Paragard IUD Copper Toxicity Lawsuit

People's Justice Research TeamUpdated February 21, 2026Fact-checked

Verified against court and regulatory records · No upfront fees · Your information is never sold

Free Case Review

Check your eligibility — free

Answer 2-3 quick questions to review your potential case.

Free · Confidential · About 2 minutes · A case specialist responds within 1 business day

Your answers are never sold or shared without your consent.

Copper Toxicity from Retained Paragard Fragments

The Paragard T380A device contains 380 square millimeters of exposed copper surface area wound around its polyethylene frame and arms. When a Paragard arm fractures and the copper-tipped plastic fragment is retained inside the uterus or surrounding tissue, the copper continues to leach ions into the surrounding tissue and bloodstream. Chronic copper exposure from retained fragments can cause local tissue inflammation, chronic pelvic pain, and in some cases systemic symptoms of copper toxicity. Copper is an essential trace mineral, but excess copper accumulation — as may occur from a retained fragment in direct tissue contact over months or years — can cause nausea, fatigue, headaches, mood disturbances, and neurological symptoms in susceptible individuals.

Copper Toxicity as a Secondary Injury in Paragard Cases

Copper toxicity claims in Paragard litigation typically arise as secondary injuries — accompanying the primary mechanical injuries of device fracture and organ perforation. Women who experienced a prolonged period between Paragard arm fracture and surgical fragment retrieval are at highest risk for significant copper exposure. Symptoms attributed to copper toxicity in Paragard litigation include chronic fatigue and cognitive changes, headaches, gastrointestinal distress (nausea, vomiting), mood disorders and anxiety, and abnormal serum copper and ceruloplasmin levels on blood testing. Laboratory documentation of elevated serum copper levels contemporaneous with the retained fragment period supports a copper toxicity claim. While copper toxicity is not the primary theory of liability in most MDL 2974 cases, it represents an additional layer of compensable damages for plaintiffs who experienced extended fragment retention.

Adding Copper Toxicity to Your Paragard Case

If you experienced symptoms consistent with copper toxicity during the period after your Paragard IUD broke and before all fragments were surgically retrieved, these symptoms should be documented and included in your legal claim. Request that your attorney order serum copper and ceruloplasmin testing if not already performed. Document all symptoms in writing with dates. Copper toxicity damages are compensable as part of your overall Paragard injury claim — they do not require a separate lawsuit but are included within your MDL 2974 case or state court action. A toxicologist or internist specializing in metal exposure can serve as an expert witness to document and quantify these damages.

FAQ

Frequently Asked Questions

12 QUESTIONS

On February 5, 2026, Teva won the first Paragard bellwether trial (Rickard v. Teva) on all counts. This was a setback for Paragard plaintiffs, but it does not end the MDL or eliminate your claim. Here is what the defense verdict actually means: (1) One jury in one trial evaluated one plaintiff's specific fact pattern — a verdict for Teva in that case does not bind other cases with different facts. (2) Defense wins in early bellwether trials are common in large MDLs; the 3M Combat Arms MDL (the largest ever filed) saw multiple early defense verdicts before a $6 billion settlement. (3) Two more bellwether trials are scheduled in March and May 2026 — those outcomes will significantly shape settlement pressure. (4) Cases with stronger fact patterns — particularly documented infertility, multiple surgeries, and clear imaging evidence of device fracture — are distinguished from the Rickard case and retain settlement value. You should not abandon your claim based on this verdict alone. Consult an attorney to evaluate how your specific injuries compare to the Rickard fact pattern.

Yes — you should still consult an attorney about filing, for several important reasons. First, the statute of limitations is running from your Paragard breakage date, not from any court outcome. Waiting will eliminate your legal options permanently. Second, the Teva defense verdict in Rickard was based on facts specific to that case — the jury may have found that the particular plaintiff's provider's removal technique, rather than the device design, caused the injury. Your case may have a stronger fact pattern. Third, the MDL is ongoing with two more bellwether trials in 2026, and settlement negotiations continue. Global MDL settlements often occur after a mix of plaintiff and defense verdicts. If your Paragard broke, you required surgery, and you suffered significant injury — especially infertility — your case has the strongest profile for recovery and you should not delay consulting an attorney.

The statute of limitations for a Paragard IUD lawsuit varies by state, but a 2025 ruling in MDL 2974 established that the clock starts running from the date your device broke — not from when you first experienced symptoms or received a surgical diagnosis. Most states have a 2-year products liability statute of limitations, meaning women whose Paragard broke in 2022 may have already passed their deadline. Some states allow 3 years (California, for example), which extends coverage to 2025 breakages. Because the limitations period begins at breakage, not at symptom onset or when you connected the injury to the device, it is critical to consult an attorney immediately. Do not wait for the MDL to settle or for a global settlement announcement — if your state deadline passes, you lose the right to file regardless of what happens in the MDL.

Paragard IUD lawsuit settlement values range from approximately $10,000 to $380,000 depending on the severity of your injuries. Minor cases involving a broken fragment that was retrieved via hysteroscopy with no lasting complications typically fall in the $10,000–$50,000 range. Cases requiring laparoscopy or complex surgery, with documented pelvic pain or partial fertility impact, may reach $50,000–$100,000. Cases involving hysterectomy, major organ damage, or significant permanent injury can reach $100,000–$200,000. The highest tier — reserved for women who suffered confirmed infertility from the Paragard breakage — has projected values of $100,000–$380,000, with higher outcomes possible for young plaintiffs with strong medical documentation and fertility treatment records. The Teva defense verdict in February 2026 has introduced some downward pressure on projections, and the March and May 2026 bellwether outcomes will further refine these ranges.

No — the FDA has not issued a formal recall of Paragard. The FDA issued a safety warning in 2022 acknowledging the risk of device arm fracture during removal, but Paragard remains on the U.S. market and in active use. The absence of a recall does not mean the device is safe or that claims are invalid. The Paragard litigation is based on product liability — specifically the allegation that Teva Pharmaceuticals failed to adequately warn patients and healthcare providers about the risk of arm fracture during removal. Many successful medical device lawsuits involve products that were never recalled. The FDA's MAUDE database contains over 54,000 adverse event reports for Paragard, and the FDA's own 2022 warning acknowledged the fracture problem, creating a strong foundation for failure-to-warn claims.

No. The Paragard litigation is a multidistrict litigation (MDL), not a class action. These are two very different legal structures. In a class action, all plaintiffs share a common outcome — they win or lose together, and any settlement is divided among the class. In an MDL, individual cases are consolidated for pretrial efficiency — discovery, case management orders, and bellwether trials are coordinated — but each plaintiff retains her individual claim. Your case has its own facts, your own injuries, your own damages. If the MDL produces a global settlement, the amount each plaintiff receives is individually calculated based on her specific injury tier, medical history, and documented damages. Women with more severe injuries — especially infertility — receive different (typically higher) compensation than women with minor injuries. An MDL attorney evaluates and advocates for your individual case within the consolidated litigation framework.

The key evidence for a Paragard IUD lawsuit consists of: (1) Medical records confirming you had a Paragard IUD implanted — your GYN's records, family planning clinic records, or pharmacy records showing the device was dispensed to you; (2) Records of the removal procedure — your provider's notes documenting the removal attempt, any notation that an arm broke off, or documentation that retrieval strings could not be located; (3) Imaging records — ultrasound, X-ray, or CT scan confirming a retained fragment or device malposition; (4) Surgical records — operative reports from any hysteroscopy, laparoscopy, or other surgery performed to retrieve the broken device; (5) Records of resulting injury — pathology reports, fertility evaluations, diagnoses of PID, uterine perforation, or infertility. You do not need to have saved the device packaging or the broken fragments (though those are helpful). Your attorney will help obtain these records through HIPAA-compliant authorization requests.

Paragard was manufactured by Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. and distributed in the United States by CooperSurgical, Inc. (a subsidiary of Cooper Companies). Teva is the primary defendant in MDL 2974, as it held the FDA regulatory approval and manufacturing responsibility for the Paragard T380A device. CooperSurgical was named as a co-defendant in many cases based on its role as U.S. distributor and its responsibility for marketing and labeling the device to healthcare providers. However, in 2025, the court in MDL 2974 dismissed design defect claims against CooperSurgical, narrowing its exposure relative to Teva's. Teva remains the central defendant on both failure-to-warn and design defect theories.

Yes — a broken Paragard arm can be asymptomatic initially, meaning you may not experience pain or bleeding immediately following the breakage. Some women are informed by their provider at the time of removal that the device broke. Others are not informed, or the provider is uncertain whether the removal was complete. In these cases, the retained fragment may not be discovered until follow-up imaging or until symptoms develop weeks or months later — including chronic pelvic pain, unusual bleeding, or signs of migration. Because the 2025 statute of limitations ruling establishes that the limitations clock runs from the date of breakage (not from symptom onset), it is important not to delay — even if you feel fine. If your provider expressed any uncertainty about whether your Paragard was removed completely, or if you underwent hysteroscopy after a Paragard removal, you should consult an attorney immediately.

As of February 2026, approximately 3,867 cases are pending in MDL 2974 — In re: Paragard IUD Products Liability Litigation — in the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta) before Judge Leigh Martin May. This represents federal court filings only; additional state court cases have been filed in various jurisdictions. The MDL has grown steadily since its formation in August 2020, and the bellwether trial process has begun with the first trial (Rickard v. Teva) concluding in a defense verdict on February 5, 2026. Two additional bellwether trials are scheduled for March and May 2026. The scale of the litigation — nearly 4,000 cases — reflects the widespread prevalence of Paragard breakage during removal and the significant injuries many women have suffered.

Paragard IUD lawyers work on a contingency fee basis — fee terms vary by attorney. The contingency fee is a percentage of your recovery, typically 33% to 40% depending on the stage of the case when it resolves. Litigation costs — expert witnesses, court filing fees, medical record retrieval — are advanced by the attorney and reimbursed from the settlement. If you receive no compensation, you owe nothing. This fee structure ensures that access to Paragard litigation is not limited to those who can afford upfront legal fees.

No global settlement has been reached in Paragard MDL 2974 as of February 2026. The litigation is in the bellwether trial phase, which typically precedes global settlement negotiations. The first bellwether (Rickard v. Teva) concluded in a defense verdict on February 5, 2026. Two more bellwether trials are scheduled in March and May 2026. After those trials conclude, both sides will have a clearer picture of litigation risk, and settlement negotiations may intensify. Based on comparable medical device MDLs — Essure (Bayer, $1.6 billion), Mirena (Bayer, significant global resolution), Bard PowerPort (ongoing) — global Paragard settlements, if achieved, are likely to occur in 2026 or 2027. The timing depends on the outcomes of the remaining bellwether trials and the parties' willingness to negotiate. Claimants should not wait for a settlement announcement to consult an attorney — statute of limitations deadlines run independently of MDL timing.

Dive deeper

Related Guides

9 GUIDES

The full investigation

Part of the Paragard IUD Investigation

Paragard IUD LawsuitParagard (T380A copper IUD) was FDA-approved in 1984 and has been used by millions of American women as a hormone-free long-term contraceptive. Women and their doctors began reporting a troubling pattern: when Paragard is removed — a routine office procedure — the device's copper-and-plastic arms snap off inside the patient. The retained fragments can migrate, perforate organs, cause chronic pelvic pain, and require invasive surgery including hysteroscopy, laparoscopy, and in some cases hysterectomy to remove. Women who suffered uterine perforation, organ damage, or infertility from a broken Paragard may have a product liability claim against Teva Pharmaceuticals. The MDL is pending before Judge Leigh Martin May in the Northern District of Georgia. The first bellwether trial (Rickard v. Teva) ended in a defense verdict on February 5, 2026. Two additional bellwether trials are scheduled in March and May 2026. Settlement negotiations are active. Claimants who can document breakage, surgery, and significant injury — especially infertility — have the strongest cases.CASE OVERVIEW

Quick Eligibility Review

Check your eligibility — free

Copper Toxicity from Retained Paragard Fragments

Copper Toxicity as a Secondary Injury in Paragard Cases

Adding Copper Toxicity to Your Paragard Case

Frequently Asked Questions

What does the Teva defense verdict mean for my Paragard case?

Should I still file a Paragard lawsuit after the defense verdict?

What is the statute of limitations for a Paragard IUD lawsuit?

How much is a Paragard IUD lawsuit worth?

Was Paragard recalled?

Is the Paragard lawsuit a class action?

What proof do I need for a Paragard lawsuit?

Who manufactured Paragard and who is being sued?

Can Paragard break without symptoms?

How many Paragard lawsuits have been filed?

What does a Paragard lawyer cost?

When will the Paragard lawsuit settle?

Related Guides

Part of the Paragard IUD Investigation