ParaGard IUD Contracts

Attract and convert more ParGard clients when Atraxia Media connects you with the best prospects.

Is your personal injury law firm interested in attracting more ParaGard clients? Now you can connect with the best prospects. With the help of Atraxia Media, you can start signing ParaGard clients qualified to your criteria. Get access to a real-time channel that connects you with prospective clients in the volume and criteria that you need. Atraxia Media marketing department captures prospective client attention. And the internal intake department responds immediately to potential ParaGard client inquiries. These connections are then transferred rapidly to your law firm. This way, you can immediately go to pull medical records and land new cases.

Currently signed contract costs: ***subject to change

ParaGard Facts & History

Women nationwide have suffered injuries because of a ParaGard device fracture or fragment retention, often resulting in the need for invasive surgical procedures, such as a hysterectomy.

Currently, ParaGard IUD injury lawsuits are filed in district courts all over the United States. A number of these cases have been grouped into a multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the Northern District of Georgia before Judge Leigh Martin.

According to a report issued by the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in 2021, there are 136 cases involving problems with the ParaGard IUD pending before Judge May. However, it is ultimately expected that several thousand cases may be involved in the litigation.


Location: Northern District of Georgia

Presiding Judge: Leigh Martin May

Plaintiffs' Co-Lead Counsels

  • Erin K. Copeland
  • Timothy Clark

Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel: C. Andrew Childers


  • 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.

Executive Committee

  • 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.

Steering Committee

  • Christina Feller of FERRER POIROT WANSBROUGH
  • Andrew Jones of CORY WATSON, P.C.
  • Hunter V. Linville of LINVILLE LAW GROUP
  • 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
  • Jason P. Johnston of ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP
  • Robert L. Kinsman of KRAUSE & KINSMAN
  • 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

Products: ParaGard intrauterine device (IUD)

Plaintiff Allegations

This litigation involves allegations that the ParaGard IUD has a tendency to fracture upon removal, causing complications and injuries - including surgeries to remove the broken fragments - infertility, and pain.



  • April: 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 that will improve efficiencies for Plaintiffs filing complaints.
  • February: 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 the management of the pretrial proceedings.
  • January: A complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee warns ParaGard implants are unreasonably dangerous and defectively designed, indicating the Plaintiff suffered serious complications after the ParaGard IUD embedded in her womb and one piece broke off when doctors attempted to remove the device.


  • December:
    • 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, which doctors were unable to retrieve 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 the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, a woman alleges the T-shaped ParaGard IUD implant is defective and has a propensity to break at the arms upon explant.
  • November:
    • In a complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, but transferred later to the Northern District of Georgia, the Plaintiff claims that when an IUD is removed, it has a tendency to break, making it unreasonably defective and unreliable for women seeking reversible forms of contraception.
    • In a complaint filed in the U.S. District Court of North Carolina, a woman indicated that the manufacturers failed to disclose the risk that the ParaGard implant arms may break upon removal and that women can potentially be left with permanent reproductive health damage.
    • In a complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, a woman indicated that her ParaGard IUD was removed in various pieces because one of the arms broke, leaving her with permanent internal injuries.
  • October:
    • 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 was marketed by the manufacturer as safe and effective. However, when she went to have ParaGard removed in 2017, one of the arms broke off and remained inside of 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 methods of birth control.
    • An Indiana woman filed a product liability lawsuit against the manufacturer of the ParaGard IUD, alleging that they did not adequately disclose potential side effects, including the risk that the implant has a tendency 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.
  • September:
    • 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.
    • According to allegations raised in a product liability lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, 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 defective and dangerous, due to its propensity to fracture during the removal process.
  • May:
    • An Illinois woman filed a product liability lawsuit over problems with the ParaGard IUD, alleging that the device can cause a risk of serious injuries as it is defective and prone to fracture at the arms during removal procedures.


  • A federal judge granted a motion for 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 and that 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 migrated out of her uterus and embedded into her colon. As a result, she suffered severe complications and required surgery to have part of her colon removed.

Your law firm may not be visible to the thousands seeking to resolve their Pargard legal issues. Find new clients when they're trying to find you. With Atraxia Media's targeted marketing approach, you connect with customers screened to fit your criteria. Atraxia Media delivers their details right to your email or smartphone in real-time. It's that easy. Work with a marketing team that brings new contracts through the door. Get connected now with prospective ParaGard contracts matching your volume focus and cost.