Paragard IUD: claims for a broken device

Who can ask about a broken IUD claim?

If your Paragard broke, ask for a device and harm check. Bring records of the removal and later care. A lawyer must decide how the evidence and law fit your situation.

The Georgia court summary concerns allegations about breakage during removal. Allegations state what people claim happened; they are not a finding that every device was defective. The summary does not tell you whether a firm will take a new case.

For a first discussion, describe what the clinician told you rather than deciding why the device broke. Note whether you have a procedure report, a scan report or only a memory of the visit. Ask what else the lawyer needs and whether the exact product can be confirmed.

Keep medical and legal questions distinct. Ask your care team about a retained part or symptoms. Ask a lawyer about legal responsibility and filing time. Having the same product name as a court case does not let this page decide either question for you.

How much money could I get?

No payment estimate for your Paragard claim is given here. The cited records do not promise you an award. Ask a lawyer to explain your losses, evidence and any actual offer.

The time-limit order is a ruling on specified legal issues, not a price list for injuries. The patient report describes medical care, not a compensation award. Neither record can turn a procedure name into a personal payout estimate.

For a legal discussion, set aside bills, procedure dates and notes about effects on daily life or work. Say what costs are already known and what remains uncertain. Ask which losses the relevant law recognizes and what proof would be needed.

If someone gives you a proposed offer, ask who it covers and what rights it releases. Ask what fees and expenses would be deducted. Read the actual terms rather than assuming a figure from another person's story is your take-home amount.

Which filing deadline applies to me?

Ask a lawyer to check your claim, dates and applicable law. The February 2025 order shows why different claims can have different time issues. It does not calculate your deadline.

The court order considered both filing limits and laws that can bar older claims after a set period. Its results varied with the claim and state law. Do not take one row about someone else and assume it decides your own date.

Prepare the insertion and removal dates you know, places of care, when you learned of breakage and any earlier filing. Mark a date as uncertain if it is only a memory. Ask the lawyer which date matters for each legal question rather than choosing a deadline yourself.

The general court guide says the time limit depends on the claim and law. A product label update or a news date is a different kind of date. Ask what must be filed and where before relying on an online cutoff.

What does the broken IUD research show?

One published report describes a retained fragment in one patient. It helps explain a possible complication and the choices made in that case. It cannot measure how often breakage occurs for all users.

Jordan Sarver and coauthors described a 38-year-old patient whose copper IUD broke during removal. The fragment remained in the uterine wall near the cervix. The report describes investigation and later surgery for that individual case.

The choice of hysterectomy reflected several factors, including other clinical concerns and the fragment's location. Do not read that single outcome as the required treatment for every broken IUD. Ask your clinician which options and tradeoffs apply to you.

A case report has no comparison group and does not count every person who had the device. It cannot establish a general breakage rate, prove a design defect, or show what caused every person's symptoms. The label and case report support a care discussion; they do not decide legal responsibility.

Questions about Paragard records and claims

The answers below distinguish care, product records and legal review. They do not diagnose a fragment or decide whether a firm will accept a claim. Bring your own questions and records to the appropriate professional.

How the Paragard IUD Fractures and Injures Women During Removal

The Paragard T380A is a copper intrauterine device marketed as a hormone-free, long-term contraceptive. Unlike hormonal IUDs, Paragard relies on copper wire coiled around a T-shaped polyethylene frame to prevent pregnancy. While designed for up to ten years of continuous use, a significant number of Paragard devices fracture at the arms during removal — leaving plastic and copper fragments inside the uterus, fallopian tubes, and surrounding tissue that require additional surgical procedures to extract.

Arm Fracture During Removal — Brittle Polyethylene

The horizontal arms of the Paragard T-frame are made of polyethylene embedded with barium sulfate, a radiopaque filler that allows X-ray visualization. Over time — and in some cases within months — the polyethylene becomes brittle and loses its structural integrity. When a clinician applies the traction force necessary for removal, one or both arms snap off rather than bending inward as the device was designed to do, leaving fragments inside the uterine cavity or cervical canal.

Copper Wire Breakage and Fragment Retention

Fine copper wire coiled around the Paragard frame can break free from the frame during removal, particularly when the polyethylene arm fractures and alters the mechanical load on the coil. Broken copper wire segments are small enough to migrate into tissue folds, the uterine cornua, or through the fallopian tube ostia, making complete surgical retrieval difficult and sometimes requiring hysteroscopy or laparoscopy.

Device Embedment in the Uterine Wall

In some patients, the Paragard device becomes partially or fully embedded in the myometrium — the muscular wall of the uterus — through a process called myometrial penetration or intramural embedding. Embedded devices cannot be removed by standard office-based traction and require hysteroscopic or surgical extraction. Attempts to remove an embedded device without imaging confirmation of its position risk uterine perforation.

Retained Fragments Requiring Surgical Intervention

When Paragard arm fractures occur, the retained fragments do not remain stationary. Uterine contractions, patient movement, and the body's inflammatory response can displace fragments toward the cervix, into the myometrium, or through the uterine wall into the peritoneal cavity. Retrieval of retained fragments typically requires hysteroscopic surgery under anesthesia; fragments that have migrated outside the uterus may require laparoscopic or open abdominal surgery.

Uterine Perforation and Fallopian Tube Damage Causing Infertility

Attempted removal of a fractured or embedded Paragard — particularly when the location of retained fragments is not confirmed by imaging before the procedure — carries significant risk of uterine perforation. Perforating instruments or migrating fragments can damage the fallopian tubes, ovaries, and adjacent structures. Tubal damage from Paragard-related perforation or retained copper fragments is a recognized cause of pelvic inflammatory disease, ectopic pregnancy, and permanent infertility in affected women.

• Material Degradation Over Extended Use: Polyethylene exposed to the uterine environment undergoes slow oxidative degradation. The barium sulfate filler incorporated into Paragard's arms creates stress concentration points within the polymer matrix that accelerate crack propagation under the mechanical load of removal. Devices used for longer periods — particularly those approaching or exceeding ten years — show higher fracture rates, but fractures have been documented in devices removed well before the labeled use period expired.
• Inadequate Warnings to Clinicians and Patients: Paragard's prescribing information historically did not prominently warn clinicians that arm fracture during removal was a documented risk or describe the appropriate steps — including imaging before removal — to take when encountering resistance during removal. Clinicians unaware of the fracture risk may apply additional force when resistance is felt, increasing the probability that a partially fractured arm will complete its break.
• Post-Acquisition Manufacturing and Design Changes: Paragard was acquired by CooperSurgical from Teva Pharmaceuticals in 2017. Plaintiffs allege that manufacturing process changes following the acquisition may have affected the material properties of the polyethylene frame, and that post-acquisition quality control failed to identify increased fracture rates in the new production lots. Internal complaint data from the post-acquisition period is central to ongoing litigation discovery.
• Absence of Pre-Removal Imaging Protocol: Unlike other long-term contraceptive devices, Paragard has no standard clinical protocol requiring ultrasound or X-ray imaging to confirm device position, integrity, and the absence of embedment before initiating removal. This protocol gap means clinicians routinely attempt traction removal without knowledge of whether the device is properly positioned, embedded, or already partially fractured — increasing the probability of retained fragment injuries.
• The FDA MAUDE adverse event database contains thousands of reports describing Paragard IUD arm fracture during attempted removal, making it one of the most frequently reported IUD complications in the database
• Peer-reviewed clinical literature has documented Paragard fracture during removal as a recognized complication with rates that increase with duration of use
• The FDA issued a labeling update in 2020 requiring Paragard's prescribing information to include warnings that the device may break during removal, and that fragments may be left inside the patient
• MDL 2974 in the Northern District of Georgia consolidates thousands of federal Paragard fracture cases before Judge Leigh May

The Paragard litigation centers on the claim that CooperSurgical and Teva Pharmaceuticals knew or should have known that the polyethylene T-frame was susceptible to fracture during removal — a foreseeable failure mode given the material properties of the frame and the documented adverse events in the FDA reporting system. Plaintiffs allege both design defect (the frame material was inadequate for the mechanical demands of removal) and failure to warn (clinicians and patients were not given adequate information about fracture risk or guidance to prevent it). The injuries caused — retained fragments, additional surgeries, uterine perforation, and infertility — are severe and well-documented in medical records.

Uterine and Organ Perforation

Uterine perforation occurs when a retained Paragard fragment — or the removal instrument used to retrieve a broken device — penetrates the uterine wall. This complication can occur at the time of the removal procedure or develop over days to weeks as a migrating fragment works through the myometrium. Perforation severity ranges from partial-thickness penetration (involving only the uterine muscle) to complete perforation with migration of device fragments into the peritoneal cavity, where contact with the bowel, bladder, fallopian tubes, ovaries, or other abdominal structures can cause adhesions, fistulas, and secondary organ damage. Laparoscopic or open surgical intervention is required for complete perforation with migration. Cases involving bowel or bladder perforation by a migrated Paragard fragment represent the most severe injury profile and carry the highest surgical risk.

• Sharp pelvic or abdominal pain following removal procedure
• Heavy or prolonged uterine bleeding
• Signs of peritoneal irritation — abdominal rigidity, guarding, rebound tenderness
• Fever and elevated white blood cell count indicating infection
• Bladder symptoms — urgency, pain, hematuria — if bladder involved
• Bowel symptoms — pain, obstruction signs — if bowel involved
• Device arm fracture leaving sharp edges that can erode through uterine tissue
• Uterine wall weakened by prior cesarean section or fibroid surgery
• Migration of fragment from uterine cavity into peritoneum
• Delay in diagnosis allowing migrating fragment to reach adjacent organs
• Aggressive retrieval attempts that advance fragment position
• Anatomical variants increasing perforation risk during retrieval
• Emergency laparoscopy for acute perforation with peritoneal involvement
• Laparotomy for bowel or bladder perforation requiring complex repair
• Hysterectomy when uterine integrity cannot be restored
• Bowel resection if bowel wall is perforated by migrated fragment
• Bladder repair and catheterization for bladder perforation
• Long-term pelvic floor rehabilitation following surgical repair

Corporate Accountability in the Paragard IUD Litigation

The Paragard IUD litigation holds CooperSurgical Inc. and its parent The Cooper Companies primarily liable for fracture-related injuries occurring after the 2017 acquisition, while Teva Pharmaceuticals bears potential liability for the pre-acquisition period. Internal documents obtained through MDL 2974 discovery are revealing what these companies knew about Paragard's fracture risk, when they knew it, and what corrective actions — if any — they took. The picture emerging from litigation is one of a device whose failure mode was documented in thousands of adverse event reports but never meaningfully addressed in labeling, clinical guidance, or device redesign.

Concealed Fracture Risk and Inadequate Post-Market Surveillance

Discovery in MDL 2974 has focused on what CooperSurgical and Teva knew about Paragard arm fracture before the FDA required the 2020 labeling update — and why, despite thousands of adverse event reports in the MAUDE database, neither company proactively updated the prescribing information or issued surgeon safety communications prior to the FDA mandate.

• CooperSurgical's internal quality complaint database contains fracture reports dating to the pre-acquisition period, establishing a continuous chain of manufacturer knowledge that plaintiffs allege was never translated into adequate warnings or product redesign
• Teva Pharmaceuticals, during its stewardship of Paragard before 2017, received mandatory MDR adverse event submissions describing arm fracture but did not update prescribing information to disclose the risk without FDA compulsion
• Post-acquisition manufacturing changes implemented by CooperSurgical were not accompanied by adequate mechanical testing to verify that the fracture profile of post-2017 production lots matched that of pre-acquisition devices — an allegation supported by the accelerating MAUDE report volume after 2017
• Neither CooperSurgical nor Teva issued proactive surgeon letters or patient safety communications about fracture risk prior to the FDA's 2020 mandate, despite possessing years of adverse event data establishing the prevalence of the complication

S&P Global

The Cooper Companies — litigation contingency monitoring (2024)

Paragard IUD MDL 2974 cited as a material litigation contingency in The Cooper Companies' SEC filings, with disclosure that the financial outcome of the litigation cannot be estimated at this time

Moody's

The Cooper Companies — credit stable, litigation watch (2024)

Moody's affirmed The Cooper Companies' credit rating with notation that Paragard litigation represents a meaningful contingent liability; rating stability contingent on litigation exposure not exceeding current reserves

The company's decision not to proactively update labeling, redesign the frame, or issue surgeon safety communications — until the FDA required it in 2020 — forms the core of the failure-to-warn claims that thousands of plaintiffs are pursuing in MDL 2974. The 36-year gap between market entry and the first mandatory fracture warning is the defining fact of this litigation.

Paragard IUD Lawsuit Filing Deadlines — Statute of Limitations by State

The statute of limitations for Paragard IUD claims is set by state law, often 2 to 3 years, and when the clock starts depends on the state and the facts. In a February 11, 2025 order on named cases in MDL 2974, the court treated the device fracture during removal as the point when those claims accrued. The order did not set one national filing date. Whether that time has passed depends on your facts, so don't rule yourself out. A lawyer can tell you.

The Breakage Date Rule — 2025 MDL Ruling

Judge Leigh Martin May's February 11, 2025 order in MDL 2974 held, for the named cases it decided, that the claims accrued at the time of device breakage, because the breakage is the injury-causing event and is typically known to the patient immediately — her healthcare provider would have informed her that the device broke during removal, or imaging would have revealed retained fragments shortly after the procedure. This 'breakage date' rule differs from the traditional 'discovery rule' used in some pharmaceutical cases, where the clock starts when a plaintiff connects her symptoms to the product. For Paragard, the event is discrete and usually documented in medical records. The order did not set one national filing date. Whether that time has passed depends on your facts, so don't rule yourself out. A lawyer can tell you.

If your Paragard IUD broke during removal, a lawyer can check which deadline applies to you. In a February 11, 2025 order on named cases, the MDL 2974 court treated the breakage at removal as the point when those claims accrued, so deadlines may run from the removal date rather than from a later diagnosis. The order did not set one national filing date. Whether that time has passed depends on your facts, so don't rule yourself out. A lawyer can tell you.