In addition to those previously filed, three new lawsuits have been filed against Teva Pharmaceuticals, the manufacturer of the intrauterine medical device (IUD) known as Paragard.

As we have written before, Paragard is a small plastic T-shaped device with a copper wire coiled around it. Recent lawsuits allege that Paragard is defective and causes serious complications and injuries. The IUD can break off or become dislodged upon removal, causing severe damage to the surrounding tissues and organs.

The first lawsuit was filed on May 11, 2020 in the US District Court for the Eastern District of California. The ten-count complaint includes claims for negligence, strict liability design defect, strict liability manufacturing defect, strict liability failure to warn, among others. The plaintiff claims that she was implanted with the IUD for approximately two years before she asked for her doctor to remove the device. When her doctor removed the IUD according to the manufacturer’s instructions, one arm of the device was missing. The doctor was eventually able to remove the stray part via a hysteroscope. The case is currently before Magistrate Judge William B. Shubb.

The second lawsuit was filed on May 26, 2020, in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiff alleges negligence, design defect, manufacturing defect, etc. In this case, the plaintiff had the IUD implanted for approximately five years before she experienced uterine pain and sought to have the device removed. However, when the plaintiff’s doctor removed the device, it was missing an arm. After an ultrasound, the plaintiff’s doctor was able to locate the dislodged arm and remove it. The plaintiff claims that the defendants “knew or should have known that Paragard can and does cause serious harm to individuals who use it, due to the risk of the Paragard’s arm breaking upon removal.” The case is currently before Judge Gregory H. Woods.

The third lawsuit was filed on May 28, 2020, in the US District Court for the Southern District of Illinois in the East St. Louis Division. Among the eleven counts in the complaint, the plaintiff alleges negligence, failure to warn, violation of consumer protection laws, and gross negligence. The plaintiff was implanted with the Paragard IUD in 2008. In 2018, when her doctor attempted to remove the device according to the Teva’s instructions, the device was missing an arm. The plaintiff underwent two procedures before the device was successfully removed. The plaintiff claims that “Paragard is inherently dangerous and defective, unfit and unsafe for its intended use.” The case was recently reassigned to Judge J. Phil Gilbert on June 24, 2020.

All three plaintiffs allege that they were in good health when the Paragard IUD was implanted. After the IUD broke off while inside each plaintiff, they all required invasive procedures to remove the displaced fragments. The plaintiffs claim that Teva Pharmaceuticals knew about the dangers of the Paragard device and failed to warn the public about its risks. While no trial date has been set in any of the three cases, they collectively demonstrate that consumers of the Paragard IUD throughout the country have experienced serious injuries due to the defects of the device.

Additionally, dozens of cases have been filed in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas (PCCP).

The Stark & Stark law firm is committed to holding drug and medical device manufacturers liable when their products improperly endanger the public. Our Paragard IUD lawyers are experienced in mass tort and class action litigation and in negotiating with medical device and pharmaceutical settlement representatives.

If you or a member of your family has suffered injuries from Paragard, you may be entitled to compensation through the litigation process or via settlement.

Please contact Stark & Stark to speak with a Paragard IUD attorney, free of charge, who can help assess any claims that you may have and to help you to understand the Paragard settlement and lawsuit process.

This blog was co-authored with Stark & Stark summer associate Yaritza Urena-Mendez.

Photo of Stefanie Colella-Walsh Stefanie Colella-Walsh

Stefanie Colella-Walsh is a Shareholder and member of Stark & Stark’s Litigation, Insurance Coverage & Liability, Intellectual Property and Mass Torts Groups where she concentrates her practice in complex litigation with a focus in mass tort and pharmaceutical litigation. She is currently involved…

Stefanie Colella-Walsh is a Shareholder and member of Stark & Stark’s Litigation, Insurance Coverage & Liability, Intellectual Property and Mass Torts Groups where she concentrates her practice in complex litigation with a focus in mass tort and pharmaceutical litigation. She is currently involved in representing numerous plaintiffs in federal and state environmental and pharmaceutical mass tort cases, as well as state and federal class action litigations based upon commercial, employment, civil rights, investments/securities and consumer fraud claims. Ms. Colella-Walsh frequently writes about timely legal and legislative developments impacting plaintiffs in mass tort and product liability actions for Stark & Stark’s Mass Tort Law Blog.

Photo of Martin P. Schrama Martin P. Schrama

Martin P. Schrama is an expert Civil Trial Attorney as certified by the Supreme Court of New Jersey. He is also the Chair and Co-Founder of the Stark & Stark Mass Tort Litigation practice, as well as a member of the firm’s Commercial…

Martin P. Schrama is an expert Civil Trial Attorney as certified by the Supreme Court of New Jersey. He is also the Chair and Co-Founder of the Stark & Stark Mass Tort Litigation practice, as well as a member of the firm’s Commercial Litigation and Intellectual Property practices.