Lawsuit Update Center
Depo Provera, commonly known as the “birth control shot,” has recently been linked to brain tumors. Women who got the Depo-Provera shot and subsequently developed meningioma brain tumors are now able to file lawsuits against the drug manufacturer, Pfizer, and get financial compensation.
Depo-Provera Lawsuit: What You Need to Know in 2025
If you or a loved one has taken Depo-Provera and developed a brain tumor, you may be eligible to file a Depo-Provera lawsuit. These lawsuits allege that Pfizer failed to warn about the risk of intracranial meningiomas, a severe brain tumor linked to the long-term use of Depo-Provera birth control injections. As more women come forward, a Depo-Provera class action lawsuit is taking shape, and claims are being consolidated into MDL-3140 in the Northern District of Florida.
This page will discuss the Depo Provera brain tumor lawsuits and what you need to know if you have a potential case. Here’s everything you need to know about the Depo-Provera lawsuit, how to join, potential settlement amounts, and what comes next.
📚 Depo Provera Lawsuit – Quick Navigation
The Latest Depo-Provera Lawsuit Updates
April 16, 2025
Another plaintiff filed a Depo Provera lawsuit last week. A woman sued Pfizer and its affiliated entities—Viatris, Greenstone, and Prasco—for failing to to warn about the risks of intracranial meningiomas associated with long-term DMPA exposure.
The plaintiff alleges thirteen years of intramuscular Depo-Provera use beginning in 1999, culminating in a near-golf-ball-sized left temporoparietal meningioma discovered in 2014, followed by resection, recurrence, and radiation beginning in 2019. She continues to experience neurological sequelae, including gait disturbance, seizures, and encephalomalacia.
The complaint threads well-established literature—Blankenstein (1983), Griffin (2024), and the recent Roland BMJ study (2024)—to show Pfizer’s long-standing knowledge of the progestin-meningioma risk profile, particularly the dose-response relationship in chronic DMPA exposure.
Despite label updates in the EU, UK, and Canada, the plaintiff underscores that the U.S. Depo-Provera label remains devoid of any reference to meningioma, even following the July 2024 revision. The case also scrutinizes the marketing and distribution of the 150 mg/mL IM formulation over the lower-dose, subcutaneous 104 mg variant (Depo-SubQ Provera 104), alleging Pfizer made no meaningful effort to convert prescribing behavior or promote the safer alternative.
The lawsuit’s framing of the Greenstone and Prasco as not just “authorized generics” is worth nothing because this will be a thing down the road. The complaint argues these entities, as extensions of Pfizer, could have initiated CBE changes independently or urged Pfizer to do so, citing Fosamax (3d Cir. 2024) to undercut any preemption defense. Claims are asserted under strict liability (failure to warn and design defect), negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and both express and implied warranty theories. Equitable tolling is pled as one path of many to get around the statute of limitations based on the concealment of meningioma risks and the recent emergence of medical consensus.
This filing is positioned to test both the durability of the learned intermediary doctrine in the face of widespread label inertia and the sufficiency of Pfizer’s pharmacovigilance across decades of Depo-Provera sale
April 8, 2025
Pretrial Order No. 17 sets clear requirements for all plaintiffs who have filed cases. Under this order, every plaintiff must submit two types of documentation: (1) proof that they used a product made by the named defendant, and (2) proof that they were diagnosed with meningioma. This information must be submitted through the online MDL Centrality platform by completing the Plaintiff Proof of Use/Injury Questionnaire.
For any case that was already part of the MDL as of the order’s date, the deadline to submit the questionnaire is July 14, 2025. For cases filed or transferred after March 14, the deadline is 120 days from when the case entered the MDL. Plaintiffs must answer the questionnaire under penalty of perjury, and their responses will be treated as formal interrogatory responses under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Judge Rodgers clearly states that no further discovery will be permitted, but all plaintiffs are required to preserve relevant evidence. The parties are also working on a separate protocol for plaintiffs still waiting on medical or pharmacy records and cannot confirm product identification. That protocol is due within 14 days. Extensions to the deadline may be granted by court approval or by agreement of the parties with the court’s permission. A separate order will be issued later to address how submission deficiencies will be handled.
April 1, 2025
The number of Depo Provera brain tumor lawsuits in the newly formed MDL has skyrocketed, with 52 new cases filed in March alone. The total now sits at 130 pending cases, indicating strong early momentum in the litigation and signaling that this will become a high-volume MDL moving forward.
March 24, 2025
The leadership structure for plaintiffs in the Depo-Provera MDL will consist of one lead counsel, supported by two co-lead counsels. A Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee with six members and a ten-member Steering Committee will oversee key aspects of the litigation, alongside dedicated subcommittees like “science and experts” and “law and briefing.” Though the lead counsel has the final say, decisions are intended to be made in coordination with the Executive Committee.
February 16, 2025
The Depo-Provera brain tumor lawsuits have officially been consolidated in the Northern District of Florida, a decision by the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) that caught many off guard.
The expectation, certainly our expectations, was that this MDL would land in California where the majority of cases were already pending. New York was also a possiblity with the defendants pushing Instead, the JPML handed the litigation to Judge M. Casey Rodgers in Pensacola, citing her exceptional experience managing large-scale mass torts.
At first, Florida might seem like an odd choice, but a closer look makes it clear why this happened. Judge Rodgers is wrapping up the 3M Combat Arms earplug litigation, a massive MDL that resulted in a $6 billion settlement, making her one of the most experienced MDL judges in the country. The JPML likely saw an opportunity to put this complex pharmaceutical litigation in the hands of someone who has already demonstrated an ability to handle high-stakes cases efficiently. These judges know this litigation could be a big deal, and there will be complex legal issues that need to be sorted out. Neither Pfizer nor the majority of plaintiffs initially pushed for Florida. Still, this selection ensures that the litigation will be led by a seasoned, respected judge with a track record of keeping complicated cases moving forward.
What Does This Mean for the Future of the MDL?
Now that the Depo-Provera lawsuits are centralized under MDL-3140 (3:25-md-3140), the process will move into its next phase—early discovery, pretrial motions, and eventually bellwether case selection. A critical question remains: Will Pfizer take an aggressive defense stance, or will settlement talks come into play early?
Realistically, a quick settlement seems unlikely. Mass tort litigation typically involves a prolonged legal battle before any resolution. However, having an experienced judge at the helm means this MDL is more likely to stay on a structured, predictable timeline, avoiding the delays that can slow down large-scale litigation.
Depo-Provera
Depo-Provera is a widely used contraceptive injection containing medroxyprogesterone acetate, a synthetic form of the hormone progestin. Administered intramuscularly, typically in the upper arm or buttocks, the shot is given once every three months and offers a convenient alternative to daily birth control pills.
Depo-Provera’s mechanism of action includes three primary functions: preventing ovulation by suppressing the ovaries’ release of eggs, thickening cervical mucus to impede sperm from reaching an egg, and thinning the uterine lining to make implantation of a fertilized egg less likely. When administered correctly and on schedule, Depo-Provera is over 99% effective at preventing pregnancy. However, it does not offer protection against sexually transmitted infections (STIs).
While Depo-Provera has been used by hundreds of thousands of women in the United States and remains a popular choice for birth control, its safety profile has been the subject of significant scrutiny. As we discuss in a moment, the FDA initially rejected earlier applications for Depo Provera, citing concerns about its potential links to cancer, particularly breast and endometrial cancers, before ultimately approving it in the early 1990s.
Despite this approval, the drug’s side effects remain a concern for many users. Common side effects include irregular menstrual cycles (such as spotting or complete cessation of periods), weight gain, mood changes, and a notable risk of decreased bone density, particularly with prolonged use. Additionally, Depo Provera can cause a delayed return to fertility, sometimes taking up to a year or more for normal ovulation to resume after discontinuation. Between 2015 and 2019, an estimated 25% of sexually active women in the U.S. relied on Depo Provera for contraception, a fact that shocked our lawyers when we first got into this litigation.
The Depo Provera Approval Process
Upjohn began seeking FDA approval to market Depo-Provera as a contraceptive in 1963, but the process quickly became mired in concerns over the drug’s safety. When Upjohn filed its initial New Drug Application (NDA) in 1967, the FDA did not approve it. Regulators raised red flags about potential links between Depo-Provera and breast and endometrial cancers—concerns that would persist for decades. While the agency focused narrowly on these cancer risks, other potential dangers, such as the development of intracranial meningiomas, received little to no attention.
In 1974, the FDA considered limited approval of Depo-Provera, but strong opposition from Congress effectively halted the proposal. Four years later, in 1978, the FDA formally rejected the drug for contraceptive use. That decision cited troubling evidence from animal and human studies showing a correlation between Depo-Provera and reproductive cancers. A 1984 report from the FDA’s Public Board of Inquiry went even further, exposing significant deficiencies in Upjohn’s safety research and questioning the integrity of the company’s data. As a result, Upjohn voluntarily withdrew its NDA.
In response to continued scrutiny, Upjohn participated in additional research, including a 1979 study by the World Health Organization. That study found limited cancer risks and suggested potential protective effects against endometrial cancer. Yet other studies, such as one conducted in New Zealand, began to surface new concerns, including a potential connection between Depo-Provera and reduced bone density. Still, the broader picture remained incomplete.
Upjohn submitted another NDA in 1992. It did so in an environment where the FDA’s advisory committee narrowly focused its review. Rather than reevaluating the full scope of emerging risks, including the longstanding concerns about cancer or the then-understudied possibility of brain tumors like meningiomas, the committee concentrated almost entirely on issues such as bone loss and birth weight. This limited focus allowed Depo-Provera to gain FDA approval for contraceptive use that same year.
But this raises an important question: if red flags had been flying for decades, why were certain risks—like the association between high-dose progestins and brain tumors—never given the attention they deserved?
Since then, Depo-Provera’s manufacturer has made few efforts to revisit those overlooked dangers, even as a growing body of scientific literature has linked progestin-based drugs to intracranial meningiomas. Other countries, including those in the European Union and Canada, have since updated their warnings to include this risk. The United States label, however, remains silent on the issue. For a drug that was once denied approval based on cancer risks, this silence is striking—and deeply consequential for patients who were never warned.
Depo Provera Usage in the United States
Depo-Provera has played a significant role in contraception in the United States since its approval in 1992, though its history dates back much further. Initially, concerns over its safety—particularly potential links to breast cancer and endometrial cancer—delayed its approval, despite widespread international use.
When the FDA finally gave clearance, Depo-Provera was marketed as a convenient, long-acting injectable contraceptive, requiring only one shot every 12 weeks. It quickly gain popularity. It gained particular traction with younger women, low-income populations, and women of color, particularly in settings where daily contraceptive compliance was challenging. For many, it provided an accessible and discreet birth control method without the need for frequent doctor visits or daily pills.
During the late 1990s and early 2000s, Depo-Provera use surged, with millions of American women receiving injections annually. However, concerns about long-term side effects emerged, particularly regarding bone mineral density loss, weight gain, and depression.
Both the FDA and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) issued warnings, advising that Depo-Provera use be limited to two years unless no other contraceptive methods were suitable. This guidance, along with the increasing popularity of long-acting reversible contraceptives like IUDs and implants, led to a decline in Depo-Provera prescriptions in the 2010s. Despite this decline, this birth control shot remained a primary contraceptive choice for those seeking a low-maintenance, discreet option, especially in public health clinics and reproductive health services.
Of course, now another serious concern has emerged—Depo-Provera’s potential link to meningioma, a slow-growing but potentially dangerous brain tumor. Studies suggest that long-term use of the drug may significantly increase the risk of developing these tumors. With all of the lawsuits now being filed against the manufacturers, which we explain more below, you may see a major impact on Depo-Provera sales going forward. Women are becoming aware of the potential dangers associated with long-term use (or, arguably, any use at all).
Meningiomas
A meningioma is a type of brain tumor that develops from the meninges, the protective layers covering the brain and spinal cord. These tumors are typically benign and slow-growing, but some can be atypical or malignant. Meningiomas are the most common type of primary brain tumor in adults, accounting for nearly 39% of cases. They are more frequently diagnosed in women, which may be linked to hormonal influences, as some meningiomas contain receptors for progesterone, estrogen, and androgens.
Symptoms
Symptoms of a meningioma depend on its size and location. Small meningiomas may not cause any noticeable symptoms and are often discovered incidentally during imaging for other conditions. However, as the tumor grows, it can press on brain structures and lead to:
- Persistent or worsening headaches
- Seizures
- Vision changes, including blurred or double vision
- Memory problems or cognitive decline
- Balance and coordination difficulties
- Hearing loss or ringing in the ears
- Weakness or numbness in the limbs
Diagnosis
Meningiomas are typically diagnosed through imaging tests:
- MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging): The preferred imaging method, providing detailed brain and spinal cord scans.
- CT (Computed Tomography) Scan: Used when MRI is unavailable or to detect tumor calcifications.
- Biopsy: Occasionally performed to determine whether a tumor is benign or malignant.
Treatment
Treatment depends on tumor size, location, and growth rate. Options include:
- Observation: Small, slow-growing meningiomas may only require periodic MRI monitoring.
- Surgery: Removal of the tumor when it causes symptoms or continues to grow.
- Radiation Therapy: Used for inoperable tumors or to target any remaining cells after surgery.
- Medication: Experimental treatments, including hormone therapy, are being studied.
Prognosis
The outlook for meningiomas depends on their grade:
- Grade I (Benign) – Most common, slow-growing, and has a high survival rate.
- Grade II (Atypical) – Higher risk of recurrence and may require radiation therapy.
- Grade III (Malignant) – Rare but aggressive, often requiring multiple treatments.
The survival rate is good for tumors. The 5-year survival rates for benign meningiomas exceed 90%, while malignant meningiomas have a 5-year survival rate of 50-70%. But those figures do not reassure when you have meningioma, as anyone who has ever had cancer will tell you.
Also, while most meningiomas are benign, they can cause serious neurological symptoms if they grow large enough to affect brain function. Early diagnosis and appropriate treatment are key to managing the condition effectively.
Evidence Shows that Depo Provera Can Cause Meningiomas
In March 2024, a groundbreaking scientific study was published in the highly respected British Medical Journal, identifying a clear link between the use of Depo-Provera and the development of a specific type of brain tumor called meningioma.
The study examined the relationship between certain hormone medications known as progestogens and the risk of developing meningioma. Focusing on a range of progestogens, the research analyzed data from the French National Health Data System, which included women in France who had undergone surgery for meningioma.
The study was extensive, involving 108,366 women, of whom 18,061 had undergone surgery for meningioma. It found that long-term use (defined as more than one year) of specific progestogens—including medrogestone, medroxyprogesterone acetate, and promegestone—was associated with a heightened risk of developing meningiomas.
No increased risk was found with other hormonal treatments, such as progesterone, dydrogesterone, and some hormonal intrauterine devices (IUDs).
One notable statistic was the odds ratio, which reflects the likelihood of developing the condition among users versus non-users. The odds ratio was particularly high for medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA), the active ingredient in Depo-Provera. Nine of 18,061 meningioma cases had used MPA (0.05%), compared to 11 among 90,305 controls (0.01%), resulting in an odds ratio of 5.55. This substantial figure indicates that users of MPA are more than five times as likely to develop meningiomas as non-users, a rare and powerful finding in drug litigation research.
Depo Provera Lawsuits
Pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer have a legal duty to ensure their products are reasonably safe for consumers and to provide clear, accurate warnings about potential risks. This obligation falls under “strict liability” for failure to warn, meaning that even if a drug itself isn’t defective, a manufacturer may still be liable if they fail to disclose serious, foreseeable side effects or risks.
When a drug manufacturer neglects this responsibility, they can be held accountable for harm caused by their product. Both patients and healthcare providers rely on manufacturers’ safety information when choosing medications. A drug’s warning label is essential to this process, as it must include all known or reasonably knowable risks. This information is crucial for informed prescribing by doctors and for patients to weigh the drug’s benefits against potential risks.
In the case of Depo-Provera, the potential link between the drug and meningiomas wasn’t listed as a risk or side effect on its warning label. Lawsuits involving Depo-Provera allege that Pfizer knew, or should have known, about this risk and that its failure to update the warning label constitutes a failure to warn.
Had Pfizer disclosed the increased risk of meningiomas associated with Depo-Provera, the likely outcome would have been a reduction in sales. Many patients would likely have chosen other contraceptive options, and healthcare providers would have been more cautious in prescribing it, especially for long-term use. With so many birth control choices available, transparency about these risks could have significantly influenced the decisions of both patients and physicians, potentially leading to safer alternatives.
Eligibility Criteria for Depo Provera Lawsuit
Our firm is currently seeking and accepting new Depo Provera lawsuits across the country. To be eligible to file a Depo Provera brain tumor lawsuit, prospective plaintiffs must meet the following criteria:
- 6 months of Depo Provera use (longer term use will make the case stronger)
- Subsequent diagnosis with meningioma tumors
Depo Provera Class Action Lawsuit
With the Depo-Provera MDL now officially established in the Northern District of Florida, the litigation is moving into a critical phase. The consolidation of cases into MDL-3140 under Judge M. Casey Rodgers marks a significant milestone, providing a structured path for the growing number of lawsuits alleging that Depo-Provera caused meningioma brain tumors.
Most Depo-Provera lawsuits are expected to be filed in federal court, though state court cases will likely emerge in California, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts. While sometimes compared to a class action, an MDL (multidistrict litigation) is different in key ways. Unlike a class action lawsuit, where all plaintiffs are treated as part of a single claim, an MDL allows each individual plaintiff to maintain their own lawsuit while benefiting from shared pretrial proceedings. This structure is generally more favorable to victims, as it ensures each case is evaluated on its own merits while still streamlining the legal process.
Now that the MDL has been formed, all federal Depo-Provera lawsuits will be transferred to a single judge in Florida. This centralization provides several key advantages, including:
✅ Consistent rulings on legal and evidentiary matters
✅ Efficient discovery process to gather and analyze medical and scientific evidence
✅ Stronger coordination between plaintiffs, allowing for collective legal strategies
As the litigation progresses, the next major phase will be bellwether trials. In these test cases, a small number of lawsuits will go before a jury to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the broader claims. These early verdicts help both plaintiffs and defendants understand potential outcomes, shaping the trajectory of settlement negotiations and determining how future cases may be resolved.
With the MDL now in place, the Depo-Provera litigation is on track to become one of the most significant mass tort cases of 2025.
Path to a Depo Provera Settlement
In many mass tort MDLs, settlements are reached before bellwether trials begin. This is because bellwether trials pose significant risks for defendants, including the possibility of massive jury verdicts that could draw public attention and strengthen plaintiffs’ bargaining positions. To avoid such risks, defendants often seek to negotiate a global settlement, compensating all plaintiffs involved in the MDL.
The scale of the Depo-Provera MDL could be substantial, with thousands of cases expected to be consolidated. A federal court with experience handling mass tort cases will likely be chosen to oversee the proceedings, though the process may take years to resolve fully. For women impacted by Depo-Provera, joining the MDL offers several advantages. While maintaining their individual claims, plaintiffs benefit from shared resources, such as expert testimony and medical research. This structure ensures that each plaintiff’s unique circumstances, including the severity of their injuries and the duration of Depo-Provera use, are considered.
The creation of an MDL for Depo-Provera lawsuits is an essential step in holding Pfizer accountable for its alleged failure to warn women about the risks of meningiomas. For many women, this litigation represents an opportunity to seek justice and compensation for the significant harm they have endured. If you believe you may have a claim, contacting an experienced attorney promptly is crucial to ensuring your case is included in this process.
Symptoms of Meningiomas to Watch For
Many women who have used Depo-Provera may unknowingly be experiencing symptoms of meningiomas. These tumors are often slow-growing and may not cause noticeable symptoms until they become larger or press on critical areas of the brain. Because of this, it is possible for women to live with meningiomas for years without realizing it. Common symptoms include:
- Persistent headaches
- Seizures
- Vision problems, such as blurred or double vision
- Difficulty with balance or coordination
- Memory loss or other cognitive issues
Even if the symptoms are mild, they could indicate the presence of a meningioma, especially for women who have used Depo-Provera for extended periods. Early detection is critical, as it can significantly affect treatment options and outcomes. Women experiencing any of these symptoms should consult a healthcare provider immediately.
Many women with meningiomas may dismiss symptoms as unrelated health issues or the normal stresses of daily life. Because they overlap with a lot of symptoms that women have that are related to other causes. But ignoring these signs can lead to complications as the tumor grows. So if you have these symptoms, you want to get checked out. Timely diagnosis not only improves treatment options but may also strengthen a potential Depo-Provera lawsuit by providing a clear medical history linking Depo-Provera to the development of the tumor.
Projected Settlement Payouts for Depo-Provera Lawsuits
At this early stage of the litigation, estimating the settlement payouts for Depo-Provera brain tumor cases is challenging and speculative. The scientific evidence linking Depo-Provera to meningiomas will likely be admissible in court, but much remains uncertain as the litigation unfolds. Our lawyers project the settlement compensation for Depo-Provera lawsuits to range between $275,000 and $500,000 based on similar cases involving pharmaceutical litigation. But that is a per-person average. If this litigation plays out like our lawyers expect, there will be settlements that will be higher and lower than that number.
Several factors will influence where an individual case falls within this range, including the following:
1. Severity of Meningioma Symptoms
The extent and impact of a plaintiff’s meningioma symptoms will play a significant role in determining settlement payouts. Many women may have undiagnosed meningiomas or mild symptoms they attribute to other causes. Common symptoms such as persistent headaches, seizures, or vision problems can worsen over time, requiring medical intervention. Plaintiffs with severe symptoms or those who have undergone extensive treatments like surgery or radiation therapy may receive higher settlement compensation.
2. Duration of Depo-Provera Use
Scientific studies suggest that the risk of developing meningiomas increases with long-term use of Depo-Provera. Women who used the birth control shot for more than six months, particularly over several years, will have stronger claims compared to those with shorter usage periods. Evidence of extended exposure to medroxyprogesterone acetate, the active ingredient in Depo-Provera, strengthens the argument that the drug contributed to the tumor development.
3. Age of the Plaintiff
Younger plaintiffs will, all things being equal, receive higher settlement amounts in the Depo Provera litigation. This is because a meningioma diagnosis and the resulting treatments will disrupt their lives for decades, impacting their ability to work, maintain relationships, and enjoy a normal quality of life. The financial, emotional, and medical toll over such an extended period is undeniable and reflected in larger payouts.
Our lawyers see this trend in almost every mass tort litigation. While older plaintiffs receive slightly lower settlements due to a shorter projected duration of medical needs, they can still secure substantial compensation, especially if the severity of their injuries is significant. In these cases, the extent of the harm always drives settlement payouts and older plaintiffs with severe injuries often receive very large settlements. This pattern is likely to repeat here, as we expect the payouts to reflect the devastating impact of these injuries across all age groups.
4. Economic and Financial Losses
Women filing Depo-Provera lawsuits often experience significant financial losses due to medical expenses, missed work, or the inability to return to their previous careers. Lawsuits involving substantial financial impacts, such as lost wages or long-term disability, may lead to higher settlement payouts. This factor often plays a pivotal role in cases categorized under class action Depo-Provera lawsuits or MDL proceedings.
5. Emotional and Psychological Impact
The psychological toll of dealing with a brain tumor diagnosis, coupled with the challenges of treatment and recovery, cannot be overstated. Many plaintiffs report emotional distress, anxiety, and depression. Compensation for these non-economic damages will increase the trial value of these case contribute significantly to the overall settlement value in a Depo-Provera brain tumor lawsuit.
Depo-Provera Lawsuit FAQs
What is the Depo-Provera lawsuit about?
Is there a Depo-Provera class action lawsuit?
How do I file a Depo-Provera lawsuit?
What are the side effects mentioned in the Depo-Provera lawsuit?
The most serious Depo-Provera side effects include:
- Meningioma brain tumors
- Severe headaches and migraines
- Vision problems, including blindness
- Seizures and neurological impairments
- Cognitive decline and memory loss
For the purposes of this litigation, the entry point is having a meningioma diagnosis.
When did the Depo-Provera lawsuit start?
Has there been a Depo-Provera lawsuit settlement?
Who is the best lawyer for a Depo-Provera lawsuit?
How can I join the Depo-Provera lawsuit?
Do We Handle Brain Tumor Cases Beyond Meningiomas?
We are only pursuing cases involving meningiomas linked to Depo-Provera. The scientific evidence connecting the contraceptive to brain tumors specifically highlights meningiomas, with studies showing a marked increase in risk tied to the high progestin levels in Depo-Provera. Those are the only cases being pursued in the MDL.
No comparable research exists for other types of brain tumors, which makes those cases less viable from both a legal and medical perspective. By focusing on meningiomas, we ensure our efforts are backed by credible data and the strongest arguments available to achieve justice for affected plaintiffs.
Contact Us About a Depo Provera Lawsuit
If you used the Depo-Provera birth control shot and were later diagnosed with meningioma tumors, call our lawyers today at 800-553-8082 or contact us online.
