August 15, 2020

Volume X, Number 228

August 14, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

August 13, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

August 12, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Paragard IUD Alleged to Cause Serious Injuries

In addition to those previously filed, three new lawsuits have been filed against Teva Pharmaceuticals, the manufacturer of the intrauterine medical device (IUD) known as Paragard.

As we have written before, Paragard is a small plastic T-shaped device with a copper wire coiled around it. Recent lawsuits allege that Paragard is defective and causes serious complications and injuries. The IUD can break off or become dislodged upon removal, causing severe damage to the surrounding tissues and organs.

The first lawsuit was filed on May 11, 2020 in the US District Court for the Eastern District of California. The ten-count complaint includes claims for negligence, strict liability design defect, strict liability manufacturing defect, strict liability failure to warn, among others. The plaintiff claims that she was implanted with the IUD for approximately two years before she asked for her doctor to remove the device. When her doctor removed the IUD according to the manufacturer’s instructions, one arm of the device was missing. The doctor was eventually able to remove the stray part via a hysteroscope. The case is currently before Magistrate Judge William B. Shubb.

The second lawsuit was filed on May 26, 2020, in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiff alleges negligence, design defect, manufacturing defect, etc. In this case, the plaintiff had the IUD implanted for approximately five years before she experienced uterine pain and sought to have the device removed. However, when the plaintiff’s doctor removed the device, it was missing an arm. After an ultrasound, the plaintiff’s doctor was able to locate the dislodged arm and remove it. The plaintiff claims that the defendants “knew or should have known that Paragard can and does cause serious harm to individuals who use it, due to the risk of the Paragard’s arm breaking upon removal.” The case is currently before Judge Gregory H. Woods.

The third lawsuit was filed on May 28, 2020, in the US District Court for the Southern District of Illinois in the East St. Louis Division. Among the eleven counts in the complaint, the plaintiff alleges negligence, failure to warn, violation of consumer protection laws, and gross negligence. The plaintiff was implanted with the Paragard IUD in 2008. In 2018, when her doctor attempted to remove the device according to the Teva’s instructions, the device was missing an arm. The plaintiff underwent two procedures before the device was successfully removed. The plaintiff claims that “Paragard is inherently dangerous and defective, unfit and unsafe for its intended use.” The case was recently reassigned to Judge J. Phil Gilbert on June 24, 2020.

All three plaintiffs allege that they were in good health when the Paragard IUD was implanted. After the IUD broke off while inside each plaintiff, they all required invasive procedures to remove the displaced fragments. The plaintiffs claim that Teva Pharmaceuticals knew about the dangers of the Paragard device and failed to warn the public about its risks. While no trial date has been set in any of the three cases, they collectively demonstrate that consumers of the Paragard IUD throughout the country have experienced serious injuries due to the defects of the device.

Additionally, dozens of cases have been filed in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas (PCCP).

This blog was co-authored with Stark & Stark summer associate Yaritza Urena-Mendez.

COPYRIGHT © 2020, STARK & STARKNational Law Review, Volume X, Number 196

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS


About this Author

Stefanie Colella Walsh, Pharmaceutical Litigation Attorney, Stark Law Firm
Shareholder

Stefanie Colella-Walsh is a Shareholder and member of Stark & Stark’s Litigation, Insurance Coverage & Liability, Intellectual Property and Mass Torts Groups where she concentrates her practice in complex litigation with a focus in mass tort and pharmaceutical litigation. She also handles litigation related to nursing home negligence and abuse claims, elder abuse, and assisted living facility litigation.

Recently, Ms. Colella-Walsh was a member of the national trial team involved the first trial in the country of a TVT-Secur transvaginal...

609-219-7416
Martin P. Schrama, Stark Law, Intellectual Property and Litigation Law Attorney
Shareholder

Martin P. Schrama is a Shareholder in Stark & Stark's Commercial Litigation, Mass Tort, Intellectual Property and Green Litigation Groups. Mr. Schrama has extensive experience litigating on both the trial and appellate levels of the federal and state courts of New Jersey and New York, as well as numerous other jurisdictions throughout the nation in a pro hac vice capacity. This experience also extends to regular practice before AAA, JAMS and various other alternate dispute resolution fora.

The primary focus of Mr. Schrama’s practice is complex civil litigation matters, with a concentration in mass tort/class action prosecution and defense, and complex commercial litigation. Mr. Schrama is currently co-lead trial counsel representing numerous plaintiffs in the mass tort environmental contamination case of In Re Bristol-Myers Squibb Environmental Contamination Litigation, Case No. 281. Mr. Schrama is also currently involved in representing numerous plaintiffs in mass tort pharmaceutical cases pending in the New Jersey Superior Court case of In Re Yaz®, Yasmin®, and Ocella® Litigation, Case No. 287; In Re Nuvaring® Litigation, Case No. 284; and In Re Depuy ASR® Hip Implants Litigation, Case No. 293. Mr. Schrama frequently writes about timely legal and legislative developments impacting plaintiffs in mass tort and product liability actions for Stark & Stark's Mass Tort Law Blog.

609-895-7334