Lawsuit Over Paragard IUD Removal Risks Results in Defense Verdict

Case was first of three scheduled Paragard IUD lawsuits to go to trial this year, as part of an effort to test how juries respond to allegations that the birth control implants can break upon removal and migrate throughout the body.

The first Paragard IUD bellwether trial has ended in a defense verdict for Teva Pharmaceuticals, after a jury rejected claims that the manufacturer was liable for injuries a woman suffered after the birth control device broke during a removal procedure.

The trial involved claims brought by Pauline Rickard, who indicated she suffered significant pain and medical complications when doctors tried to remove the Paragard implant from her body. Her case is one of more than 3,800 Paragard IUD lawsuits pending in the federal court system, each raising similar allegations that the manufacturers sold a defective device and failed to adequately disclose risks associated with Paragard removal procedures.

The Paragard is a copper-based intrauterine device (IUD) designed to provide long-term birth control and prevent pregnancy for up to a decade. Despite Teva Pharmaceuticals marketing the implant as a safe and reversible form of contraception, the lawsuits allege that the Paragard is prone to breaking under the stress of the removal process, resulting in pieces of the device being imbedded into the uterus.

Plaintiffs like Rickard say the problems forced them to undergo invasive surgical procedures to retrieve retained fragments, resulting in pain, bleeding, fertility complications and other long-term injuries. The complaints contend that the manufacturer failed to adequately warn patients and the medical community about these risks, did not design the device to allow for safe and complete removal, and failed to provide physicians with proper instructions for removal.

Due to common questions of fact and law, all federal Paragard IUD lawsuits have been consolidated into a multidistrict litigation (MDL) under U.S. District Judge Leigh Martin May in the Northern District of Georgia for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

Early in the litigation, Judge May ordered parties to focus on preparing a small group of representative cases for a series of bellwether trials, which are designed to help gauge how juries may react to certain evidence and expert witness testimony likely to be repeated throughout the litigation.

First Paragard Trial Ends In Defense Verdict

The bellwether framework has now been put to its first test. After a two-week trial in federal court in Atlanta involving the claims brought by Pauline Rickard, a jury returned a defense verdict (PDF) on Wednesday, finding Teva Pharmaceuticals was not liable for her alleged Paragard-related injuries.

Specifically, the jury found Teva was not liable for:

• Strict liability failure to warn
• Negligent failure to warn
• Strict liability defective design
• Negligent design
• Negligent misrepresentation
• Fraudulent omission

Since the jury rejected all liability theories, it did not proceed to consider damages. However, the verdict form outlines the questions jurors would have been required to answer had Teva been found liable on any claim, highlighting the potential stakes of future bellwether trials.

Those questions included determining the amount of compensatory damages needed to fairly compensate the plaintiff for past pain and suffering, mental anguish, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life and medical expenses. Jurors also would have been asked to decide whether punitive damages were warranted, including whether Teva’s conduct involved intentional harm or was motivated by unreasonable financial gain despite knowledge of a high likelihood of injury.

Two more Paragard IUD bellwether trials are expected to follow, involving similar claims by Alisa Robere and Melody Braxton. The second bellwether trial is currently scheduled to begin on March 3, 2026, with the third trial set for May 11, 2026.

While the outcome of the Paragard bellwether trials will not be binding on other claimants, the cases are expected to have a large influence on any negotiations for a potential global Paragard IUD settlement that would avoid the need for each individual case to be remanded back to U.S. District Courts nationwide for individual trial dates in the coming years.