The Paragard IUD breakage injury class action involves more than 3,900 claims consolidated into federal litigation against manufacturers Teva Pharmaceuticals, Cooper Companies, and CooperSurgical. The lawsuit alleges that the Paragard intrauterine device is prone to fracturing inside the uterus due to inflexible plastic that degrades over time, potentially causing serious complications including uterine perforation, organ damage, infertility, and infection. As of April 2026, no settlement has been reached, though a bellwether trial concluded in February with a defense verdict. The Paragard IUD is a copper-based contraceptive device designed to remain effective for up to 12 years.
However, women have reported that the device breaks during insertion, removal, or spontaneously while in place. For example, in the first bellwether trial of Pauline Rickard’s case, the plaintiff claimed her Paragard fractured inside her body, creating a dangerous situation requiring medical intervention. When the device breaks, fragments can remain in the uterus or travel to other organs, potentially necessitating emergency surgery to prevent serious harm. This litigation has become one of the largest medical device cases in recent years, with over 3,500 lawsuits consolidated into the federal Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) in the Northern District of Georgia. The outcome of ongoing trials and any future settlement will determine how much compensation women injured by Paragard breakage may receive.
Table of Contents
- How the Paragard IUD Can Break and What Causes Fracturing
- Injuries and Medical Complications from Paragard Breakage
- The Federal Litigation and Current Case Status
- Bellwether Trial Results and What They Mean for Other Cases
- Estimated Settlement Amounts and Compensation
- Eligibility and How to Join the Lawsuit
- What Comes Next in the Litigation
How the Paragard IUD Can Break and What Causes Fracturing
The Paragard is constructed with a plastic frame designed to hold copper wires around the uterus. According to the lawsuit allegations, the plastic material becomes brittle and inflexible over time, making it prone to cracking or complete fracture. Unlike more modern IUDs made with flexible materials, the Paragard’s rigid plastic design has been criticized in litigation as outdated and unsafe for long-term use.
Breakage can occur at several points: during insertion when a healthcare provider threads the device through the cervix, during removal after years of use, or spontaneously while the device is in place. When fracturing occurs spontaneously—without any mechanical stress—it suggests the degradation of the plastic material itself. Some women have reported that their IUDs fractured years after insertion, without any obvious trauma or removal attempt. This spontaneous breakage represents the core defect claim: that Teva knew or should have known the device would degrade and break, yet failed to warn users or design a safer alternative.
Injuries and Medical Complications from Paragard Breakage
Uterine perforation is one of the most serious complications from Paragard breakage. When the device fractures, sharp plastic edges or broken copper components can puncture the uterine wall, potentially extending into the abdominal cavity. This creates an urgent medical emergency requiring surgery to remove fragments and repair the perforation. Women have reported experiencing severe pain, heavy bleeding, and infection following such incidents.
Beyond perforation, fragmented pieces of the device can migrate to other organs. Intestinal perforation, bowel injury, and damage to surrounding reproductive organs have been documented in case reports. Additionally, some women report lasting effects including reduced fertility, chronic pain, pelvic inflammatory disease, and long-term complications requiring multiple surgeries. A limitation of the current litigation is that the full scope of delayed or long-term injuries remains unclear, as many women are still discovering complications years after breakage occurred. Some medical professionals debate whether all reported complications are directly caused by the device or represent coincidental injuries occurring in the same timeframe.
The Federal Litigation and Current Case Status
The Paragard IUD lawsuits have been consolidated into an MDL in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia under Judge Leigh Martin May. As of March and April 2026, the MDL includes 3,926 claims, with over 3,500 lawsuits consolidated from around the country.
This consolidation allows courts to manage discovery and trials efficiently while giving plaintiffs a collective voice against the manufacturers. The defendants in this litigation are Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Teva Women’s Health, LLC, Teva Branded Pharmaceutical products R&D, Inc., The Cooper Companies, Inc., and CooperSurgical, Inc. These companies designed, manufactured, distributed, and marketed the Paragard IUD. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants failed to warn about the risk of breakage and that they knew the device was defectively designed yet continued selling it without adequate safety warnings.
Bellwether Trial Results and What They Mean for Other Cases
The first bellwether trial concluded on February 4, 2026, in a two-week trial in Atlanta. The plaintiff was Pauline Rickard, whose case was selected to represent the broader litigation. However, the jury returned a defense verdict, rejecting her claims that Teva failed to warn about breakage risks or that the device was defectively designed.
This outcome is significant because bellwether trials often signal how juries may react to similar claims, potentially influencing settlement discussions or encouraging further litigation strategy adjustments. A second bellwether trial was originally scheduled for March 3, 2026, and a third was set for May 11, 2026, though that third trial has been pushed back to fall 2026 following the first trial loss. These subsequent trials will test different fact patterns and theories, as each plaintiff’s case may present unique circumstances. The defense victory in the first trial does not necessarily determine the outcome of other cases, as different evidence, medical records, and timelines may persuade other juries differently.
Estimated Settlement Amounts and Compensation
Although no official settlement has been reached as of April 2026, legal experts estimate that settlement amounts could range from $10,000 to $400,000 per claimant, depending on the severity of injuries sustained. Cases involving simple device fracture with minimal symptoms would likely fall at the lower end, while cases involving uterine perforation, organ damage, infertility, or multiple surgeries could reach the higher range. These estimates are speculative and based on comparable medical device settlements and verdicts in similar litigation.
The actual settlement amount, if one is reached, will depend on negotiations between the defendants’ insurance carriers and the plaintiffs’ counsel, the strength of ongoing trial evidence, and the total number of eligible claimants. Women with more severe injuries, those requiring emergency surgery, or those suffering permanent complications like infertility may be positioned to receive higher compensation. Conversely, women who discovered a fractured device but experienced no symptoms or required only routine monitoring may receive lower amounts.
Eligibility and How to Join the Lawsuit
To be eligible for the Paragard IUD class action, you must have had a Paragard IUD inserted into your body and experienced breakage or fracture of the device, or suffered complications related to a fractured device. Medical documentation of the fracture is essential—either from imaging (ultrasound or CT scan showing fragments), surgical reports from removal procedures, or pathology reports confirming device material was recovered during treatment. You do not need to have had emergency surgery or suffered permanent injury to have a potential claim.
Women whose Paragard broke but was discovered during routine check-ups and removed without complications may still qualify. However, the strength of your claim and potential compensation will depend on the medical evidence, the timeline of injury, and the specific harms you experienced. If you believe you have a claim, contacting a lawyer experienced in medical device litigation is the critical first step to reviewing your medical records and determining eligibility.
What Comes Next in the Litigation
The litigation is still in active trial phase, with additional bellwether trials scheduled through 2026. These trials will continue to test the core allegations of defective design and failure to warn. Depending on the outcomes of these trials, the defendants and plaintiffs’ counsel may move toward settlement negotiations, or the litigation may continue toward a broader jury verdict on key issues.
The timeline for resolution remains uncertain. Large medical device MDLs can take several years to fully resolve, and the February defense verdict suggests the manufacturers believe they have strong legal defenses. However, subsequent trial results could shift settlement discussions. Women with pending claims should maintain contact with their attorneys or the lawyers handling the MDL to receive updates about trial outcomes, any settlement developments, or administrative deadlines for submitting claims.
You Might Also Like
- Mirena IUD Perforation Injury Class Action
- Zimmer Biomet Knee Replacement Defect Class Action
- Yaz Yasmin Birth Control Blood Clot Class Action Settlement
Open Settlements You Can Claim Now
Browse current class action settlements accepting claims — several require no proof of purchase: