Depo-Provera Lawsuit

Depo-Provera, a birth control injection made by Pfizer, has been linked to a risk of developing intracranial meningiomas, a type of brain tumor.

If you or somebody you know was diagnosed with a brain tumor (meningioma) after using Depo-Provera birth control injections, contact the attorneys at Harding Mazzotti, LLP for a free case consultation at 1-800-LAW-1010.

 

What is Depo-Provera?

Depo-Provera is the brand name of an injectable birth control medication called medroxyprogesterone acetate. There are two forms of the medication: one is administered by a medical care provider through intramuscular injections, and the other, can be administered at home by the patient through subcutaneous injections under the skin. These two forms of the same drug come in different dosages, with the intramuscular injection being a higher dose.

Because the drug prevents pregnancy without needing to take birth control pills every day, Depo-Provera is a popular method of contraception. It’s also frequently administered to women who wish to limit their exposure to medications containing estrogen.

What are the side effects of Depo-Provera?

While the side effects of Depo-Provera vary depending on dosage and individual physiology, there are some common side effects of the birth control that are well-documented. Some common side effects include irregular vaginal bleeding, abdominal pain, headache, weakness, tiredness, nervousness and dizziness. However, there is a side effect that is much more serious than the ones the manufacturer has warned about.

The most worrying of the potential side effects of Depo-Provera is the risk of intracranial meningioma, which is a type of brain tumor. The British Medical Journal recently published a study linking the use of progestogens, such as Depo-Provera, to certain types of meningiomas. In particular, injectable medroxyprogesterone acetate was associated with increased risks of intracranial meningioma. These findings were published in early 2024 and have led to lawsuits being filed against the manufacturer of Depo-Provera, Pfizer. Eventually, this culminated in the creation of a multidistrict litigation (MDL).

Study Links Progestogen Use to Increased Chance of Benign Brain Tumor (Meningioma)

A small number of high-dose progestogens have been associated in the past with an elevated risk of meningiomas, a common form of brain tumor. Now, a recent observational study comprising over 100,000 participants in France found that other types of progestogens are also associated with a higher chance of developing these brain tumors. Specifically, the study found an increased risk with the use of injectable medroxyprogesterone acetate, the active ingredient in Depo-Provera.

The study revealed that of the 18,061 participants who had intracranial surgery for meningioma, those who had used medroxyprogesterone acetate for 12 or more months had a 5.6 times higher risk of developing a brain tumor.

About Meningiomas

Meningiomas are primary central nervous system tumors that begin in the brain or spinal cord.  Intracranial meningiomas develop in the layers of tissue encompassing the brain. Meningiomas make up nearly 30% of all brain tumors. If the meningioma causes symptoms or shows signs it is growing, surgical removal is often recommended.

Signs of Meningioma Brain Tumors

The symptoms of a meningioma vary depending on the location, size, and growth rate of the tumor. However, symptoms commonly include:

• Headaches that are worse in the morning
• Seizures
• Blurry vision or double vision
• Weakness in the arms or legs
• Numbness
• Hearing loss
• Loss of smell
• Memory loss

What is a mutlidistrict litigation (MDL)?

A multidistrict litigation, or MDL, occurs when a federal court assigns multiple cases for the pretrial process to a single federal judge because they share one or more common questions of fact.  When federal civil cases filed in one district have common questions of fact with other cases filed in different districts, the plaintiffs, defendants, or the Court can start the process to form an MDL.  The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) makes the ultimate decision whether an MDL will be formed.  If an MDL is formed, all federal cases involving the common question(s) of fact are transferred to the MDL court for pre-trial proceedings, but they all retain their individual identity. Important pretrial proceedings include discovery, the litigation phase where parties exchange information relevant to the case, and motion practice, which involves applying the law to the common facts.  Having all of these issues decided by a single District Court provides for a more efficient process.  If the cases are not resolved within the MDL setting, each case is returned to its home district, where it was initially filed or would have been filed if sued directly in the MDL due to a direct filing order.  This differs from a class-action lawsuit. In a class action lawsuit, numerous individual claims are combined into a single lawsuit where a few plaintiffs represent the “class” as a whole.   This is done when joining all members of the class is impractical, there are common questions of fact or law, the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class, and the class members have been harmed in a similar way by the same defendant.

Pfizer Lawsuit

Soon after the British Medical Journal published the findings of the progestogen/meningioma study, lawsuits were filed against Pfizer on behalf of patients who developed an intracranial meningioma after taking Depo-Provera 150 mg/mL.

February 7, 2025 – MDL Created

The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) created an MDL on February 7, 2025 to address the common issues of law and fact in the many cases against Pfizer. The MDL is entitled MDL 3140 In RE: Depo-Provera (Depot Medroxyprogesterone Acetate) Products Liability Litigation.   The order created an MDL by consolidating twenty-seven actions across eight different districts. The JPML decided that the litigation would be transferred to the Northern District of Florida with the Honorable M. Casey Rodgers presiding.

February 23, 2025 – Pilot Cases Decided, Case Management Order No. 1 Issued

The Court has advised all parties that there will be a designated page for MDL 3140 on its public website, found here. Case Management Order No. 1 was also been issued, which highlighted five key “Pilot cases” that will be used to decide the common points of law. The Court believes that these five cases will identify the most common issues between all current and future cases and seeks to accomplish some of the work of the MDL using these models. The Court also outlined the desire to hold regular conferences regarding the discovery process. Discovery is a process in civil law where the parties in litigation obtain evidence from other parties. While there are many different forms of discovery, the Court believes that conferences will be the most efficient and productive way to achieve the goals of the MDL.

March 1, 2025 – Appointment of Special Master, Data Administrator

Pretrial orders No. 6 and 7 were entered, which appoint the Special Master and Data Administrator for MDL 3140. The Special Master is intended to carry out specific orders on behalf of the Court. These duties can include performing investigative work, managing disputes, and ensuring compliance with judicial orders. The Honorable David Herndon will be the Special Master for this MDL and will thus be responsible for the duties aforementioned as well as any other duties mandated by the Court. The Data Administrator is in charge of creating and maintaining data collection procedures, including data from both the Plaintiffs and third parties, and hosting a repository for any materials collected in discovery. BrownGreer PLC, a professional service firm, has been appointed as the Data Administrator. The Honorable M. Casey Rodgers hopes that the appointment of a Data Administrator will more effectively allow for data to be shared and monitored while also reducing redundancies in record-keeping.

March 9, 2025 – Applicants For Plaintiffs’ Leadership Positions Invited To Make Oral Presentations

The Court invited the attorneys who submitted applications for plaintiff leadership positions to make oral presentations in support of their applications.  Rosemarie Riddell Bogdan, partner of Harding Mazzotti, LLP, is one of these attorneys.  The Honorable M. Casey Rodgers will hear presentations from these individuals at a case management conference. The Court hopes that these attorneys will identify one key aspect of the case that they personally believe to be the most important aspect of the MDL.

March 11, 2025 – Appointment of Common Benefit Special Master

The Court determined that the appointment of a Common Benefit Special Master would be necessary for the “fair and efficient management of the Common Benefit Fund for this litigation”. The Common Benefit Fund is a common feature of many MDLs. Its purpose is to properly compensate attorneys who work for the common benefit of all Plaintiffs. The Honorable M. Casey Rodgers appointed Randall Sansom to be the Common Benefit Special Master. He will be in charge of maintaining the fund and ensuring a just distribution of its resources as the litigation progresses.

March 14, 2025 – Deposition Announced

The Court released the framework for what deposition will look like in the first phase of discovery in the MDL. A Deposition is the process of taking a witnesses’ out-of-court testimony and to use it in legal proceedings. The Honorable M. Casey Rodgers allotted seven hours of examination per deposition day consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30. This time should allow for the thorough and proper examination of all deponents and gather relevant information during discovery regarding the case.

March 16, 2025 – Leadership Appointments

The Court appointed Plaintiff’s Leadership from the pool of attorneys who made oral presentations to supplement their leadership applications.  Rosemarie Riddell Bogdan, Partner of Harding Mazzotti, LLP, was one of the attorneys selected to serve on the Science and Experts Subcommittee. The Court outlined the leadership responsibilities of  all the committees, subcommittees, and leaders of the Plaintiffs, providing the attorneys with their tasks in the upcoming litigation. The Science and Experts subcommittee has a pivotal role in the litigation as it is responsible for organizing and coordinating expert discovery and Rule 26 disclosures.

April 21, 2025 – Greenstone and Viatris Remain MDL Defendants

Today, the Court ordered that Greenstone LLC and Viatris Inc., two companies that make a generic version of Depo-Provera, would remain as co-Defendants in the MDL along with Pfizer. These companies made “authorized generics”, or AGs, and are thus also deemed as potentially liable for any damages to the women who took the generic versions of Depo-Provera. The Court does continue to encourage the Plaintiffs’ leadership to work toward a stipulation with Greenstone and Viatris to result in the dismissal of both parties from the Defendants. However, the Court also acknowledged that such a stipulation may not to occur and therefore, these AGs are expected to cooperate and participate fully in discovery.

May 6, 2025 – Plaintiff Proof of Use/Injury Questionnaire Required

The Honorable M. Casey Rodgers ordered that all Plaintiffs with pending actions in this MDL submit a “Plaintiff Proof of Use/Injury Questionnaire” to better provide documented proof of use of Depo-Provera and occurrence(s) of meningioma. This is considered by the Court to be “threshold documentation”, which will serve as an effective tool to manage all Plaintiffs in the MDL. The BrownGreer MDL Centrality system will be used to upload this documentation. Any deficiencies that BrownGreer identifies in the documentation will have the opportunity to be remedied. Should the deficiency not be remedied, the Court may take initiative to remove the action in question from the MDL due to failure to meet the threshold documentation requirements. Because a party may face difficulty obtaining proof of Depo-Provera use due to its administration being long ago, the Court has stated that it will consult with these parties to better understand the scope of the issue. However, the Court does remind all parties that long-ago use does not excuse any party from obtaining proper documentary proof.

May 12, 2025 – Potential Deficiencies Identified in Complaints

The Court released a list of four requirements in order to avoid deficiencies in Plaintiff complaints. The five key components that must be proved are requisite physical injury (i.e., meningioma), requisite product (i.e., Depo-Provera or AGs), the citizenship of the Plaintiff, and the citizenship of each named Defendant. In addition, for Plaintiffs who direct-filed, there is an additional requirement: the Designated Forum. Like the “Plaintiff Proof of Use/Injury Questionnaire”, BrownGreer will review for deficiencies and notify Plaintiffs if a deficiency is detected. An amended complaint can then be submitted; if proper action is not taken in a timely manner, the Court may dismiss the Plaintiffs ‘ claims.

June 11, 2025 – Case Management Order No. 3 Released

In the Case Management Order released today, the Court noted that the third Case Management Conference proceeded smoothly. The Plaintiffs indicated that they anticipate a stipulation will be reached in the coming weeks, which will result in authorized generics, Greenstone, Viatris, and Prasco, being released from the litigation.  There was also considerable discussion regarding cases where obtaining records of long-ago Depo-Provera use is difficult. The Court instructed any Plaintiffs experiencing roadblocks or difficulties obtaining records to raise these issues as soon as possible so that deficiencies are not detected later in litigation. The next Case Management Conference is scheduled to be held in mid-July, pending continued progress as planned.

July 7, 2025 – Defendants are Ordered to File General Answers

As the case continues to progress, the Court has recognized the need for the Defendants to file a “master answer” to all complaints currently pending in the MDL. The Honorable M. Casey Rodgers believes that each Defendant filing a “master answer” will alleviate significant burdens on all parties and expedite the litigation.

The Court views a General Answer as the most effective way to address the potential problems that may persist if individual responses to each complaint are filed. Each Defendant is therefore now required to submit a General Answer and enter it into the master docket for the MDL. The Plaintiffs have agreed to support the use of a General Answer.

Get Help from an Experienced Depo-Provera Lawyer

If you or a loved one was diagnosed with a brain tumor (meningioma) after using Depo-Provera birth control injections, contact the defective drug injury lawyers at Harding Mazzotti, LLP today for a free case evaluation. Click, Chat, or call 1800LAW1010 24/7 for a free consultation.