Skip to content

Product Liability · Paragard

Paragard IUD

MDL 2974 — copper IUD breakage on removal

Active MDLIn re: Paragard IUD Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2974 (N.D. Ga., Hon. Leigh Martin May).

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

Complications documented in this litigation.

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.

Who may qualify

An honest self-check.

  • 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.

Key events

A timeline of what has happened so far.

  1. 1984

    FDA approves Paragard T 380A copper IUD.

  2. 2017–2020

    Individual product-liability suits accumulate alleging breakage on removal.

  3. Dec 2020

    JPML consolidates federal Paragard cases as MDL 2974 in the Northern District of Georgia.

  4. 2023–2026

    Bellwether selection, discovery, and pre-trial motion practice ongoing.

Frequently asked

Questions answered plainly.

Information current as of 2026. 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.