Depo Provera Lawsuit: Depo-Provera Lawsuits (July 2025)

Legally Reviewed

This article has been written and reviewed for legal accuracy and clarity by Lawsuit Legal News' writers and attorneys and is accurate as possible. This content should not be taken as legal advice from attorney. However, this article was edited by Stanley Gipe, a mass torts lawyer with over twenty years of experience representing individuals seriously injured by negligence exhibited by corporations. Stanley is a member of the Plaintiff's Steering Committee for the Suboxone Lawsuit (MDL No. 3092 — IN RE: SUBOXONE (BUPRENORPHINE/NALOXONE) FILM MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION).

Fact-Checked

Lawsuit Legal News does everything possible to make sure the information in this article is up to date and accurate. If you need specific legal advice about your case, contact us. This article should not be taken as advice from an attorney.

Depo-Provera, a widely used injectable contraceptive, has been linked to serious health risks that are now the focus of growing legal action. While millions of women have relied on Depo-Provera for long-term birth control since its approval in 1992, new scientific studies have uncovered a troubling connection between the drug and the development of meningioma brain tumors. 

These findings have sparked a wave of lawsuits across the country, as women who have been diagnosed with meningiomas after using Depo-Provera are now seeking compensation for the harm they’ve suffered. As more evidence emerges, the number of claims against the drug’s manufacturer, Pfizer, is expected to increase.

This page will provide the latest news on Depo-Provera lawsuits, explore the legal basis for these claims, and outline what potential plaintiffs can expect regarding compensation and the legal process. If you or a loved one has been injured by Depo-Provera, stay informed about your legal options and the ongoing litigation.

Depo-Provera Legal Updates and News

As the evidence linking Depo-Provera to serious health risks continues to grow, lawsuits are being filed across the country by women who have developed meningiomas after using the drug. Below are the latest updates on this emerging litigation.

July 1, 2025 - Federal and State Cases Move Forward

The Depo-Provera MDL continues to grow, with over 400 cases now pending in federal court and an expanding footprint in state courts nationwide. Here’s where the litigation stands heading into July.

Federal MDL Moves Toward Major Preemption Fight

On June 19, parties in the MDL proposed a revised case schedule that positions preemption briefing, a critical issue in the litigation, for resolution by late September. Discovery related to preemption is set to close July 25, with summary judgment motions due August 22 and oral arguments scheduled for September 29, 2025.

This hearing will address Pfizer’s central defense: that federal law preempts state-level failure-to-warn claims because the FDA previously declined to approve a brain tumor warning for Depo-Provera. Plaintiffs counter that Pfizer had an independent duty to act in light of new safety information, including emerging studies on the drug’s tumor risk.

While this motion could potentially remove hundreds of cases from the MDL, plaintiffs remain confident that the judge will allow the litigation to move forward.

New Lawsuits Filed as MDL Activity Intensifies

A Massachusetts woman filed a new case on June 13, alleging she developed a meningioma after receiving Depo-Provera injections between 2016 and 2022. Her tumor required aggressive radiation treatment and left her with lasting neurological and psychological harm. She joins hundreds of others in the growing MDL, which continues to attract new plaintiffs from across the country.

State Court Efforts Evolve

Momentum in Pennsylvania has stalled after early signs of mass tort coordination. A judge recently severed more than 100 plaintiffs from a consolidated Philadelphia case, and no new filings followed. Pfizer has since withdrawn its petition for coordination, leaving only one case active in that jurisdiction for now.

In contrast, state court proceedings are accelerating elsewhere. New York now leads with 60 active cases, and coordination appears imminent. The court has stayed nearly all cases pending a decision, and both parties have agreed to centralized case management. California, meanwhile, has six pending cases and a coordination petition under review. Additional lawsuits are progressing in Illinois, Delaware, and New Mexico.

Proof of Use and Records Collection Continue

As required by earlier pretrial orders, plaintiffs are actively submitting documentation of Depo-Provera use and brain tumor diagnoses. As of mid-June, 34 completed submissions had been received. Attorneys are working to identify and resolve documentation deficiencies while monitoring for problems with noncompliant medical providers. If access issues persist, plaintiffs may ask the court to compel production under a HIPAA-compliant order.

June 1, 2025 - Depo-Provera Brain Tumor Lawsuits Gain Ground with Stronger Evidence and Procedural Clarity

The Depo-Provera multidistrict litigation (MDL) continues to build momentum as new scientific findings, legal filings, and court orders reinforce plaintiffs’ claims that the birth control injection may significantly increase the risk of brain tumors, specifically intracranial meningiomas.

A Safer Alternative and Missed Opportunity

One of the latest issues in the spotlight is Pfizer’s decision not to actively promote a lower-dose version of the drug, Depo Sub-Q Provera 104, which delivers just 104 mg of medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) via subcutaneous injection, compared to the 150 mg delivered intramuscularly in the traditional version.

Many medical experts believe that long-term use of the lower-dose alternative could have meaningfully reduced the risk of meningioma by limiting overall exposure to synthetic progestin. Plaintiffs’ attorneys now argue that Pfizer’s failure to transition patients to the lower-dose product was a business-driven decision, not a medical one. This alleged design defect is expected to become a key argument in the litigation.

New Case Filed by Iowa Plaintiff

On May 16, a woman from Iowa City filed a new lawsuit in the MDL, alleging that her use of Depo-Provera from 2008 to 2016 caused her to develop a debilitating brain tumor. After moving to Iowa, she was diagnosed with a meningioma in 2023 following symptoms like slurred speech, numbness, and double vision. Her case adds to the growing number of long-term users coming forward with serious health complications allegedly linked to the contraceptive injection.

Study Confirms Serious Risk

The scientific foundation of the litigation was strengthened by a recent University of British Columbia study led by Connor Frey and Mahyar Etminan. The researchers found that women who used Depo-Provera for over a year had a 3.55 times higher risk of developing an intracranial meningioma compared to women using an oral contraceptive (EE-LNG).

Their analysis corrected several shortcomings of the earlier Roland study by using a larger sample size, an active comparator, and appropriate lag periods to address disease latency. The study’s results suggest one in every 1,111 women using Depo-Provera for three years may develop a brain tumor, and they bolster claims that the U.S. label failed to warn of this risk, even as European regulators required such warnings.

Projected Case Volume and Strategy

Although the MDL added just two new cases in April—bringing the total to 289—plaintiffs’ attorneys predict a wave of new filings over the summer. With 2–3 million Depo-Provera prescriptions filled annually in the U.S., and research suggesting a 5.5-fold increase in meningioma risk, legal analysts estimate that over 1,000 brain tumor cases per year may be tied to the drug. Historically, only a fraction of eligible patients pursue claims, but if even 5–20% come forward, the number of lawsuits could triple or more in the coming months.

Attorneys are prioritizing the strongest cases first—those involving long-term use, serious diagnoses, and extensive medical documentation. These early cases are likely to become bellwethers, shaping the court’s views on liability and damages, and potentially setting the tone for future settlements.

Court Orders and Record-Keeping Requirements

To keep the MDL organized and efficient, Judge Rodgers issued Pretrial Orders Nos. 22 and 23 in May. These orders lay out strict standards for what plaintiffs must include in their complaints and medical documentation:

Encouragement for Early Compliance: The court has encouraged attorneys to correct any issues proactively rather than wait to be flagged. While the judge acknowledged the challenges in obtaining older medical records, she also emphasized the need for prompt and complete submissions to keep cases moving forward.

Proof of Use and Injury: Plaintiffs must complete a detailed questionnaire and provide documentation showing they used Depo-Provera and were diagnosed with a qualifying meningioma. Submissions must follow specific formatting and length guidelines.

Deficiency Process: BrownGreer, the court’s third-party administrator, will review complaints and notify attorneys of any deficiencies. Plaintiffs have a short window to amend their filings or risk dismissal.

May 1, 2025 - Depo-Provera MDL Sees Rapid Growth and Momentum

The Depo-Provera multidistrict litigation (MDL) is gaining traction, with more women coming forward to file claims alleging serious brain injuries linked to long-term use of the injectable contraceptive. In April 2025 alone, 52 new cases were added to the MDL, nearly doubling its size to 130 total lawsuits. That number is expected to increase quickly in the weeks ahead, especially once the court finalizes a short-form complaint to streamline the filing process.

Many of the plaintiffs allege that extended use of Depo-Provera (also known as DMPA) caused the development of intracranial meningiomas—a type of brain tumor. These claims often involve permanent neurological damage and invasive surgeries. Central allegations include failure to warn about risks, defective drug design, and failure to disclose safer alternatives.

New Lawsuits Filed in Kentucky, Tennessee, and Florida

Several high-profile cases were added in April:

• A Tennessee woman alleges that long-term Depo-Provera use led to multiple brain tumors, including one that required a craniotomy in 2013. She resumed injections later, only to develop a second tumor in 2018.
• A Kentucky plaintiff claims that she used Depo-Provera from 2001 to 2006 and developed a brain tumor more than a decade later, which required surgery and left her with lasting neurological issues.
• A Florida woman is also joining the MDL, stating that she developed sensorineural hearing loss and tinnitus caused by a meningioma linked to Depo-Provera injections from the early 2000s.

In each of these cases, plaintiffs emphasize that international health regulators in countries like Canada, South Africa, and those in the EU have long required warnings about the risk of meningioma — yet U.S. labels remain silent on the issue.

Legal Action Against Generic Manufacturers Moves Forward

The role of authorized generic manufacturers—Greenstone, Viatris, and Prasco—has been under scrutiny. A recent court order clarified where each stands:

• Prasco may soon be dismissed from the MDL, pending final stipulation.
• Greenstone and Viatris, however, remain active defendants. The judge denied any early dismissal and is requiring them to fully participate in discovery.
• While both companies submitted affidavits claiming limited involvement, the court reserved the right to revisit the issue later in the litigation.

For plaintiffs, this means that Greenstone and Viatris will still be subject to discovery obligations, and their potential liability remains under investigation.

Judge Rodgers Emphasizes Strict Compliance

At the latest case management conference, the court sent a strong message about deadlines and accountability. After Greenstone and Viatris failed to timely submit court-ordered affidavits, Judge Rodgers issued an Order to Show Cause, compelling them to comply. Both eventually provided the required documentation, but the judge’s firm stance makes it clear: all parties must stay on schedule or face consequences.

Proof-of-Use Orders Help Plaintiffs Move Forward

One of the key hurdles in this litigation is proving that each plaintiff actually received Depo-Provera or its generic equivalent. To address this, the court has established a uniform process for collecting product use records.

Under this new order:

• Plaintiffs must complete a Proof of Use and Injury Questionnaire within 120 days of March 14, 2025 (or of filing, if added later).
• The order compels third parties—like clinics, pharmacies, military health systems, and insurers—to release records showing whether a plaintiff received DMPA injections, even if medical charts are unavailable.
• Plaintiffs can use court-approved HIPAA-compliant forms and, if needed, serve subpoenas with fewer procedural hurdles.

This order is a critical step that will help many plaintiffs overcome documentation challenges, especially in older cases where records may be missing or incomplete.

April 1, 2025 - MDL Judge Keeps the Pressure On

The Depo-Provera litigation is moving swiftly under Judge Rodgers, who recently issued a new Case Management Order outlining an ambitious schedule for resolving this MDL. Key deadlines include the close of discovery on federal preemption issues by July 25, 2025, with summary judgment motions on that issue due by late August. Discovery on general causation wraps up in October, with expert challenges (Daubert motions) expected by early 2026.

While the MDL is being handled in federal court, many related lawsuits are also unfolding in state courts, especially Pennsylvania, California, and Illinois. Judge Rodgers has appointed liaison counsel to help coordinate across jurisdictions, acknowledging that plaintiffs may choose state court for strategic reasons.

Discovery is now in full swing, and Pfizer must complete its document production on key issues by mid-May. With firm deadlines in place and no signs of delay, this fast-paced schedule increases the pressure on Pfizer. In mass tort litigation, real settlement talks tend to happen only when bellwether trial dates are approaching and defendants face real legal exposure—and that’s exactly where this MDL is heading.

March 17, 2025 – New Leadership Named in Depo-Provera Brain Tumor Litigation

The Depo-Provera MDL now officially has leaders appointed for the plaintiffs. Judge Rodgers has appointed a leadership team to steer the consolidation of lawsuits against Pfizer’s Depo-Provera birth control which is alleged to caused serious meningioma brain tumors.

Recent studies have shown a significant spike in brain tumor risk related to Depo-Provera birth control, fueling the litigation even further. Now that a leadership team has been appointed, the MDL can continue forward with early discovery and trial prep. As of March 2025, the MDL includes at least 78 cases, with that number likely to rise quite a bit.

March 15, 2025 - 10 Key Agreements That Should Speed Up This MDL; Can Depo Provera Also Cause Blood Clots?

Progress is underway in the Depo-Provera multidistrict litigation (MDL), where women are suing Pfizer over claims the birth control shot caused meningioma brain tumors. Lawyers on both sides recently reached an agreement on how to move the lawsuits forward more efficiently. Here’s what that means for potential plaintiffs:

1. Cases Can Be Filed Directly Into the MDL – This makes the process faster by skipping the extra step of transferring cases from other courts.
2. Online System for Legal Paperwork – A digital platform will be used to keep things moving smoothly and avoid delays.
3. Pilot Cases Chosen to Guide the Litigation – A small group of cases will be used to test arguments and set the stage for future trials.
4. Expert Testimony Will Be a Key Battle – Plaintiffs want experts to explain the science behind their injuries; defendants will resist.
5. Privacy Protections Are in Place – Sensitive documents will be kept confidential.
6. Proof Requirements for Filing a Case – Plaintiffs will fill out a form to confirm they used Depo-Provera and developed meningioma. They’ll have a chance to fix any missing info before a case is dismissed.
7. Pfizer Must Hand Over Internal Documents – These may show what the company knew about the risks and when.
8. Witness Interviews Scheduled – Plaintiffs secured the right to question Pfizer employees, some on video and remotely.
9. Unnecessary Defendants May Be Dismissed – Some companies may be removed from cases if their products weren’t used.
10. A Special Master and CPA Will Help Manage the MDL – These professionals will keep the process organized and make sure lawyer fees are handled fairly.

While this type of litigation still takes time, these agreements are expected to speed up the process compared to most mass torts.

In addition to the brain tumor risk, a new case study has raised alarms about life-threatening blood clots linked to Depo-Provera. A 21-year-old woman with no history of clotting issues developed a severe form of DVT shortly after receiving the shot. She suffered massive clots in her leg and lungs, requiring multiple emergency procedures.

Though blood clot risks are mentioned in Depo-Provera’s warnings, they’re often downplayed. This case raises questions about whether Pfizer has fully disclosed the dangers—especially for young, otherwise healthy women. Some experts argue that the drug may pose more clotting risk than previously believed, even though it’s often promoted as a safer alternative to estrogen-based birth control.

March 1, 2025 - Projections Estimate 30,000+ Injured Plaintiffs Could File Suit, MDL Pretrial Order Entered, New Study Links Active Ingredient in Depo Provera to Meningioma Brain Tumors

Women aged 18-55 who used Depo Provera for an extended time and developed a meningioma brain tumor will likely have an easier time proving the necessary legal causation link between the drug and developing the tumor. The more difficult cases will involve women who received the birth control drug early on in life but didn't develop a brain tumor until decades later. We expect the defendants will challenge these lawsuits based on each plaintiff's individual risk factors, proof of medication use, verifiable medical documentation, and other possible explanations for developing a tumor.

In the past few weeks, Judge Rodgers has entered a Pretrial Order establishing the MDL's rules, creating a Master Docket that will serve as a central filing system, and addressing the rules all out-of-state lawyers must follow. Since the MDL is a nationwide litigation, attorneys from across the country will be involved. Judge Rodgers has waived the usual requirement for lawyers to present a Certificate of Good Standing from their home state if they are not licensed in Florida.

All lawyers must file a Notice of Appearance for every case they handle, and follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure regarding serving legal documents on the other side. Recently Magistrate Judge Hope T. Cannon was assigned to this MDL to assist Judge Rodgers. Judge Cannon was involved in the recently settled 3M earplug litigation, which was also presided over by Judge Rodgers, so we know they work well together and will keep this litigation on track.

Lastly, and importantly, a new study was recently released that revealed the active ingredient in Depo Provera, medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA), significantly increased the risk of developing meningioma brain tumors. After comparing 14 years of medical records of women who received MPA birth control against women who used birth control pills, the results indicated women who used MPA drugs for more than one year had a 3.55 times higher risk of developing these tumors than those who took pills.

Sadly, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has recommended adding meningioma tumor warnings to these drugs overseas, but the FDA has not required these warnings in the US. As a result, American women have not been warned about the potentially serious medical issues they may face after taking this medication.

February 11, 2025 - Depo-Provera MDL Lands in Florida—And No One Saw It Coming

If you had Florida on your Depo-Provera MDL bingo card, congratulations—you win, even though you’re in the minority. The panel that makes decisions on multi-district litigations has picked the Northern District of Florida instead of sending the case to California or New York, where most people guessed it would be.

This is a curveball.

For months, plaintiffs and defendants fought over where this litigation should be centralized—meaning, where the MDL should be held and, thus, where the jury pool would come from.

• The defendants (Pfizer and generic drug maker Prasco) pushed for New York, where Pfizer is headquartered and a common venue for pharmaceutical MDLs.
• Most plaintiff attorneys wanted California, where the bulk of lawsuits were originally filed and where juries can be more liberal and thus less likely to side with big pharma.

At first glance, California seemed like the obvious choice. Not only is it where most cases were originally filed, but it also has a reputation for being plaintiff-friendly in pharmaceutical litigation. New York, while home turf for Pfizer, was also a strong contender given its existing legal infrastructure, which can handle complex cases.

However, the MDL Panel had other ideas when they selected Florida.

The JPML’s decision wasn’t about convenience, jury tendencies, or corporate headquarters—it was about who would be in charge of the MDL. Judge M. Casey Rodgers, the judge assigned to this MDL in Northern Florida, has serious experience running large-scale mass torts. Most notably, she presided over the 3M earplug litigation, which resulted in a $6 billion settlement after years of aggressive litigation and bellwether trials.

That track record likely played a huge role in the panel’s decision. They know Judge Rodgers can handle a complex MDL and isn’t afraid to push for efficiency—an important factor when dealing with a pharmaceutical giant like Pfizer.

What’s Next In The Depo-provera Lawsuit?

Now that the MDL has a home base, the case will move on to leadership appointments, early case management orders, and discovery schedules. The first bellwether trials are still a long way off, but this ruling gives us a sense of how the litigation will be run and who will be calling the shots.

For now, the biggest takeaway is that plaintiffs will be fighting this battle in Florida, not California or New York. While that might not have been the expected outcome, it’s what we’re working with now. Stay tuned—this one is just getting started.

February 1, 2025 - Both Sides Agree to Create an MDL, But Can't Agree on Location. Pfizer Will Argue Federal Preemption Shields it From Failure to Warn Claims

While we wait for a decision from the MDL Panel (see last month's update), the defendants continue to argue New York would be more appropriate than the Plaintiffs' proposed court in California. Pfizer is also laying the groundwork for a federal preemption defense that it should not be liable under a failure to warn legal theory because the FDA rejected its request to add a warning about possible meningioma brain tumors to the product label.

Both sides of this litigation agree that an MDL is the best way to handle and process so many Depo Provera lawsuits. The benefits of forming an MDL include:

• Consolidated discovery procedures and information sharing
• Combined motion hearings with more consistent rulings
• Plaintiffs join in legal arguments with shared research while protecting individual claims
• Shared litigation expenses
• The possibility of a global settlement benefitting all injured plaintiffs

The main issues we expect this MDL to address include:

• Establishing a causal link between the ingredients in the Depo Provera injections and the formation of meningioma brain tumors
• Whether Pfizer failed to warn US patients about the risk of developing meningiomas while it placed warnings on European and Canadian product labels
• If the defendants concealed known safety risks during business dealings with another drug company, Viatris
• Whether the lower dose version of Depo Provera, Depo-SubQ, could have reduced users' risks of developing brain tumors.

If you received Depo Provera injections and have suffered any of the side effects mentioned in this page, especially the formation of a meningioma tumor, the team at LLN is here to help. We are committed to seeking justice for injured women, protecting others from facing similar fates, and securing the financial compensation these women need and deserve to treat their medical conditions moving forward. Reach out to our compassionate team today for more information.

Lawsuit Timeline

What Are the Legal Grounds for Depo-Provera Lawsuits?

The lawsuits being filed against Pfizer, the manufacturer of Depo-Provera, are primarily based on claims of product liability and failure to warn. These legal actions assert that Pfizer did not provide adequate warnings about the severe risks associated with prolonged use of the drug, particularly the increased risk of developing meningioma brain tumors.

Failure to Warn

Under U.S. product liability law, drug manufacturers must warn consumers and healthcare providers about known risks associated with their products. Plaintiffs in the Depo-Provera lawsuits argue that Pfizer failed to meet this obligation. Although scientific studies have shown a link between Depo-Provera and meningiomas, these risks were not reflected in the drug’s warning labels or patient information leaflets, particularly in the U.S.

In Europe, Pfizer updated Depo-Provera’s warning label to include information about the increased risk of brain tumors. Still, these warnings were not included in the U.S. versions of the drug’s labeling. Plaintiffs claim that had they been adequately informed of the potential dangers, they would have chosen different contraceptive methods or monitored their health more closely for signs of brain tumors.

Product Liability

The claims also focus on strict product liability, which holds manufacturers accountable for distributing unreasonably dangerous products to consumers. Even if Pfizer was not negligent in designing Depo-Provera, plaintiffs allege that the drug was inherently hazardous due to its link to meningiomas. They argue that Pfizer should be held liable for the harm caused by the drug, regardless of intent or negligence.

Negligence

In addition to product liability and failure to warn, some plaintiffs pursue negligence claims. These claims argue that Pfizer failed to test the long-term effects of Depo-Provera properly and failed to disclose the known risks to the public promptly. Legal teams are also investigating whether Pfizer deliberately withheld information about these risks, further strengthening the case for negligence claims.

How a Depo-Provera Lawsuit Works. The Legal Process

Filing a Depo-Provera lawsuit may seem overwhelming, but understanding the legal process can help make it more manageable. Below is a step-by-step breakdown of what plaintiffs can expect when pursuing legal action against Pfizer.

1. Initial Consultation and Case Evaluation

The first step in filing a Depo-Provera lawsuit is consulting with an attorney experienced in product liability and pharmaceutical cases. During this consultation, your attorney will evaluate your case by reviewing medical records, your history of Depo-Provera use, and your diagnosis of a brain tumor, such as a meningioma. The attorney will also assess the strength of your claim based on factors like how long you used the drug and whether you were warned of the potential risks. This information will help the attorney decide whether your case would qualify for a Depo-Provera lawsuit under the circumstances of the case.

2. Gathering Medical Documentation

Your legal team must gather all relevant medical records to build a strong case. This includes documentation that shows your use of Depo-Provera, such as prescriptions or billing records from your healthcare provider, as well as records of your diagnosis, treatment, and any surgeries related to a meningioma or other brain tumors. Medical records are essential to proving that the drug caused your injuries.

3. Filing the Lawsuit

Once your case has been evaluated and the necessary documentation gathered, your attorney will file a lawsuit against Pfizer on your behalf. This legal document, known as a complaint, outlines your claims and the damages you seek. The lawsuit may be filed individually or as part of a larger multidistrict litigation (MDL), where similar claims are grouped to streamline the legal process.

4. Discovery Process

After the lawsuit is filed, the discovery phase begins. Both sides exchange evidence during this stage, including medical records, internal company documents, and expert testimony. This phase is crucial for building a solid case, as it may uncover information about what Pfizer knew regarding the risks of Depo-Provera and when they knew it. Expert testimony from medical professionals and scientists will also play a key role in establishing the link between Depo-Provera and brain tumors.

5. Bellwether Trials and Settlement Negotiations

In large pharmaceutical cases like Depo-Provera, early bellwether trials are often held to test the strength of the plaintiff's claims and the evidence. These trials help determine how future cases may proceed and can influence settlement negotiations. If the bellwether trials result in favorable outcomes for plaintiffs, it often leads to settlement discussions where Pfizer may agree to compensate victims without going to trial.

6. Settlement or Trial

Many Depo-Provera cases are expected to settle before reaching trial. Settlements provide victims with compensation without the uncertainty and lengthy trial process. However, if a settlement cannot be reached, the case may go to trial, where a jury will decide whether Pfizer is liable for the harm caused by the drug and determine the amount of compensation.

Throughout this process, your attorney will guide you, handle all legal proceedings, and work to secure the compensation you deserve. Most importantly, by filing a lawsuit, you can help hold pharmaceutical companies accountable for their actions and prevent future harm to others.

What Compensation is Available in Depo-Provera Cases?

For those who have suffered severe health issues after using Depo-Provera, pursuing a lawsuit offers the possibility of financial compensation. The compensation available in Depo-Provera cases varies depending on the extent of the injury, the impact on the individual’s life, and the strength of the legal claim. The following are the types of damages victims may be able to recover through a lawsuit.

Medical Expenses

One of the most significant areas of compensation in Depo-Provera lawsuits is the recovery of medical costs. These expenses may include.

• Diagnosis and Treatment. Costs related to diagnosing brain tumors, including imaging tests like MRIs or CT scans, and treatment such as surgery or radiation therapy to remove or manage meningiomas.
• Ongoing Care. Long-term medical care, such as follow-up appointments, neurological evaluations, and regular monitoring for tumor regrowth.
• Medications. Prescription drugs are used to manage symptoms or prevent the recurrence of the tumor.
• Rehabilitation and Therapy. Costs associated with physical therapy, occupational therapy, or other rehabilitation services necessary after surgery or treatment.

Lost Income

For many victims, the recovery process from a meningioma can involve long periods away from work, either temporarily or permanently. Compensation for lost income covers.

• Wages Lost During Recovery. If a plaintiff cannot work while undergoing surgery or treatment, they may be compensated for their lost income.
• Loss of Earning Capacity. In cases where the plaintiff’s ability to work is permanently diminished due to their health condition, they may be entitled to compensation for future lost income or reduced earning capacity.

Pain and Suffering

Compensation for pain and suffering addresses the physical and emotional toll of dealing with a severe health condition like a brain tumor. This includes.

• Physical Pain. The pain associated with surgery, recovery, and ongoing health problems caused by Depo-Provera.
• Emotional Distress. The anxiety, depression, and psychological trauma that often accompany a brain tumor diagnosis and treatment, including the fear of tumor recurrence.
• Diminished Quality of Life. Many plaintiffs experience a reduced quality of life due to long-term neurological complications, chronic headaches, or cognitive difficulties, which can be compensated through pain and suffering damages.

Punitive Damages

In some cases, courts may award punitive and compensatory damages. Plaintiffs in Depo-Provera lawsuits may argue that Pfizer knew, or should have known, about the risks of meningiomas but failed to warn consumers, warranting punitive damages to hold the company accountable for its actions.

Other Economic Damages

Victims may also be compensated for other economic losses caused by their condition.

• Travel Expenses. Costs associated with traveling to medical appointments or receiving specialized care.
• Home Modifications. If a plaintiff’s condition requires home modifications (e.g., ramps or other accessibility features), they may be compensated for these expenses.

How will the settlement amounts in the Depo-Provera lawsuit be determined and how much will they be?

Which Factors Influence Compensation?

The compensation a plaintiff may receive in a Depo-Provera lawsuit depends on several factors.

• The severity of the meningioma and the treatment required.
• Whether the plaintiff needed surgery or other invasive treatments.
• The condition's impact on the plaintiff’s ability to work and overall quality of life.
• The strength of the scientific evidence linking Depo-Provera to the plaintiff’s condition.

Each case is unique, and an experienced attorney can help victims understand what compensation they may be entitled to based on their specific circumstances.

Talk to a Depo-Provera Attorney Today

Lawsuit Legal News will help you pursue the compensation you deserve if Depo-Provera has harmed your health. The Lawsuit Legal News team has successfully fought against major pharmaceutical companies, including 3M, Dupont, Tylenol, and Pfizer, and is prepared to take on the legal battle over Depo-Provera.

If you have been diagnosed with a meningioma or other serious health complications after using Depo-Provera, we want to hear from you. Our team is committed to holding pharmaceutical companies accountable for the harm caused by dangerous drugs and ensuring that victims receive the justice they are entitled to.

Our experienced Depo-Provera lawyers are ready to assist you with your claim and prepare for the inevitable filing of a lawsuit against Pfizer. We understand the physical, emotional, and financial toll that comes with dealing with a brain tumor or long-term health complications, and we are here to support you every step of the way.

We have built a national reputation for litigating against some of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world. The lawyers affiliated with Lawsuit Legal News have the experience and resources necessary to take on drug manufacturers nationwide.

We offer a free consultation and case evaluation to anyone who has experienced health problems linked to Depo-Provera. If you believe you have a potential claim, contact us today for a free consultation.

We are handling Depo-Provera cases nationwide. Contact us immediately at (833) 552-7274.

---

Real Stories from Women Who Have Suffered with Brain Tumors After Taking Depo-Provera

Middle-Aged Nurse Develops Brain Tumor—A 43-year-old nurse began experiencing severe headaches and difficulty understanding speech during work meetings. Initially attributing these symptoms to stress and fatigue, she sought medical attention when the issues persisted. Diagnostic imaging revealed a meningioma—a type of brain tumor. Reflecting on her medical history, she noted prolonged use of hormone-based medications, including the Depo-Provera contraceptive injection, IVF treatments, and hormone replacement therapy (HRT), all containing progesterone. Studies have linked certain progesterone-based medications to an increased risk of meningiomas, which are more prevalent in women. She underwent surgery to remove the tumor and is now recovering, though she continues to face memory challenges. She advises women who have undergone extensive hormone treatments or experience persistent unusual headaches to seek medical evaluation, including eye tests, as part of a proactive approach to their health.

Woman Suffers Golf Ball-sized Tumor—Another individual, a woman in her early 40s, experienced severe headaches and struggled with language comprehension, particularly during work meetings. These symptoms led to the discovery of a golf ball-sized brain tumor. She attributed the tumor's growth to hormone treatments she received, including the Depo-Provera contraceptive injection, IVF, and HRT medication. Meningiomas, the type of tumor she had, are commonly non-cancerous and more frequent in females. Studies have shown a link between hormone treatments, such as HRT and progesterone medications, and an increased risk of meningioma. Her symptoms began in December 2023, and she sought medical advice after a particularly disabling headache. A CT scan and MRI confirmed the brain tumor, leading to surgery in May 2024 to remove it. Post-surgery, she is recovering but advises other women who have undergone hormone treatments to get checked if they experience unusual headaches.