Doctor holding Paragard

Paragard Lawsuits for Broken Arms: Judge Denies Defendants' Motion and Lawsuits Continue to be Filed

Lawsuits have started for women who have suffered broken IUD arms during removal of their Paragard devices. The litigation just got a big “green light” when the coordinating judge, the Honorable Leigh Martin May, denied summary judgment motions filed by the defendants.

Judge Leigh Martin May, who had extensive litigation experience before taking the bench when appointed by President Barack Obama, denied this motion and upheld the rights of injured women to continue litigating for ParaGard-related injuries. She determined plaintiffs adequately plead the case. In addition, the judge accepted the claims against ParaGard regarding their defective devices and failure to warn patients and doctors adequately. In the decision, Judge Leigh Martin May directly mentioned the allegations against the ParaGard defendants. At this point, these are allegations but we believe there will be evidence to support these claims when heard by a jury.

· ParaGard is dangerous and defective. It is unsafe for future use and does not meet the standards of the patients or doctors.

· ParaGard is prone to break due to its lack of flexibility and curvature in the T-shaped arms, which leads to breakage during removal.

· Paragard has a higher breakage rates than other IUD products, which the defendants failed to warn about, such as the propensity to break inside the body or during removal, which could require surgery and result in infertility.

· ParaGard obscured their warnings with deceiving marketing, stating how easy and pain-free the removal of ParaGard is.

· The companies who made ParaGard violated federally mandated safety regulations, quality control, and cleanliness standards in production areas.

· ParaGard deviated from design specifications. The defendants violated their written policies and standard operating procedures.

· The products were made with unsafe and cheap materials. The copper corroded and rotted the plastic before the product was shipped out, and the plastic lacked flexibility.

· Defendants failed to warn about the dangers of Paragard even after receiving reports of thousands of Paragard breaks.

· Defendants ignored results from clinical testing, which discovered that Paragard had a higher risk of dangerous events than other types of birth control.

· ParaGard was not tested adequately before being released into the market.

In an attempt to dismiss the case against them, the defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Master Complaint, alleging that the plaintiffs have not made sufficient claims nor have the evidence to support the complaints made. Defendants even went as far as saying that the complaint was confusing because the plaintiffs made no direct claim against a specific defendant. Instead, they were all grouped.

If you or a loved one have suffered adverse effects from a Paragard removal, please be advised that you have legal rights to pursue a claim. At Rheingold, Giuffra, Ruffo & Plotkin LLP, we specialize in medical malpractice, mass tort, personal injury, and product liability cases. We aggressively represented our clients in other IUD litigations, such as Dalkon Shield, Mirena and the Essure infertility device. Please contact Christina Robins or David Rheingold at our office for a free, confidential evaluation of a potential claim. Please call (888) 260 – 0473 to speak with us directly and receive a free consultation.

Categories