Paragard IUD Lawsuit in New Mexico

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.