Item: Miller & Zois, Attorneys at Law
Rating: 5
Author: Terry Waldron

Depo-Provera, commonly referred to as the “birth control shot,” is a long-acting injectable contraceptive that has been used by millions of women since its approval by the FDA in 1992. Recent scientific research, including a pivotal 2024 British Medical Journal study, has linked Depo-Provera to an increased risk of brain tumors, particularly meningiomas.

Women who have received at least two Depo-Provera injections and later been diagnosed with a brain tumor, such as a meningioma, may qualify to file lawsuits against Pfizer, the drug’s manufacturer. These claims focus on allegations of failure to warn, defective design, and insufficient safety testing of Depo-Provera and its generic equivalents.

Our firm is actively accepting cases from women who meet these criteria. If you or a loved one used Depo-Provera and subsequently developed a brain tumor, call our Depo-Provera attorneys today at Depo-Provera attorneys today at 800-553-8082 or contact us online.

This page will provide updates on the latest developments in the Depo-Provera litigation, including information on brain tumor lawsuits, potential class action filings, and anticipated settlement amounts.

This page will provide updates on the latest developments in the Depo Provera lawsuits as we move towards an MDL in February 2025, as well as our prediction on the potential settlement value of these cases.

Depo-Provera Brain Tumor Lawsuit News and Updates

Legal actions involving Depo-Provera are gaining traction as lawsuits continue to be filed, alleging a connection between the contraceptive and meningioma brain tumors. Plaintiffs across the country are seeking accountability from Pfizer and other manufacturers for failing to provide adequate warnings about these dangers.

This timeline serves as a comprehensive resource for tracking the latest updates in the Depo-Provera litigation. We will provide regular insights into new lawsuits, court rulings, MDL proceedings, and potential settlement developments to keep you informed every step of the way.

June 23, 2025 – Pilot Case Schedule Finalized

Judge M. Casey Rodgers issued an amended scheduling order on June 19, 2025, locking in a detailed timeline for the Pilot Cases. The update focuses on resolving the preemption issue and setting deadlines for general causation expert discovery. Key highlights:

Preemption Discovery closes July 25, 2025, with summary judgment motions due August 22. Oppositions follow by September 19, and replies are due by noon on September 26.
Oral argument on preemption MSJs is scheduled for September 29, 2025.
General causation fact discovery wraps September 23, with expert disclosures due in staggered phases:
- Plaintiffs: October 23
- Defendants: November 22
Expert depositions must be completed by January 10, 2026, and Rule 702 motions (Daubert) will follow through March 2026.

The order impacts these bellwether-aligned cases: Toney, Wilson, Schmidt, Blonski, and Arceo.

This schedule now governs both sides’ preparation for significant preemption and general causation showdowns, setting the tone for the broader litigation trajectory heading into 2026

June 13, 2025 – New Lawsuit

A woman from Sandpoint, Idaho, filed suit yesterday alleging that her use of Depo-Provera for birth control caused the growth of two brain tumors, joining the Depo-Provera MDL.. The lawsuit, filed in the Northern District of Idaho, asserts claims against Pfizer and its affiliates for strict liability, negligence, fraudulent concealment, and breach of warranty.

The plaintiff received Depo-Provera injections from 2007 through 2017. She contends that the drug’s high-dose progestin formulation caused her to develop a large meningioma that was surgically removed in 2020, followed by a second tumor discovered in 2024. According to the complaint, these injuries have led to significant cognitive, emotional, and financial consequences.

June 2, 2025 – MDL Grows

The Depo-Provera MDL is gaining momentum rapidly. As of June 1, 2025, the number of active lawsuits has jumped to 348, up from 289 in May. That is a sharp 20.4% increase in just one month. For a mass tort still taking shape, that kind of growth is significant, and we expect to see another jump next month.

May 30, 2025 – Case Management Conference Addresses Litigation Progress

A Case Management Conference was held in the United States Courthouse in Pensacola, Florida, to discuss the status of the Depo-Provera MDL. The court and involved parties reviewed the progress of the litigation and made decisions on how the cases would proceed.

The next conference is scheduled for June 27, 2025.

May 20, 2025 – Court Sets Proof of Use/Injury Requirements

Judge Rodgers issued Pretrial Order #22 requiring each plaintiff to submit a “Proof of Use and Injury Questionnaire” with supporting documentation. The goal is to ensure claims moving forward meet a minimal evidentiary threshold. The order has intensified pressure on law firms to verify that their filed cases are built on solid factual grounds.

May 1, 2025 – Generic Manufacturers Ordered to Participate in Pre-Trial Discovery

Judge Rodgers clarified that generic drug manufacturers Greenstone LLC and Viatris Inc. are expected to remain as defendants and participate fully in pre-trial information sharing and other actions. This decision ensures that plaintiffs who used generic forms of Depo-Provera have a path to pursue justice.

May 18, 2025 – Pfizer Produces Extensive Documentation in Depo-Provera Litigation

Pfizer and its co-defendants have turned over approximately 1 million documents to the courts and plaintiffs’ lawyers, totaling about 8 million pages. This extensive documentation is expected to play a crucial role in litigating preemption and general causation issues in the case.

May 1, 2025 – MDL Grows By Two Cases in April

The Depo-Provera MDL added two new cases this month, increasing the total to 289 from 287. For Pfizer, this calm will not last. A massive wave of filings is coming, and by the end of summer, the case count is expected to more than triple.

More Depo Provera Lawsuit Updates

April 23, 2025 – New MDL Case Alleges Hearing Loss

A recent filing in the Depo-Provera MDL (Estronza v. Pfizer Inc.) adds another plaintiff alleging that long-term effects of the injectable contraceptive caused a brain tumor with lasting auditory consequences. The Florida-based plaintiff injected with Depo-Provera from 2001 to 2003. She asserts that she was never warned of the risk of intracranial meningioma—a tumor later discovered after she developed persistent tinnitus and bilateral sensorineural hearing loss.

The plaintiff is now living with permanent auditory impairment and neurological effects she links directly to Pfizer’s alleged failure to warn and its continued promotion of the higher-dose intramuscular formulation. Her lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive damages for irreversible hearing loss, diminished quality of life, and economic hardship tied to her ongoing treatment.

April 1, 2025 – Off to Fast Start

The number of Depo Provera brain tumor lawsuits in the newly formed MDL has grown rapidly, 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: Structure of Plaintiff Leadership Appointments

The plaintiffs’ leadership committee in the Depo-Provera MDL will be structured with a single lead counsel, assisted by two co-lead counsels. Additionally, a six-member Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee and a ten-member Steering Committee will provide further support, along with specialized subcommittees such as “science and experts” and “law and briefing.” While the lead counsel holds ultimate decision-making authority, all major decisions are expected to be made in collaboration with the Executive Committee.

March 19, 2025: New Study on Depo-Provera and Brain Tumors

A new study has added serious weight to the concerns surrounding Depo-Provera, showing a strong link between its active ingredient, medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA), and an increased risk of meningioma, a common type of brain tumor. Researchers analyzed medical records from 2006 to 2020, comparing women who used MPA with those who took a widely prescribed oral contraceptive, ethinylestradiol-levonorgestrel (EE-LNG).

The results were striking—women who had used MPA for more than a year were 3.55 times more likely to develop meningiomas than those using EE-LNG. Even after adjusting for factors like obesity, radiation exposure, and prior contraceptive use, the link remained strong. Because meningiomas make up 40% of all brain tumors, this study raises serious questions about the long-term safety of Depo-Provera.

From a litigation perspective, this study is big deal. One of the biggest challenges in pharmaceutical cases is proving causation—showing that a drug actually caused harm. This study gives plaintiffs additional epidemiological evidence to support their claims, making it harder for the defense to argue that other factors explain the increased risk.

It also reminds us of the shameful regulatory gap. The European Medicines Agency has already recommended adding a meningioma warning to the drug’s label, while the FDA has not. That difference could be crucial in failure-to-warn cases, raising questions about whether Pfizer should have taken steps to update the U.S. label.

March 3, 2025: 8 New Cases Join Depo-Provera MDL in First Month

The newly established Depo-Provera MDL made its debut on this month’s docket report. 8 new cases were added to the MDL since it was formed with 70, bringing the total number of pending cases up to 78.

February 8, 2025: Depo-Provera Lawsuits Consolidated in Unexpected Venue: Florida

In a surprise decision yesterday, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) chose the Northern District of Florida as the venue for the Depo-Provera brain tumor lawsuits. Many, including us, anticipated the litigation would be centralized in New York or California. Instead, the JPML assigned the cases to Judge M. Casey Rodgers in Pensacola, citing her extensive MDL experience and ability to manage large-scale litigation efficiently.

As these things go, the decision is less of a shock in hindsight. While neither Pfizer nor the majority of plaintiffs pushed for Florida, an argument was made at the hearing in its favor. The JPML likely saw an opportunity to assign another major MDL to Judge Rodgers, who is coming off a $6 billion settlement in the Combat Arms earplug litigation. Those two factors combined, and now the Depo-Provera MDL is in Florida. Judge Rodgers is a strong choice, and even the defendants would likely agree.

What comes next? Now that the MDL is centralized under MDL-3140, the focus will shift to pretrial coordination, early discovery, and the potential selection of bellwether cases. The coming months will reveal whether Pfizer intends to fight these cases aggressively or entertain early settlement discussions.

Honestly, the smart money is on the former—an early Depo-Provera settlement seems very unlikely. But getting this MDL started is a huge step forward.

January 23, 2025: Hearing Next Week

New Depo shot lawsuits are being filed. But the focus right now is the JPML hearing next week. The hope is for a class action Depo Provera lawsuit in California where most victims have filed. This is the best venue for California victims, but we think it is the best venue for you wherever you are.

The Northern District has experienced MDL judges, such as Judges William Orrick and Jon Tigar, who have handled complex mass tort cases. Judge Orrick, for instance, successfully managed the JUUL MDL, which involved diverse plaintiffs and complex settlements, demonstrating his capability to oversee large-scale litigation efficiently.

Massachusetts is also a venue many plaintiffs’ lawyers could stomach, but California is the best bet for everyone.

January 21, 2025: Are We Taking Brain Tumor Cases Other Than Meningiomas?

No, we are not currently accepting cases involving brain tumors other than meningiomas. Why? The scientific evidence linking Depo-Provera to brain tumors is specific to meningiomas, which are strongly associated with prolonged exposure to progestin, the active hormone in Depo-Provera.

Our lawyers have gotten calls from women diagnosed with various brain tumors after using Depo-Provera, including pituitary tumors, gliomas, schwannomas, and astrocytomas. While we understand the distress these diagnoses cause, our current focus remains on meningiomas, as they are the only type of brain tumor scientifically linked to Depo-Provera use.

Studies, including the pivotal 2024 British Medical Journal research we talk about below, have demonstrated a stunning increase in the risk of developing intracranial meningiomas among long-term users of the contraceptive. This focused evidence makes meningioma cases legally viable and scientifically grounded, while other brain tumor types lack the same established connection (and likely mechansm of action) to Depo-Provera. As the litigation progresses, we remain committed to representing plaintiffs with claims that are supported by robust scientific data.

January 20, 2025: What Is Innovator Liability and Why Does It Matter to These Lawsuits?

Innovator liability is a legal theory that holds the original manufacturer of a brand-name drug liable for injuries caused by a generic version of the drug, even if the plaintiff only used the generic version. This theory arises from the fact that brand-name manufacturers are responsible for the content of the drug’s label, which generic manufacturers are required by law to replicate exactly.

Courts that recognize innovator liability argue that the brand-name manufacturer owes a duty of care to all consumers of the drug, whether brand-name or generic, because it controls the safety warnings and information that doctors and patients rely upon. It makes obvious sense, but many states have been slow to adopt this common-sense doctrine. States that have recognized innovator liability to some extent include California, Vermont, Massachusetts, Alabama, and Illinois.

For some plaintiffs in Depo shot lawsuits, innovator liability will be a big deal. Many women used generic versions of the injectable contraceptive, but the core claims—such as failure to warn about the risk of severe bone density loss, brain tumors, or other adverse effects—can still be directed at Pfizer, the brand-name manufacturer of Depo-Provera. This allows plaintiffs in these states to bring claims against the original manufacturer, even if their injuries stemmed from a generic version, ensuring accountability for the alleged failure to provide adequate warnings and safety information in the drug’s label.

There is another better argument that many women will have that will not require innovator liability. Prasco, under an agreement with Pfizer, has marketed authorized generics of Depo Provera, essentially identical to the brand-name product but sold under the Prasco label. This arrangement allowed Pfizer to maintain a significant presence in the generic market for Depo-Provera through Prasco, effectively controlling a notable share of the market for this medication in the U.S.

Additionally, in a corporate restructuring move in 2020, Pfizer spun off Greenstone to form part of Viatris Inc., yet retained significant control over its operations and product lines, including Depo Provera generics. This reorganization has contributed to Pfizer’s ongoing influence over the generic versions of Depo Provera distributed and sold in the market.

These strategies have positioned Pfizer uniquely in terms of both brand and generic versions of Depo Provera. So it would be insane to allow them to avoid responsibility for those generics.

January 17, 2025: Key Issues Likely to Arise in the Depo-Provera MDL

When the Depo-Provera MDL gets rolling next month—and it will almost certainly start next month—several critical issues are expected to dominate the proceedings. Among these, three primary questions will likely take center stage:

Causation: Can plaintiffs establish that Depo-Provera, particularly in its high-dose form (150 mg), caused or significantly contributed to the development of meningiomas in users? The evidence is really strong on this for victims.
Failure to Warn: Did Pfizer and its affiliates adequately warn patients and healthcare providers about the potential risks of meningiomas associated with Depo-Provera, or did they fail to fulfill this legal duty? Pfizer will claim that the FDA would not let them change the warning. Let’s see what the evidence ultimately shows there.
Product Defects: Were there inherent flaws in the marketing, labeling, or design of Depo-Provera that contributed to the alleged injuries suffered by plaintiffs?

These questions will play a pivotal role in shaping the direction of the litigation and the strategies employed by both sides as they prepare for the next phases of the legal process.

January 9, 2025: Osteoporosis Was the Conversation Before Brain Tumors

Since the FDA approved Depo-Provera in 1992 and revised the drug’s package insert in 2004, one issue has consistently defined the litigation over its contraceptive use: osteoporosis. Before the brain tumor lawsuits gained attention, concerns about long-term bone density loss were at the forefront, with plaintiffs arguing that users were not adequately warned of the risks associated with extended use of the injectable contraceptive.

January 7, 2025: Another Lawsuit

In a new Depo-Provera lawsuit, a California woman alleges that prolonged use of Depo-Provera, a contraceptive injection manufactured and distributed by several pharmaceutical companies, caused her to develop an intracranial meningioma, a type of brain tumor. The plaintiff, a resident of Rialto, California, claims she was prescribed Depo-Provera over a span of 20 years for contraception and relied on representations by the manufacturers that the drug was safe and effective.

The suit names Pfizer Inc., Viatris Inc., Greenstone LLC, Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. LLC, and Pharmacia LLC as defendants, accusing them of failing to warn patients and the medical community about known risks associated with the drug. According to the complaint, scientific studies and adverse event data linking Depo-Provera to an increased risk of meningioma have been known to the defendants for decades. Despite this, the U.S. product label allegedly omitted warnings about these risks, even though such warnings appear on European and Canadian labels.

The plaintiff was diagnosed with a meningioma in 2023, which required invasive treatment, including brain surgery and ongoing rehabilitation. The suit alleges that Pfizer and its affiliates failed to adequately test Depo-Provera, monitor post-market safety signals, or inform prescribing physicians about safer alternatives, such as a lower-dose version of the drug, marketed as Depo-SubQ Provera 104. The plaintiff contends she would not have used the product had she been adequately warned.

The lawsuit brings claims of strict liability, negligence, and failure to warn, seeking compensatory and punitive damages for the plaintiff’s physical, emotional, and economic losses. It further alleges that the defendants prioritized profits they were getting from the Depo shot over patient safety, citing their continued marketing of the higher-dose product despite known risks.

January 5, 2025: Innovator Liability

California is one of only two states (the other being Massachusetts) that recognize innovator liability. This legal doctrine allows plaintiffs who used generic versions of Depo-Provera to pursue claims against Pfizer, the original manufacturer. Given California’s large population, including many users of generic Depo-Provera, this ensures a significant number of viable cases in the MDL.

January 1, 2025: Pfizer Wants New York

As predicted, Pfizer wants the Depo-Provera class action lawsuit in New York, not California, according to its response to the MDL motion. Interestingly, Pfizer agrees these lawsuits should be consolidated.

Pfizer’s legal team emphasized the logistical advantages of New York, citing proximity to corporate headquarters and the availability of expert witnesses. However, plaintiffs argue that California is the appropriate venue due to the volume of cases filed there and the state’s unique innovator liability doctrine, which expands the potential for claims against Pfizer for generic versions of the drug.

The MDL Panel is set to hear arguments later this month.

December 31, 2024: Preemption Defense Expected

Pfizer recently filed a response to the MDL petition, advocating for New York as the preferred venue for the Depo Provera brain tumor MDL. In this response, Pfizer’s defense attorneys strategically outlined what is expected to be an affirmative defense based on the federal preemption doctrine. This defense, commonly used in drug litigation, argues that a manufacturer cannot be held liable under state law for failure to warn because modifications to drug warning labels are regulated by federal law and overseen by the FDA.

Pfizer appears poised to argue that the failure-to-warn claims should be dismissed because they sought FDA approval to include a warning about meningioma on the Depo Provera label, but the FDA allegedly “rejected” the request. While preemption defenses are frequently raised in pharmaceutical injury cases, they are rarely successful.

December 15, 2024: Why Pfizer May Want MDL Outside of California

The plaintiffs are pushing very hard for the Northern District of California to be the venue for the Depo Provera MDL. From a defense perspective, however, Pfizer may want to steer clear of this district and California in general. Why? The Northern District of California has not been a very favorable venue for prior mass torts. Back in 2019, for example, a jury in this court issued a $2 billion verdict against Bayer in one of the Roundup bellwether test trials.

New York is a much better state for Pfizer. But it will have a very hard time convincing the MDL Panel that putting the litigation in New York makes more sense than California.

December 1, 2024: MDL Sought for Depo Provera Cases

A motion has been filed to coordinate more than 20 lawsuits involving the contraceptive Depo-Provera in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

The motion, presented to the MDL Panel, proposes consolidating the cases under a single judge in California. It emphasizes the substantial number of lawsuits already filed in the state and highlights California’s innovator liability laws, which permit plaintiffs to sue Pfizer, the brand-name manufacturer, even if they used a generic version of the drug.

The filing lists 22 lawsuits, including 18 in California, six of which are in the Northern District. Additional cases are pending in Indiana, Massachusetts, Missouri, and Nevada. California is described as a pivotal venue for managing the anticipated surge in cases, citing the large population of Depo-Provera users and a recent study showing a 550% increased risk of intracranial meningiomas linked to the drug.

November 30, 2024: Long-Term Users in Focus

The lawsuits being filed now are primarily on behalf of women who took the Depo shot over a long time horizon. These are thought to be the strongest lawsuits. Their extensive medical records and histories of consistent Depo-Provera use provide compelling evidence for the cumulative harm caused by the drug. Attorneys are leveraging this information to demonstrate how Pfizer and other manufacturers failed to adequately warn about the risks associated with prolonged use, even as they continued to market the drug as a safe, long-term contraceptive option

November 29, 2024: Proposed MDL Venues Narrow

The Central District of California and the Northern District of California are emerging as frontrunners for a potential Depo Provera class action MDL. Recent Depo Provera lawsuits have been filed in Nevada, Missouri, and Illinois. But it is hard to argue any one of these is the best venue for the MDL. Plaintiffs’ attorneys are advocating for a California-based MDL due to the high concentration of cases already filed there and the proximity to key Pfizer and Viatris corporate operations.

November 28, 2024: State Court Depo Provera Lawsuit

A lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of California in Alameda County targets not only the manufacturers of Depo Provera but also doctors and pharmacies. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants, including Kaiser Permanente International, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc., and the Permanente Medical Group Inc., were aware of the risks associated with Depo Provera through their independent research and verifications. Despite this knowledge, these entities continued to administer the drug, allegedly prioritizing profit over patient safety.

This case was filed in California state court because state courts typically have jurisdiction over cases involving state residents and businesses operating within the state, especially when claims are based on state laws. Unlike federal courts, which handle cases involving federal law or disputes between parties from different states (under diversity jurisdiction), state courts focus on disputes that have a significant connection to the state itself. So by naming an in-state defendant, the plaintiff can bring their claim in state court. We think you will see a lot of similar claim in Philadelphia and maybe Cook County (Chicago).

November 27, 2024: Emerging Focus on Repeat Injections

The data show that the risk of meningiomas rises sharply with more Depo-Provera injections. This has led plaintiffs’ attorneys to argue in these lawsuits that Pfizer should have provided stronger warnings to long-term users. The litigation may also include a more nuanced claim that the drug’s labeling failed to adequately inform patients about cumulative risks.

November 26, 2024: What Will Pfizer’s Documents Show?

Discovery has just begun. So we do not have specific internal documents from Pfizer indicating early knowledge of these risks have not been publicly disclosed. Our lawyers are pretty sure those documents exist. If such documents were to emerge, they will go a long way toward supporting claims that Pfizer failed to warn consumers despite being aware of potential dangers.

November 25, 2024: Class Certification Discussions Begin

Talks have begun among plaintiffs’ Depo Provera lawyers about seeking class certification for certain claims in the Depo Provera litigation. This would allow plaintiffs with similar circumstances—such as long-term use and confirmed meningioma diagnoses—to streamline their claims. The conventional wisdom is an MDL is inevitable.

November 24, 2024: Generic Depo Provera Lawsuits

Many women assumed that they were getting Depo Provera when they were getting the generic version. Depo-Provera was distributed as an “authorized generic” under various names. But it makes no difference—they have the same chemical composition as the brand-name version.

Generic drug manufacturer cases are often tougher because the duty to warn for a generic is very different. But, in this case, Pfizer owned most of the generic Depo Provera sold in the United States.

So while Pfizer is at the forefront of this litigation, generic manufacturers like Viatris and Prasco will be targeted for their versions of Depo-Provera. Plaintiffs allege that these companies perpetuated the same inadequate warnings found on Pfizer’s original product, failing to provide independent safety evaluations despite the availability of research linking medroxyprogesterone acetate to meningiomas.

November 23, 2024: Failure to Warn

We talked yesterday about how there is a strong Depo Provera design defect claim. There is. But the core of this litigation is the failure to warn. The FDA’s “Changes Being Effected” (CBE) regulation allows drug companies to update their labels without pre-approval if new safety information emerges.

Plaintiffs argue that the substantial body of research linking Depo Provera to meningioma qualifies as “newly acquired information,” yet Pfizer did not utilize the CBE process. The argument is that Pfizer could have, and should have, warned U.S. patients sooner.

November 22, 2024: A Safer Version of Depo Provera Was Available

Could Depo Provera have been made more safely? Yes. The crazy thing is that Pfizer is the one who made a safer product. There is Depo-SubQ Provera 104, a lower-dose alternative. Depo-SubQ Provera 104 is a subcutaneous injection with a lower progestin dose, yet equally effective for birth control and treatment.

This fact will make for a much stronger defective design claim.

November 21, 2024: New Meningioma Study

A new study reviews the latest imaging and management techniques for intracranial meningiomas, the most common brain tumors, accounting for 40% of all central nervous system neoplasms. Surgical resection remains the primary treatment for symptomatic tumors, but preoperative imaging advancements now play a critical role in planning.

For women involved in Depo-Provera lawsuits who developed meningiomas, the study underscores the importance of tumor characteristics in determining treatment outcomes, which will directly relate to the severity of their injuries which in turn will be a key factor in Depo Provera settlement compensation when we get to that point. Depo Provera lawsuits focus on the drug’s role in brain tumor development, and imaging advances will help strengthen arguments about the timing and progression of meningiomas.

November 20, 2024: The Power of the Roland Study

What is generating the energy in the Depo Provera litigation is the Roland study. There was plenty of information out there before this study came out. But the Roland study is a large study shows a truly staggering 555% increased risk of intracranial meningioma among long-term Depo Provera users. This was the tipping point.

This is why you are seeing so many lawyer advertisements in recent weeks. Depo Provera lawyers are excited about these lawsuits and the settlement amounts victims may see.

November 19, 2024: The Science of How the Depo Provera Shot Causes Meningioma

In 2015, a literature review led by Giulia Cossu and colleagues, published in BioMed Research International, examined existing studies on mifepristone, an antiprogesterone agent, and its impact on meningioma.

The review found that mifepristone exhibited a “regressive effect” on meningiomas, suggesting it could halt or reverse tumor growth. By blocking progesterone receptors on meningioma cells, mifepristone prevents progesterone from binding, which may contribute to tumor regression. The analysis incorporated over three decades of research, including influential studies by Blankenstein and others, concluding that mifepristone could be a promising option for managing certain meningiomas due to its receptor-blocking mechanism

What is the point of how mifepristone impacts meningioma in the Depo Provera brain tumor lawsuits? Because it highlights the link between progesterone and meningioma growth, the central issue in these cases. Depo Provera is said to increase the risk of meningioma because the high dose of progestin in Depo Provera contributes to meningioma formation by binding to progesterone receptors on cells in the meninges, the brain’s protective membranes, promoting tumor growth.

This mifepristone study supports this theory by showing that blocking progesterone receptors can have a “regressive effect” on meningiomas, reducing or reversing tumor growth. So the connection strengthens the plaintiffs’ argument that progestin-based drugs like Depo-Provera can stimulate meningioma development, as they rely on progesterone binding to fuel growth. The study’s findings thus underscore the argument that Depo-Provera’s design, particularly its high dose of progestin, may have contributed to the risk of meningiomas in users.

November 18, 2024: Depo Provera Class Action Lawsuit

Yesterday, we talked about the likelihood of an MDL class action lawsuit for Depo Provera. What would that look like for victims?

First, a Depo Provera class action lawsuit will not really be a class action in the technical sense of the term. In a class action lawsuit, one or a few plaintiffs represent the entire group, and if successful, any settlement or judgment is distributed among all class members according to a predefined formula.

This will be an MDL. This “sort of” class action consolidates multiple individual lawsuits with common claims into a single court for pretrial proceedings and, mostly likely, a few trials. But unlike class actions, each plaintiff in an MDL retains their own individual lawsuit and settlement. The cases can return to their original courts for trial if they do not settle during the MDL process. This allows for more individualized attention to each plaintiff’s specific injuries, leading to varied settlement amounts depending on the severity of their claims.

MDLs are always the choice in complex product liability lawsuits with varying injuries like Depo-Provera because they streamline the legal process without sacrificing the individual nature of each lawsuit. While class actions treat all plaintiffs collectively, MDLs offer more flexibility by allowing each plaintiff to negotiate a separate settlement based on their unique circumstances.

November 15, 2024: Different Warnings in Europe

One glaring issue in this litigation is the disparity between the product’s warnings in Canada and Europe and the United States—a difference that plaintiffs’ lawyers will undoubtedly hammer Pfizer with at trial.

In Europe, Depo-Provera includes a clear and explicit warning about the potential increased risk of brain tumors, specifically meningiomas. European regulators recognized the importance of alerting patients and healthcare providers to this danger, mandating these warnings to ensure informed medical decision-making.

By contrast, in the United States, Pfizer has not provided the same level of transparency. The U.S. version of Depo-Provera does not come clean on the risk of brain tumors, leaving doctors and patients unaware of a significant hazard. If you’re a plaintiffs’ lawyer, you can’t wait to get your hands on Pfizer’s internal documents about this decision. Say what you will about Pfizer, but they have some very smart people there who must have spotted this issue. (Whether they copied a lawyer on their concerns and will try to claim the document is privileged is another matter.)

Scientific data does not change between continents—what is a risk in Europe is no less dangerous in the United States. This disparity raises serious questions about Pfizer’s intent, suggesting the company prioritized its commercial interests in the U.S. market over patient safety.

The argument almost writes itself: if Pfizer could warn European patients, why not American patients? The absence of adequate warnings in the U.S. not only deprived patients of critical information, but it also violated their right to informed consent.

This is exactly the kind of issue a jury could sink its teeth into for punitive damages as well.

November 12, 2024: What Lawyers Are Saying About Settlement Compensation for Grade 1 Injuries

Right now, most of the calls our lawyers are getting about Depo Provera cases involve more serious tumors that have required or will require surgery and additional treatment.

But as the litigation progresses, our attorneys expect to get a greater percentage of calls from people who have been diagnosed with meningioma and have been told to do nothing but “wait and see.”

Lawyers have different opinions on these cases. Some are not taking them. Some will hold them and see how these cases shake out. But there are also attorneys who think they will be strong claims.

Put us is the latter camp. While Grade 1 meningiomas are generally classified as benign and slow-growing, the term “brain tumor” immediately raises red flags for anyone. That will impact juries and impact settlement amounts. The idea of having a brain tumor is, to put it mildly, alarming. Juries are likely to consider the gravity of a brain tumor diagnosis when determining compensation, even if the medical prognosis is relatively favorable and this will inform settlement payouts in these lawsuits.

A diagnosis of any brain tumor will cause extreme emotional distress, fear, and anxiety. Even if the prognosis is good, the emotional toll of wondering whether the tumor could grow or lead to additional complications is a serious consideration. This fear of progression, uncertainty, and the potential need for monitoring and treatment in the future contribute to a high degree of emotional and psychological suffering.

Fear is a component of pain and suffering. Grade 1 meningiomas typically require long-term monitoring, and there is always the potential risk that the tumor could grow or evolve into something more problematic. The possibility of needing future surgery or treatment can significantly add to the projected pain and suffering damages.

November 10, 2024: MDL Expected for Depo Provera Meningioma Lawsuits

The Pfizer Depo Provera brain tumor lawsuits are just starting to get filed in courts across the country and they have not yet been consolidated into a “class action” MDL (multidistrict litigation), based the early information and the size of the potential plaintiff field, however, MDL consolidation is almost guaranteed to happen at some point. According to the FDA, nearly a quarter of all sexually active women in the U.S. have used Depo-Provera for birth control at some point. That means upwards of 30-50 million women used Depo Provera. If only 1% of these women develop meningiomas, that would be a potential pool of around 300,000.

Based on what we have seen in prior mass torts involving similarly sized plaintiff fields, the Depo Provera litigation will likely involve several thousand plaintiffs. With that many cases, MDL consolidation is inevitable. The primary defendant, Pfizer, will most likely be in favor of MDL consolidation under these circumstances.

November 5, 2024: Study on Compensation in Meningioma Lawsuits

In 2020, a study was actually done on the outcomes of nearly 50 medical malpractice lawsuits involving failure to diagnose meningiomas (the same type of brain tumors that have now been linked to Depo Provera). This study found that the average settlement payout in these cases was just over $850,000 and the average verdict in those cases that went to trial was $3.4 million. This means that the settlement value of the Depo Provera cases involving meningiomas could be very high.

October 31, 2024: Depo-Provera Brain Tumor Lawsuits Gain Momentum

Lawsuits related to Depo-Provera and meningioma brain tumors have gained widespread attention from mass tort attorneys nationwide. FDA data suggests that the pool of potential plaintiffs could be substantial, given the number of women who have used the Depo-Provera birth control shot.

October 21, 2024: Five New Depo Provera Lawsuits Filed

Depo Provera brain tumor lawsuits are starting to get filed in increasing volume in federal courts across the country. Since the start of October, four new Depo Provera lawsuits have been filed in three different U.S. District Courts. Two new cases were filed in the Northern District of California. The other two cases were filed in the Southern District of Texas and the Southern District of Indiana. This type of new case volume should quickly lead to the creation of a new MDL.

July 22, 2024 – Pfizer Changes Prescribing Information

Amid growing concerns about a potential link between Depo-Provera, a widely used contraceptive, and the development of meningioma brain tumors, Pfizer has made significant updates to the drug’s prescribing information. These updates reflect new evidence that has emerged from recent studies, which suggest an increased risk of meningioma in patients who have used Depo-Provera over an extended period.

Despite these new findings and the changes to the prescribing guidelines, Pfizer has not yet made any alterations to the official warning label on the product. This omission has raised questions among medical professionals and patients about the transparency of the potential risks. While the updated guidelines offer healthcare providers more detailed information on prescribing practices, many believe that a more prominent warning about the risk of meningioma should be included to better inform patients of the possible long-term side effects of Depo-Provera.

April 21, 2024 – Pfizer Finally Issues Statement on New Study

Pfizer, the manufacturer of Depo-Provera, released a statement in response to the recent BMJ study that suggests a connection between the birth control shot and meningioma brain tumors. In their statement, Pfizer acknowledged the potential risks, specifically the increased risk of meningiomas due to “long-term progestogen use.” They also indicated plans to collaborate with regulatory agencies to make necessary updates to product labels and patient information leaflets, ensuring that both patients and healthcare providers are aware of these risks.

Pfizer expressed their commitment to patient safety, stating they would “work with regulatory agencies to update product labels and patient information leaflets” to reflect these findings. The company noted that while meningiomas are rare, the risk could be heightened for individuals who have used progestogen-based birth control for extended periods.

This recognition of potential risk from Pfizer could impact the course of litigation, including any future Depo-Provera class action lawsuits or mass tort claims related to meningioma diagnoses.

March 29, 2024 – Study Links Depo-Provera to Brain Tumors

A study published in the British Medical Journal – discussed more fully below – revealed that extended use of Depo-Provera significantly increases the risk of developing meningioma brain tumors. The research showed that women using Depo-Provera were over five times more likely to be diagnosed with meningiomas compared to those who had never used the shot. This will be a key study in every birth control brain tumor lawsuit.

Depo Provera – the “Birth Control Shot”

Depo-Provera, formally known as medroxyprogesterone acetate, is a synthetic form of the hormone progesterone and a widely used injectable contraceptive. Developed in the 1960s and approved by the FDA over thirty years ago in 1992, it offers a long-acting birth control method, requiring an injection every three months. This method of contraception has been utilized by millions of women worldwide due to its efficacy and convenience.

The convenience offered by Depo-Provera, requiring just one injection every three months, is attractive to a lot of women. This dosing schedule is particularly advantageous for those who may find daily contraceptive methods challenging to maintain. Its proven effectiveness as a contraceptive method adds to its reliability, making it a trusted choice for women across various regions. In areas where access to daily oral contraceptives is limited or non-existent, Depo-Provera provides an effective alternative, ensuring wider accessibility and helping to meet the family planning needs of a global population.

The contraceptive effectiveness of Depo-Provera is achieved through several mechanisms. Firstly, it suppresses ovulation by maintaining steady hormone levels, preventing the ovaries from releasing eggs. Additionally, it thickens the cervical mucus, creating a robust barrier that sperm cannot easily penetrate, greatly reducing the chances of fertilization. It also modifies the lining of the uterus, making it thinner and less receptive to any fertilized eggs, thereby decreasing the likelihood of implantation.

Common Side Effects of Depo-Provera

Depo-Provera, like all drugs, comes with a range of potential side effects. Some are common and mild, while others may be more serious, especially with long-term use.

1. Changes in Menstrual Cycle

Irregular bleeding: One of the most common side effects, especially during the first 6 to 12 months of use, is irregular menstrual bleeding. Some women experience spotting, heavy bleeding, or extended periods.
Amenorrhea: Over time, many women stop having periods altogether, which can be a relief for some but very off-putting for others who worry about getting pregnant in the future.

2. Weight Gain

Weight gain is a frequently reported side effect. Studies suggest that women may gain 5-10 pounds in the first year of use, with continued weight gain over subsequent years. Why does this happen? Doctors think this is probably due to an increase in appetite and possible changes in metabolism.

3. Mood Changes and Depression

Some women report mood swings, irritability, and, in rare cases, depression after starting Depo-Provera. If a woman has a history of depression, her healthcare provider may monitor her more closely for mood-related side effects.

4. Headaches

Headaches and migraines can occur or worsen in some women using Depo-Provera,. These are usually not side-splitting headings for most women.

5. Decreased Libido

Some users report a reduction in sexual desire, though this varies widely among individuals.

6. Delayed Return to Fertility

After stopping Depo-Provera, there can be a delay in the return of normal fertility. For some women, it may take up to 10 months or more for ovulation to return and menstruation to normalize.

Bone Density Issues with Depo-Provera

One of the most serious long-term concerns associated with Depo-Provera is its effect on bone mineral density (BMD) and it has been the subject of some litigation, especially in Canada where there is a class action lawsuit. This side effect is especially concerning for younger women, who are in their peak years of bone development. But it is also a worry with older women, especially those at particular risk for osteoporosis.

Why does Depo-Provera cause bone loss? Again, the drug suppresses estrogen production, which is essential for maintaining bone health by slowing bone breakdown and promoting bone regeneration. With lower estrogen levels, women using Depo-Provera experience increased bone loss, particularly in the spine and hips, areas that are most susceptible to fractures.

Research shows that women who use Depo-Provera for two years or more can experience significant reductions in bone mineral density, with the greatest impact on adolescents and young adults. Since these women have not yet reached their peak bone mass, long-term use of Depo-Provera during these crucial years may prevent them from ever achieving maximum bone density, leading to a higher risk of osteoporosis later in life.

Although some recovery of bone density may occur after stopping Depo-Provera, this recovery is often partial and may take several years. The FDA has issued a “black box warning” for Depo-Provera, cautioning that prolonged use can lead to irreversible bone loss.

To mitigate this risk, it is generally recommended that women avoid using Depo-Provera for more than two years unless other contraceptive options are not suitable. Women who use Depo-Provera long-term are advised to ensure adequate intake of calcium and vitamin D, engage in weight-bearing exercise, and undergo regular bone density tests to monitor for signs of bone loss. Women with a family history of osteoporosis or poor nutritional habits may be particularly vulnerable to these effects and should consider alternative contraceptive methods to preserve their bone health.

Research Shows the Depo-Provera Causes Brain Tumors

Now let’s turn to the focus of this new Depo-Provera litigation, the question of whether Depo-Provera causes brain tumors. In 2024, a major scientific study revealed a strong connection between the use of Depo-Provera and the development of a specific type of brain tumor known as meningioma. The study was published in the highly respected British Medical Journal.

The research involved a focus group of over 100,000 women in France between 2009 and 2018. It found that women who used the Depo-Provera birth control shot for an extended period were 5.6 times more likely to develop a meningioma brain tumor.

In the world of statistics, odds ratios, and medical studies, data showing that a drug makes something 5.6 times more likely is overwhelming proof of causation. Studies showing that a disease is 2 or 3 times more likely are considered conclusive evidence and have been the basis of billion dollar product liability settlements in the past.

Meningioma

A meningioma is a tumor that develops from the meninges, the membranes surrounding the brain and spinal cord. While not classified technically as a brain tumor, a meningioma can press on nearby brain tissue, nerves, and blood vessels. It is the most common type of tumor found in the head and it is commonly referred to as a “brain tumor.”

Most meningiomas grow very slowly and may take years to cause noticeable symptoms. However, in some cases, their pressure on nearby brain structures can lead to significant health issues.

Meningiomas are more common in women and are often diagnosed later in life, although they can occur at any age. Due to their slow growth, many meningiomas do not require immediate treatment and can be monitored over time with regular checkups.

Meningiomas are grouped into three separate categories or grades based on certain characteristics. Grade I and Grade II meningiomas are non-cancerous, with Grade II growing faster and being more resistant to treatment. Grade III meningiomas are malignant (cancerous) and very dangerous.

Since most meningiomas are benign (noncancerous), surgery is the most common treatment option. Complete removal of the tumor is preferred to minimize the risk of it returning.

In some cases, radiation therapy may be used to shrink the tumor. It is also an option for targeting small remnants of the tumor left after surgery or for patients who are not well enough to undergo surgery.

Depo-Provera Lawsuit Timeline

January 2025: An MDL hearing at the end of the month will determine where a Depo-Provera MDL will be housed.

December 2024: Plaintiffs’ lawyers file for a Depo-Provera MDL. Pfizer agrees there should be an MDL but disagrees on where it should be located. Plaintiffs seek California; Pfizer prefers New York.

October 2024: Depo-Provera lawsuits intensify as patients allege Pfizer failed to warn them about the risk of intracranial meningiomas.

July 2024: Pfizer updates U.S. prescribing guidelines for Depo-Provera to include brain tumor risks but does not update the official warning label.

March 2024: A major French study links Depo-Provera use for over a year to a 5.6x increased risk of intracranial meningiomas.

2017: Kalamarides et al. publish research showing that discontinuing progestin medications like Depo-Provera can lead to tumor shrinkage.

2015: Cossu et al. conduct a review highlighting the link between progesterone and meningioma growth, showing tumor regression with anti-progesterone agents.

2011: Gil et al. publish a study linking high doses of progestin-based medications like Depo-Provera to elevated meningioma risks.

2004: The FDA approves Depo-SubQ Provera 104, a lower-dose version, though data on long-term neurological safety is limited.

1992: The FDA approves Depo-Provera after decades of opposition due to cancer risks observed in animal studies.

1989: Blankenstein’s study suggests progesterone exposure accelerates meningioma growth, while anti-progesterone agents shrink tumors.

1969: Depo-Provera launches in 90 countries as a contraceptive despite FDA concerns, becoming popular in lower-income communities.

1967: The FDA rejects Upjohn’s first attempt to approve Depo-Provera due to findings of cancerous tumors in animal trials.

1959: Provera, the oral version of medroxyprogesterone acetate, launches as a treatment for irregular menstruation and miscarriage.

Birth Control Shot Lawsuits

Pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer have a legal duty to ensure their products are safe and to provide clear warnings about potential risks. If a manufacturer fails to fulfill this obligation, they can be held responsible for any harm caused by their product.

The connection between Depo-Provera and meningiomas was never included as a potential risk or side effect on its warning label. As a result, Pfizer may be held liable for failing to adequately warn users of this risk.

Who Qualifies to File a Depo-Provera Brain Tumor Lawsuit?

Individuals eligible to file a Depo-Provera lawsuit include women who received at least two injections of the Depo-Provera birth control shot and were later diagnosed with a meningioma or another type of brain tumor. These are the minimum eligibility requirements set by our firm.

Those who used Depo-Provera for longer periods are likely to have stronger claims compared to those who received only a few injections.

Proving a Depo-Provera Brain Tumor Claim

To succeed in a Depo-Provera brain tumor lawsuit, individuals will need to prove two key points: (1) they used the Depo-Provera birth control shot, and (2) they were diagnosed with a meningioma or another type of brain tumor.

While these requirements may seem straightforward, gathering the necessary documentation to support your claim can be a complex process. However, this is not something you need to handle alone—our experienced Depo-Provera attorneys are here to guide you every step of the way.

Evidence of Depo-Provera use can typically be obtained through medical records from the prescribing physician or clinics where you received the injections. Insurance billing records can also provide clear proof of your Depo-Provera usage. For those who may not have easy access to this information, our legal team will work diligently on your behalf to obtain these documents. We have the resources and expertise to navigate medical systems, ensuring the necessary records are collected to support your claim.

Additionally, proof of a brain tumor diagnosis, such as a meningioma, will also require medical documentation. Hospital records, pathology reports, imaging studies like MRIs or CT scans, and treatment records will be essential in establishing this part of your case. Again, you do not need to stress about acquiring these records—our team will handle the heavy lifting. We will coordinate with healthcare providers, hospitals, and diagnostic facilities to compile the evidence needed to strengthen your claim.

Beyond the basic elements of proof, other factors can significantly enhance the strength of your Depo-Provera brain tumor lawsuit. For example, long-term use of Depo-Provera or multiple injections over several years may bolster the argument that the drug contributed to the development of your condition. If you received a higher-dose version of the shot, such as Depo-Provera 150 mg, this can also be an important aspect of your claim, as studies have linked higher doses to an increased risk of meningiomas. Our lawyers are well-versed in identifying and leveraging these factors to build the strongest possible case for you.

Let’s be clear about what eligibility for a Depo Provera lawsuit means. Even if you do not meet these specific criteria, you may still have a valid claim. Every case is unique. And just because you our firm will not take your case does not mean you are not eligible to bring a claim. But we do have set this set criteria.

Is There a Depo Provera Class Action Lawsuit?

Yes. As of now, there is an active Depo-Provera brain tumor MDL (multidistrict litigation), and the litigation is officially underway. The MDL consolidates federal lawsuits filed by women who developed meningioma after receiving the Depo-Provera birth control shot. This litigation follows newly published medical research linking Depo-Provera (medroxyprogesterone acetate) to increased risks of brain pressure disorders.

With the MDL now established, the number of claims will grow steadily as more women become aware of the alleged connection between Depo-Provera and serious neurological injuries. The early stages of the MDL involve leadership appointments, discovery planning, and the production of what is already over 1 million documents from Pfizer. Plaintiffs’ lawyers across the country are currently evaluating cases and preparing new filings.

What Are Potential Depo-Provera Brain Tumor Lawsuit Settlement Amounts?

First, let’s note that it is important to take any early settlement estimates with a grain of salt, similar to trying to predict the path of a hurricane far in advance. While we can make educated guesses based on past lawsuits with similar injuries, the final outcomes will depend on how the evidence holds up in court and various other unpredictable factors. That said, if the connection between Depo-Provera and meningioma brain tumors can established convincingly to a jury, settlement payouts s could range from $100,000 to $2 million or more. Why such a broad range of possible compensation?

This wide range is largely due to the varying severity of meningiomas. The difference between a Grade I (non-cancerous) meningioma and a malignant Grade III meningioma is significant. A Grade III meningioma is potentially life-threatening and far more serious. Those cases could fetch over $1 million because the potential jury payouts could be in the tens of millions.

Treating a symptomatic intracranial meningioma usually requires highly invasive brain surgery, specifically a craniotomy, where a portion of the skull is removed to access the brain and meninges. Juries will see how awful this is, which will translate to Depo Provera settlement amounts when the time comes. Some risks involve real pain and suffering even when they do not come to pass.

These are serious surgeries, too. Due to the tumor’s sensitive location, complete removal is often risky and technically challenging, and additional treatments like radiation therapy or chemotherapy may be necessary.

Grade I meningiomas are generally less harmful and rarely life-threatening. But, they may see significant settlements. Because no woman wants to live with the fear of a brain tumor that could get worse, Grade II cases would fall somewhere around the average between the two.

Here’s how potential settlement amounts could break down:

Grade I meningiomas: These non-cancerous tumors, while less aggressive, still pose health risks and emotional distress. Settlement amounts for Grade I cases might range between $100,000 and $200,000, depending on the specific impact on the plaintiff’s life.
Grade II meningiomas: These tumors are more serious and come with a higher risk of complications. For plaintiffs with Grade II meningiomas, settlements could range from $200,000 to $800,000. There is a wide range of severity in these Grade II cases.
Grade III meningiomas: The most severe cases involve malignant, life-threatening tumors. Settlements for Grade III cases could exceed $1 million, and in some instances, may reach $2 million or more, especially where the victim has died or their quality of life has been significantly impacted

These estimates are early projections and may change as more information becomes available during litigation. Just like predicting any uncertain event, actual settlement amounts could vary significantly. We will continue to update these compensation payouts predictions in this space as the litigation unfolds.

Contact Our Depo Provera Lawyers

If you used Depo-Provera and were later diagnosed with a meningioma or another type of brain tumor, reach out to our national product liability attorneys today at 800-553-8082 or connect with us online.

★★★★★

They quite literally worked as hard as if not harder than the doctors to save our lives. Terry Waldron

Ron helped me find a clear path that ended with my foot healing and a settlement that was much more than I hope for. Aaron Johnson

Hopefully I won't need it again but if I do, I have definitely found my lawyer for life and I would definitely recommend this office to anyone! Bridget Stevens

The last case I referred to them settled for $1.2 million. John Selinger

I am so grateful that I was lucky to pick Miller & Zois. Maggie Lauer

The entire team from the intake Samantha to the lawyer himself (Ron Miller) has been really approachable. Suzette Allen

The case settled and I got a lot more money than I expected. Ron even fought to reduce how much I owed in medical bills so I could get an even larger settlement. Nchedo Idahosa

Submit a Law Firm Client Review