Motion Filed to Dismiss Paragard Lawsuits Filed Too Long After Fractured IUDs Were Removed

Manufacturers claim more than 230 women waited too long to file Paragard lawsuits over IUDs that fractured before or during removal procedures.

CooperSurgical and Teva are asking the U.S. District Judge presiding over all federal Paragard lawsuits to dismiss several hundred cases, arguing that women waited too long after the birth control IUD fractured to initiate their claims under the applicable statutes of limitations or statutes of repose.

The Paragard IUD is a small plastic device wrapped in copper, which is placed in the uterus to provide women long-acting protection against pregnancy for up to ten years.

Although, the procedure is marketed as safe and reversible, allowing doctors to remove the IUD during an out-patient office procedure when women no longer want the birth control, thousands of women are now pursuing lawsuits alleging that their Paragard IUD fractured as doctors attempted to remove the birth control implant, often resulting in the need for emergency surgery and leaving them with devastating internal injuries.

Since December 2020, all Paragard lawsuits brought throughout the federal court system have been centralized for coordinated pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, before Judge Leigh Martin May.

As part of the management of the litigation, Judge May has established a bellwether program, where a small group of representative Paragard IUD cases are being prepared for early trial dates to help the parties gauge how juries are likely to react to certain evidence and expert witness testimony that will be repeated throughout thousands of cases if Paragard settlements are not reached.

Defendants Move to Dismiss Time-Barred Paragard Lawsuits

As of September 3, there were 2,793 Paragard IUD lawsuits consolidated under Judge May. However, CooperSurgical and Teva, the device’s manufacturers, filed a motion (PDF) on September 12, asking the court to dismiss 236 of the claims, arguing that those plaintiffs took too long to file their lawsuit.

Defendants say those Paragard lawsuits were filed after various statute of limitation and statute of repose deadlines set by state laws had already expired, which require plaintiffs to file claims within a certain period of time after they knew or should have known that a medical device or other item caused them injury.

“This motion by no means addresses all untimely cases in this MDL,” the defendants state. “The cases included in this motion are those where it presently appears that (1) there is no reasonable question as to the applicable law, and (2) there is no discovery rule or the statute of repose applies.”

The lawsuits targeted by the motion were filed in the states of Alabama, Idaho, Virginia, Michigan, Mississippi, New York, Tennessee, North Carolina, Iowa, Georgia and Texas, where defendants claim the statute of limitations clock began running on the date of the removal surgery after the IUD fractured. Defendants claim that the deadline for each of these plaintiffs to bring their claims was expired before they filed a lawsuit.

September 2024 Paragard IUD Lawsuit Update

Judge May previously set the first Paragard IUD lawsuit bellwether trial to begin on October 28, 2024. However, following several delays in the pretrial proceedings, that trial was postponed earlier this year, with no new start date scheduled yet.

The parties are currently challenging the admissibility of expert witness testimony in cases eligible for the first bellwether trials, with a consolidated pretrial order deadline approaching on November 15, 2024 in cases eligible for the first bellwether trials, which likely will not get underway until the second half of 2025.

Although the outcome of these Paragard bellwether trials will not have any binding impact on other claimants, the cases are expected to have a large impact on any negotiations for a potential global Paragard IUD settlement that would avoid the need for hundreds of individual cases to be remanded back to U.S. District Courts nationwide for individual trial dates.