Product Liability · Paragard
Paragard IUD
MDL 2974 — copper IUD breakage on removal
The Paragard T 380A is a copper (non-hormonal) IUD manufactured by Teva Pharmaceuticals and later CooperSurgical. Patients across the country have reported that the device's plastic arms broke off during otherwise routine removal, leaving fragments embedded in the uterus or migrating elsewhere in the pelvis — often requiring hysteroscopy, laparoscopy, or in some cases hysterectomy.
Background
What this litigation is about.
Paragard was approved by the FDA in 1984 and marketed as a long-acting, hormone-free contraceptive that could stay in place for up to 10 years. Plaintiffs allege that the device's plastic T-arms become brittle over time and can fracture during removal.
In December 2020, the JPML consolidated federal Paragard cases in the Northern District of Georgia as MDL 2974 before Judge Leigh Martin May. Bellwether case selection and discovery are proceeding.
Plaintiffs allege Teva and CooperSurgical failed to warn patients and physicians about the risk of breakage on removal, and about the difficulty of retrieving retained fragments.
Reported injuries
Reported concerns and potential losses.
Device breakage on removal
One or both plastic arms fracture inside the uterus during removal.
Retained fragments
Pieces embedded in the uterine wall or migrated into the pelvic cavity.
Additional surgery
Hysteroscopy, laparoscopy, or laparotomy to retrieve fragments.
Hysterectomy
In severe cases, surgical removal of the uterus.
Infertility & fertility complications
Scarring, adhesions, or loss of reproductive capacity.
Chronic pelvic pain
Ongoing pain, bleeding, and inflammation attributed to retained fragments.
Individual review
Facts that may be relevant.
You had a Paragard copper IUD inserted and later removed (or attempted to remove).
The device broke on removal, or fragments were retained.
You required additional imaging, hysteroscopy, laparoscopy, or hysterectomy to address the injury.
You have medical records identifying the device and the removal complication.
Separate the removal event from later treatment
Pelvic symptoms can have multiple causes. Removal and follow-up records help show what clinicians actually observed and which treatments they recommended.
- Collect insertion and attempted-removal notes, device identifiers, and any description of the removed device.
- Keep ultrasound or other imaging reports and records of efforts to locate or retrieve fragments.
- Retain pathology and operative findings, including whether a fragment was found.
- Document fertility evaluations or recommendations without assuming a device caused an outcome.
Key events
A timeline of what has happened so far.
1984
FDA approves Paragard T 380A copper IUD.
2017–2020
Individual product-liability suits accumulate alleging breakage on removal.
Dec 2020
JPML consolidates federal Paragard cases as MDL 2974 in the Northern District of Georgia.
Frequently asked
Questions answered plainly.
This page is for general information only, is not legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Case statuses, MDL orders, and settlement terms change; call our office for a current review of your specific situation.
Free · Confidential · No obligation
Not sure whether you have a case? Start with a conversation.
Tell us what happened, at your pace. We will listen, answer honestly, and — if we can help — begin quietly, right away.