Our Eligibility & Screening Criteria in Paragard Cases
At Atraxia Media, we have a good track record of delivering contracts to our clients based on their criteria. We are very familiar with Paragard cases, and, as such, we can help you kick start your Paragard campaign and get signed contracts delivered to your firm. Thus, we're here to help implement a retention campaign that will involve:
- Pre-screening. The easiest way to waste time on client intake is to spend time onboarding clients that won't be a good fit for your firm. We know that not every problem or person is a match for you, and it's ok to say no to those who would be better served elsewhere.
- Screening each case. We ask simple questions, but try and get at the heart of the matter. Our goal is your goal: to get these cases to prove up.
- Following up with potential Paragard clients. We have a strategy of following up on leads to maximize the efficiency of the interaction.
- Delivering signed contracts to your law firm. The attorneys that we work with have told us that our cases generally prove up quite a bit better than some of the others firms doing very similar services to ours.
- Connecting you with prospective Paragard contracts. We help your law firm increase the volume of cases that match your focus and cost.
- Running in-house marketing strategies that generate cases. We have an internal intake department, and as we get the leads in real-time, they go to our intake department who screens them based on your criteria.
- Getting Paragard potential plaintiffs entirely exclusive to your law firm.
Women who were implanted with the Paragard IUD may be eligible to file a lawsuit if:
- The device fractured when physicians or medical assistants attempted to remove it
- The fractured pieces became embedded in the uterus or cervix
- Subsequently, they required invasive procedures to locate and retrieve the missing piece, such as a:
At Atraxia Media, we have extensive experience in advertising and intaking Paragard cases. Therefore, if you're a lawyer interested in Paragard cases, we'd love to help. We have a good track record of volume, good costs and can sign potential clients customized per your needs. In addition, our internal intake team will screen and sign all the cases exclusively for you: We can get you the volume and criteria you need.
Paragard Facts & History
According to a report issued by the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, there are at least 154 cases involving problems with the Paragard IUD pending in multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the Northern District of Georgia before Judge Leigh Martin May. However, the litigation is ultimately expected to involve several thousand cases.
Paragard IUD injury lawsuits are currently filed in district courts all over the United States. Some of these cases have been grouped into an MDL. The litigation involves women who have suffered injuries because the Paragard IUD broke apart and lodged in their uterine cavity, often resulting in the need for invasive surgical procedures, such as a hysterectomy.
PARAGARD PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL NO. 2974
- Northern District of Georgia
Plaintiffs' Co-Lead Counsels:
- Erin K. Copeland
- Timothy Clark
Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel:
- Teva Pharmaceuticals USA
- Teva Women's Health, Inc.
- Teva Women's Health, LLC
- Teva Branded Pharmaceutical Products R&D, Inc.
- The Cooper Companies, Inc.
- CooperSurgical, Inc.
- Nicole Berg of KELLER LENKNER, LLC
- Robert M. Hammers, Jr. of SCHNEIDER HAMMERS, LLC
- Edward A. Wallace of WEXLER WALLACE, LLP
- Fidelma Fitzpatrick of MOTLEY RICE
- Timothy W. Porter of PORTER & MALOUF, P.A.
- Christina Feller of FERRER POIROT WANSBROUGH
- Ch. Houssiere, III of HOUSSIERE, DURANT & HOUSSIERE, LLP
- Andrew Jones of CORY WATSON, P.C.
- Hunter V. Linville of LINVILLE LAW GROUP
- Jon Mann of PITTMAN, DUTTON, HELLUMS, BRADLEY & MANN
- Tobias L. Millrood of POGUST MILLROOD, LLC
- Justin R. Parafinczuk of PARAFINCZUK WOLF
- Ruth Rizkalla of THE CARLSON LAW FIRM. P.C.
- Thienkim Truongle of HEARD LAW FIRM, PLLC
- Michael A. Galpern of JAVERBAUM WURGAFT HICK KAHN WIKSTRON & SINNS, P.C.
- Jason P. Johnston of ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP
- Robert L. Kinsman of KRAUSE & KINSMAN
- Patrick A. Luff of FEARS NACHAWATI LAW FIRM
- Buffy Martines of LAMINACK, PIRTLE & MARTINES, LLP
- Alfred A. Olinde, Jr.of THE OLINDE FIRM, LLC
- Michelle A. Parfitt of ASHCRAFT & GEREL, LLP
- Marcus J. Susan of SUSEN LAW GROUP
Paragard intrauterine device (IUD)
This litigation involves allegations that the Paragard IUD tends to fracture upon removal, causing complications and injuries - including surgeries to remove the broken fragments - infertility and pain.
- A Colorado woman filed a complaint, alleging a dangerous and defective design makes the Paragard prone to fracture during removal.
- U.S. District Judge Leigh Martin May approved a new procedure to improve efficiencies for Plaintiffs filing complaints.
- In a complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, a Florida woman indicated that dangerous defects caused the Paragard IUD to break during removal, leaving fragments inside her body that require a surgical procedure for removal.
- The Judge presiding over the MDL met with parties involved in the litigation to review the status of cases transferred from U.S. District Courts, the organizational structure, and procedures for managing the pretrial proceedings.
- According to a complaint filed in Tennessee, Paragard implants are unreasonably dangerous and defectively designed. The Plaintiff indicated she suffered severe complications after the Paragard IUD embedded in her womb. Furthermore, one piece broke off when doctors attempted to remove the device.
- In a product liability lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, the Plaintiff indicated that one of the arms of the Paragard IUD broke off inside her body. Doctors were unable to retrieve the arm during subsequent surgeries.
- In a complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, the Plaintiff indicated that the Defendants failed to disclose the Paragard IUD failure rate to women, doctors, or regulators.
- In a complaint filed in New York, a woman alleged the Paragard IUD implant is defective and has a propensity to break at the arms upon explant.
- In a complaint filed in Kansas but transferred later to the Northern District of Georgia, the Plaintiff claims that when a Paragard IUD is removed, it tends to break, making it unreasonably defective and unreliable for women seeking reversible forms of contraception.
- In a complaint filed in South Carolina, the Plaintiff indicated that the Defendants failed to disclose the Paragard IUD failure rate to women, doctors, or regulators.
- In a complaint filed in Minnesota, a woman indicated that her Paragard IUD was removed in various pieces after one of the arms broke, leaving her with permanent internal injuries.
- In a lawsuit filed in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, a woman indicated that she had a Paragard copper IUD implanted in 2013, which the manufacturer marketed as safe and effective. However, when she had the Paragard removed in 2017, one of the arms broke off and remained inside her body. Doctors were unable to remove the broken pieces of the IUD. The manufacturer of the controversial IUD filed a notice of removal to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
- In a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, a woman alleged that the Paragard IUD poses risks that are far more significant and devastating than other birth control methods.
- An Indiana woman filed a product liability lawsuit against the manufacturers of the Paragard IUD, alleging that they did not adequately disclose potential side effects, including the risk that the implant tends to break during removal procedures, resulting in painful and potentially permanent injuries.
- In a lawsuit filed by a Missouri woman, she indicated a Paragard IUD broke while doctors were attempting to remove the device, leaving her with internal injuries.
- A Missouri woman filed a product liability lawsuit, indicating she suffered serious health problems from a Paragard IUD, claiming the device fractured inside her womb during removal.
- In a product liability suit, a Georgia woman indicated that her doctors experienced problems removing the Paragard birth control when the copper IUD fractured and broke inside her body, leaving fragments missing, which pose a serious health risk.
- In a product liability lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, the Plaintiff alleged that design problems of the Paragard IUD make the birth control implant prone to break during removal, resulting in serious and potentially permanent injuries.
- A South Carolina woman filed a lawsuit over Paragard device complications, indicating the controversial IUD is a defective and dangerous product due to its propensity to fracture during the removal process.
- A South Carolina woman filed a lawsuit over Paragard device complications, indicating the IUD has the propensity to fracture during the removal process and is, therefore, defective and dangerous.
- A federal Judge granted summary judgment in a Paragard lawsuit filed in 2016, resulting in the dismissal of all claims. The Judge indicated that the manufacturer of the copper IUD provided adequate warnings. Also, the Plaintiff failed to establish that her doctor would have chosen another method of birth control if other risk information had been provided.
- A Florida woman filed a product liability lawsuit against the manufacturer, alleging that the Paragard IUD embedded into her colon after it migrated out of her uterus. As a result, she suffered severe complications and required surgery to have part of her colon removed.