The Paragard IUD lawsuit centers on a specific device failure: the copper T-frame or its arms break during removal, leaving fragments inside the uterus or surrounding tissue. Thousands of women have filed claims against Teva Pharmaceuticals and successor manufacturer CooperSurgical, alleging the device was defectively designed, had manufacturing defects, and came with inadequate warnings about fracture risk. Cases are consolidated in MDL 3111 (In re: Paragard IUD Products Liability Litigation, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division). As of May 2026, MDL 3111 remains in pretrial proceedings - no global settlement has been announced.
Women who experienced device fracture during removal - whether or not surgery was required to retrieve broken pieces - may have active claims. Filing windows vary by state, generally running two to four years from the date of injury or discovery. This page explains eligibility, the current MDL status, state filing deadlines, and how to connect with an attorney. This is not legal advice. Talk to a licensed attorney in your state before taking any legal action.
How Paragard Breaks: The Core Injury Mechanism
The Paragard copper IUD is a T-shaped device inserted into the uterus as long-term contraception. Unlike hormonal IUDs, it uses copper ions as the contraceptive mechanism. The device consists of a polyethylene T-frame wrapped with copper wire, with two horizontal copper-banded arms extending from a central stem.
The claim at the center of Paragard litigation involves what happens during removal. Standard removal involves a clinician grasping the attached removal string and applying steady traction. The device should slide out intact.
In thousands of adverse event reports submitted to the FDA, the arms failed to remain attached during removal. Fracture patterns include single arm breakage, bilateral arm breakage, and fragmentation of the copper-wound vertical stem. When arms or fragments remain inside the uterine cavity or perforate into surrounding tissue, retrieval requires additional procedures - hysteroscopy, laparoscopy, or in more severe cases, open surgery.
The legal claim theories run along three standard product liability pathways:
Manufacturing defect: The specific device deviated from its intended design in a way that made it more brittle or susceptible to fracture than the specification required.
Design defect: The T-arm configuration is inherently susceptible to fracture under normal removal forces, making it a product that should have been redesigned before reaching patients.
Failure to warn: Teva Pharmaceuticals - which manufactured Paragard until divesting to CooperSurgical - did not adequately disclose the known fracture risk in device labeling or promotional materials. The FDA has communicated with manufacturers about Paragard labeling and maintains adverse event data on the fracture pattern. Plaintiffs argue that fully informed physicians and patients would have made different choices about device selection, insertion, monitoring, and removal technique.
Claimants typically allege one or more of these theories depending on their specific facts and available medical records.
Who Qualifies for a Paragard IUD Lawsuit
Eligibility turns on three factors: the device, documented injury, and the filing timeline.
The device must be Paragard. Only the Paragard copper IUD is at issue in MDL 3111. Hormonal IUDs (Mirena, Kyleena, Liletta, Skyla) involve different manufacturers and separate claim theories. The Paragard device has a lot number and serial number that should appear in medical records from the insertion procedure.
Documented fracture or fragmentation. The core qualifying injury is a device fracture during or after removal:
- ·One or both copper arms breaking during a removal attempt
- ·Copper wire or frame fragments remaining in the uterine cavity after removal
- ·Retained fragments requiring surgical retrieval via hysteroscopy or laparoscopy
- ·Uterine perforation caused by fragmentation or retrieval procedures
- ·Infection, scarring, or adhesions resulting from retained fragments
- ·Documented fertility impairment linked to fracture complications
Women whose Paragard was removed without incident do not have a device fracture claim. Women whose Paragard migrated without fracture may have different claim theories - consult an attorney.
Supporting documentation matters. Operative notes, ultrasound or imaging studies showing a broken or retained device, and records of follow-up procedures are the foundation of a Paragard claim. If the removal occurred years ago, request your records promptly. Medical facilities typically retain records for 7-10 years, though retention policies vary by state and institution.
The filing window must remain open. Your claim must be filed within your state's applicable statute of limitations. See the next section for state-specific guidance.
MDL 3111 Status: Where Paragard Cases Stand in 2026
In re: Paragard IUD Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3111, is consolidated before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division. The MDL centralizes product liability cases filed in federal courts nationwide before a single judge for coordinated pretrial proceedings.
Multidistrict litigation serves several functions: it avoids duplicative document discovery (every plaintiff benefits from a single production run from CooperSurgical and Teva), it coordinates expert witness evaluation on the fracture mechanism so the science is not relitigated hundreds of times independently, and it manages bellwether trials - a small set of representative cases tried to verdict that give both sides pricing data for evaluating the broader inventory.
What MDL 3111 does:
- ·Consolidates discovery across all federal Paragard cases
- ·Coordinates expert depositions and Daubert challenges on device fracture science
- ·Manages bellwether trial scheduling and case-specific discovery for trial candidates
- ·Provides a forum for global settlement negotiations when both sides are ready
What MDL 3111 does not do:
- ·It does not resolve your individual case automatically
- ·There is no settlement fund as of May 2026
- ·Being enrolled does not mean your case has been evaluated for merit or assigned a value
- ·MDL enrollment does not pause the statute of limitations in your state
Cases filed in state courts are not part of the federal MDL and may proceed independently, though some state court judges stay proceedings pending MDL developments.
The MDL process typically moves toward resolution either through a negotiated global settlement after bellwether trials produce data, or through individual trials for claimants who opt out of any eventual settlement. No timeline for resolution should be assumed.
Last updated: May 2026.
Statute of Limitations: How Long You Have to File
The filing window for a Paragard lawsuit is governed by each state's product liability statute of limitations. A missed deadline extinguishes the right to file regardless of the claim's merits.
Statutes of limitations vary by state. The starting point of the clock depends on whether your state applies the date-of-injury rule or the discovery rule.
Date of injury rule: The clock starts on the injury date - typically the removal procedure date.
Discovery rule: The clock starts when you knew or reasonably should have known the device caused your injury. This matters when fragments were retained without immediate knowledge, or when downstream complications were not initially connected to device failure.
General windows by key state (confirm current rules with an attorney in your state):
- ·California: 2 years from injury or discovery; delayed discovery doctrine applies
- ·New York: 3 years; CPLR 214-c may apply to latent device injury - confirm with a NY attorney
- ·Texas: 2 years from injury or discovery
- ·Florida: Product liability windows have been subject to recent legislative changes; confirm current rule with a Florida attorney
- ·Illinois: 2 years
- ·Pennsylvania: 2 years with discovery rule
- ·Ohio: 2 years
- ·Michigan: 3 years
A Paragard removal that occurred more than two or three years ago is not automatically time-barred. Tolling doctrines - including fraudulent concealment, minority tolling for claimants who were under 18 at the time, and equitable tolling - can extend the window in specific circumstances. The only way to confirm your actual deadline is to consult a licensed attorney with your specific facts.
What Compensation Looks Like in Mass Tort Device Cases
No global Paragard settlement has been announced as of May 2026. Individual case evaluations in MDL 3111 are ongoing, and the MDL has not yet reached a stage where a settlement fund is being distributed.
In comparable medical device fracture litigation, individual case values have varied based on injury severity, documentation quality, and jurisdictional factors. Categories of recoverable damages in a typical product liability claim include:
Economic damages:
- ·Medical bills for the removal procedure, retrieval surgery, follow-up imaging, and related treatment
- ·Lost wages for time missed due to procedures and recovery
- ·Future medical costs if ongoing treatment is anticipated
Non-economic damages:
- ·Pain and suffering from the fracture event, retrieval procedures, and lasting complications
- ·Loss of reproductive capacity or documented fertility impairment
- ·Emotional distress and loss of enjoyment of life
In similar device fracture and IUD litigation, reported settlement ranges have varied widely - from lower five figures for cases involving uncomplicated fragment retrieval to higher six figures for cases with uterine perforation, multiple surgeries, or documented fertility loss. These ranges come from other litigations and are not a promise about what any Paragard claim is worth. Every case is evaluated on its own facts and evidence.
Paragard attorneys work on contingency. No upfront fees. The attorney's fee comes from any settlement or judgment as a percentage agreed at retention. Discuss the specific fee structure with any attorney you consult.
For perspective on how mass tort attorney matching works on the firm side, see the mass tort leads guide for law firms.
Why Acting Promptly Matters
Three practical factors make early action relevant for potential Paragard claimants:
Filing deadlines are real cutoffs. Statutes of limitations are enforced. A claim filed one day after the deadline is dismissed regardless of its merits. The specific deadline in your state, given your removal date and discovery circumstances, requires an attorney's review of your facts to confirm.
Evidence degrades. Medical facilities have varying records retention policies, typically 7-10 years but sometimes shorter. If your Paragard fracture occurred years ago, records may already be in an archive or approaching a destruction date. Imaging studies, operative reports, and device lot numbers become harder to obtain over time. If you have retained any device packaging, components, or written communications from your provider about the fracture, preserve them.
MDL timing. Mass tort cases often move toward settlement after bellwether trials give both sides pricing data. Claimants enrolled during earlier MDL phases participate more fully in the coordinated process. This is not a guarantee of better outcomes - it reflects the structure of MDL litigation.
Whether the circumstances of your Paragard removal, your documented injuries, and the law in your state support a viable claim requires an attorney's assessment. This content does not substitute for that review.
How last10legal Connects You With a Paragard Attorney
last10legal runs a tort intake path that connects claimants with participating attorneys who handle mass tort cases in their state. For Paragard claimants, the injury intake matches you with an attorney whose practice covers Paragard and MDL 3111 claims in your jurisdiction.
The process: submit basic information about your Paragard experience - the approximate removal date, whether fracture was documented, and the state where the procedure occurred. last10legal's routing checks your state, the tort vertical (Paragard, MDL 3111), and participating attorney availability before making the connection. A licensed attorney contacts you for a free initial consultation. You decide whether to retain that attorney - there is no obligation to proceed.
No upfront cost to connect. Attorneys handling Paragard cases work on contingency. last10legal is a matching service, not a law firm, and does not provide legal advice. Attorneys in the network are licensed in the states they serve.
Other mass tort resources on last10legal: