Depo-Provera Meningioma Lawsuits: A Q&A with Attorney Brendan Smith
Editors carefully fact-check all Drugwatch.com content for accuracy and quality.
Drugwatch.com has a stringent fact-checking process. It starts with our strict sourcing guidelines.
We only gather information from credible sources. This includes peer-reviewed medical journals, reputable media outlets, government reports, court records and interviews with qualified experts.
An increasing number of women are suing over Depo-Provera. They claim the injectable birth control caused tumors called meningiomas.
Pfizer currently manufactures Depo-Provera, also known as Depo or the shot. It is the brand name for medroxyprogesterone acetate injections.
A 2024 BMJ study found that prolonged use of medroxyprogesterone acetate injections raised the risk of meningiomas by 5.6 times. BMJ says the study is the first to assess the risks of widely used progestogens.
Brendan Smith is a partner at Simmons Hanly Conroy in the Complex Litigation Department. In a Q&A with Drugwatch, Smith explains the study’s impact on lawsuits. He also breaks down who can file a Depo-Provera lawsuit and what to expect in 2025.
Q: Why are people suing Pfizer over Depo-Provera?
Plaintiffs allege that Depo-Provera, a contraceptive injection, increases the risk of meningiomas. They claim Pfizer failed to adequately warn users of these risks.
Q: What evidence do plaintiffs need to demonstrate a link between Depo-Provera use and meningiomas?
Plaintiffs typically need to provide medical records showing a diagnosis of meningioma, evidence of Depo-Provera use [such as] prescription records, and expert testimony and studies linking the drug to increased meningioma risk.
Q: How has the recent BMJ study influenced these lawsuits? Do you anticipate it will play a significant role in court?
The BMJ study, which highlights a potential correlation between Depo-Provera use and meningiomas, strengthens causation arguments [for lawsuits]. It is likely to play a critical role in both settlement discussions and courtroom proceedings as scientific evidence supporting plaintiffs’ claims.
Q: How have meningioma symptoms, such as headaches and blurred vision, affected the daily lives of the plaintiffs you represent?
Meningioma symptoms often significantly disrupt plaintiffs’ lives, leading to chronic pain, vision impairment, fatigue and cognitive difficulties. These challenges can hinder work, relationships and daily activities.
Q: What financial and emotional challenges do plaintiffs face?
Plaintiffs face high medical expenses for treatments like surgery and radiation, as well as lost income due to their inability to work. Emotionally, dealing with a life-altering diagnosis can take a severe toll.
Q: Where is Depo-Provera litigation headed in 2025?
As more cases are filed, it’s likely that litigation will consolidate into a multidistrict litigation (MDL) to streamline pretrial processes. In 2025, we will likely see the development of an MDL, a consolidation of cases, and initial rounds of discovery exchanged between the parties.
Q: What does consolidating Depo-Provera lawsuits involve? How might it affect those considering a lawsuit?
Consolidation into an MDL involves transferring related cases to a single federal court. This process can make litigation more efficient, as discovery and pretrial rulings apply to all cases. For individuals, it means streamlined case handling and a strong likelihood of reduced case costs.
Q: What advice would you give to someone thinking of filing a lawsuit after a meningioma diagnosis?
Gather all medical records that you can, including Depo-Provera prescriptions and diagnosis of meningioma. Consult an attorney experienced in pharmaceutical litigation to evaluate your case and guide you through the process.
Q: Are there specific eligibility criteria that individuals need to meet to qualify?
Eligibility often depends on factors such as the duration of Depo-Provera use (e.g., at least one year), a diagnosis of meningioma, and documented evidence of usage and injury. Consulting legal counsel is essential to assess individual eligibility.