meningiomas, strengthening the causation claim in these lawsuits.

About Meningioma

A meningioma is a type of brain tumor that develops in the protective membranes that cover the brain. Meningiomas are the most common type of brain tumor, accounting for 40% of all reported tumors in the brain.

Most meningiomas are non-cancerous, but a certain percentage can be cancerous. Meningiomas are usually slow-growing tumors and may exist in the brain for many years without symptoms before being diagnosed.

Meningiomas are categorized into three different grades:

• Grade I: A totally non-cancerous meningioma that grows very slowly, accounting for 8 out of 10 cases.
• Grade II: Non-cancerous but more rapidly growing, making treatment more difficult.
• Grade III: Malignant (cancerous) tumors that grow fast and aggressively, comprising less than 2% of cases.

Usually, meningiomas are first spotted with an MRI scan and may be found by accident, especially in patients who do not show symptoms. For these patients, doctors sometimes choose to keep an eye on the tumor instead of operating right away. But if surgery is needed, doctors aim to remove the whole tumor and part of the surrounding area to prevent it from coming back.

Treatment for a symptomatic intracranial meningioma usually involves a highly invasive brain surgery known as a craniotomy, where a portion of the skull is removed to access the brain and meninges. Due to the tumor’s sensitive location, complete removal may be risky and technically challenging, often necessitating additional treatments such as radiation therapy or chemotherapy.

Given the complexity and severity of the treatment, as well as the potential for long-term neurological complications, we expect high settlement payouts for claims like this if this litigation is as successful as we expect.  But we think, as we discuss further below, all three grades are strong personal injury claims.

Depo-Provera Product Liability Lawsuits

Pharmaceutical companies, such as Pfizer, are legally obligated to ensure that their products are reasonably safe for consumers and to provide clear and accurate warnings about potential risks associated with their use. This duty falls under what is known as “strict liability” for failure to warn. It means that even if the drug itself is not inherently defective, a manufacturer can still be held liable if they fail to adequately disclose serious side effects or risks that are reasonably foreseeable.

If a drug manufacturer fails to meet this responsibility, they can be held accountable for any harm their product causes. Patients and healthcare providers rely on the safety information provided by manufacturers when making decisions about medication use. A critical component of any drug’s safety profile is the warning label, which must include all known or reasonably knowable risks. This information helps doctors make informed decisions when prescribing and allows patients to weigh the benefits and potential dangers of a drug.

In the case of Depo-Provera, the link between the drug and meningiomas was not listed as a potential risk or side effect in the drug’s warning label. Depo shot lawsuits will argue that Pfizer knew or should have known of the risks so its failure to update its warning label to reflect this potential danger makes a failure to warn claim.

If Pfizer had disclosed the increased risk of meningioma associated with their product, what would have been the outcome? Simply put: fewer sales for Pfizer. Many patients—likely most—would have opted for alternative contraceptive methods, and healthcare providers would have exercised greater caution in prescribing the drug, especially for long-term use. There are so many birth control options. Transparency about these risks could have significantly altered the decision-making process for both patients and physicians, ultimately leading to different, and apparently safer, choices.

Who Is Eligible to File a Depo Provera Lawsuit?

Our law firm is look to bring a Depo-Provera lawsuit for women who received at least two injections of the Depo-Provera birth control shot and was subsequently diagnosed with a meningioma (or other type of brain tumor). These are our firm’s minimum eligibility criteria. We talk about our thinking on this eligibility criteria in our October 11 update above.

Individuals who used the Depo-Provera birth control shot for longer time periods will have much stronger Depo shot lawsuits than those who only used it a few times. There is a dose-response relationship. But the belief is that twice is enough to have a viable claim.

Why Pfizer May Face Significant Liability in Depo-Provera Lawsuits

Pfizer’s potential liability in Depo-Provera lawsuits stems, as we have been saying, from the fact that they failed to adequately warn consumers about the risk of developing meningioma brain tumors.

Drug manufacturers are required by law to provide clear warnings about all known or reasonably foreseeable risks associated with their products. In the case of Depo-Provera, Pfizer did not include the risk of meningiomas on the drug’s warning label, despite growing evidence linking prolonged use of the birth control shot to this serious health condition.

The link between progesterone and meningiomas has been recognized or should have been recognized for decades—especially by pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer, who is responsible for conducting FDA-mandated post-market surveillance to monitor their products for potential safety concerns.

This failure to warn could expose Pfizer to significant financial liability in product liability lawsuits. Plaintiffs will argue in Depo Provera  meningioma lawsuits that if they had been informed about the tumor risk, they could have made a more informed decision about using the contraceptive. It is a pretty easy argument to make. So by never acting to update the label, it may be very easy to paint Pfizer as prioritizing profit over safety. If this argument lands with a jury, it will influence both jury perceptions and potential settlement amounts in the Depo shot litigation.

You have to remember how serious the injuries – and the fear of the injuries – are in this litigation. Ultimately, there are so many birth control options. Why pick the one that could cause you a brain tumor? Our lawyers believe this is litigation will be different from other birth control lawsuit settlements exact because the injury is both terrifying.

Depo-Provera Brain Tumor Lawsuit Settlement Amounts 

Any projection of settlement amounts for Depo Provera lawsuits should begin with some caveats.  It is very early in this litigation to provide any accurate estimate of what the potential settlement compensation for Depo-Provera brain tumor cases could be.

Settlement Predictions

Assuming the causation evidence holds up in court, our lawyers think that successful Depo-Provera brain tumor cases with significant complications could have a potential settlement value of $275,000 to $500,000. The reason for this value range being so wide is primarily due to the varying degrees of severity with meningiomas

The difference in symptoms, prognosis, and treatment options between a Grade I (non-cancerous) meningioma and a malignant Grade III meningioma is very significant. A Grade III meningioma is potentially life threatening and very serious, while Grade I meningiomas are much less damaging and usually not life threatening.

How many cases will fall in each of these categories?  At this point, we have no idea.  But our attorneys strongly believe that Grade III depo shot cases will have meaningful compensation.  The trial value of those brain cancer lawsuits—the average settlement—could be in the tens of millions.  If there is a global settlements, you will not see average payouts go that high…but these will be significant cases and some of them could settle for well over $1 million if this litigation plays out like we think it might.

Keep something else in mind. The defendant is Pfizer.  That company is worth over $150 billion. It is flush with Covid profits and has the ability to pay global settlements in the billions without breaking much of sweat.  This is a big deal. Our attorneys are involved with so many mass tort lawsuits now where the question of how much the defendant can really afford to pay creeps into the conversation.  We do not have this problem with Depo-Provera lawsuits against Pfizer.

Other Meningioma Lawsuits

A study of meningioma lawsuits provides insight into how lawyers and juries assess the severity of these injuries. The average payout for plaintiffs in these cases was over $3 million, with neurosurgery-related claims resulting in the highest settlements.

So, not to belabor the point, if lawyers like us can do their jobs and establish this apparent link between Depo-Provera and meningiomas,  the potential damages awarded could also be substantial.

How Would a Depo-Provera Class Action Lawsuit Work?

Contact Us About a Depo Provera Lawsuit

If you used Depo-Provera and were subsequently diagnosed with a meningioma or other type of brain tumor, contact our national product liability lawyers today at 800-553-8082 or contact us online.