Contextualizing Depo-Provera: Strategic Insights for Lawyers

Understanding the evolving landscape of the Depo-Provera litigation can feel overwhelming, but it doesn't have to be.

By comparing Depo-Provera litigation to other notable cases, lawyers can identify common hurdles, legal frameworks, and potential settlement trends to guide strategy.

In November 2024, moved the JPML to centralize Depo-Provera lawsuits into an MDL in the Northern District of California. The motion cited 22 similar cases across eight courts, represented by ten law firms, with many more are expected.

The plaintiff pool could be massive, considering millions of women used the product. An MDL is likely, and should simplify pretrial proceedings and manage the surge of cases spurred by studies linking Depo-Provera to an increased risk of intracranial meningiomas.

The JPML's decision is pending, but we should know their decision in the next few months. In the meantime, individual lawsuits continue independently, with no settlements yet reached.

Indeed, cases are in the very early stages. Lawsuits have alleged that prolonged use of Depo-Provera, a contraceptive injection, increases the risk of developing meningiomas—non-cancerous brain tumors.

A study published in the British Medical Journal in March 2024 reviewed data from over 18,000 women who had surgery for meningiomas between 2009 and 2018.

Researchers found that women using Depo-Provera for more than a year faced a 5.6x higher risk of developing intracranial meningiomas compared to non-users. Interestingly, the study showed no increased risk for women who used it for less than a year. It also revealed that two-thirds of Depo-Provera users with meningiomas were over the age of 45.

These findings suggest that both the duration of use and the user's age could play a role in case intake decisions.

Depo-Provera is marketed exclusively to women, like talcum powder and hair relaxers. This raises important questions about gender equity and targeted marketing, especially when health risks disproportionately affect women.

The parallels to products like Essure (another contraceptive), talcum powder, and hair relaxers are striking. All these products share common themes of gendered marketing, long-term health risks, and allegations of insufficient warnings about potential dangers.

These broader social implications add a layer of complexity to the legal strategy, as they may resonate with juries and public opinion.

Lawyers should be prepared to leverage this aspect of the narrative, particularly if evidence emerges suggesting that the manufacturers of Depo-Provera were aware of the risks but did not adequately warn consumers.

The strength of the scientific evidence will also be critical. The defense will certainly argue against causation, particularly given that other factors—such as genetics, pre-existing conditions, or other medications—might also contribute to meningioma development.

Plaintiffs, on the other hand, will rely heavily on expert testimony to connect the dots between Depo-Provera and these tumors. As more cases progress, we'll gain a clearer picture of potential settlements and verdicts.

Early bellwether trials, if the MDL is established, will be particularly informative in shaping the trajectory of these cases.

*Advertisement

Why Use the Rest When You Can Use the Best?

Here's why clients love our legal intake service:

• We specialize in screening out fraud and signing only qualified cases.
• Flat $1.95 per minute with no extra charges. Includes texting, outbounding, background checks, and more.
• Extensive verification & document collection processes, including medical records check if desired.
• Our experienced agents actually interview claimants thoroughly unlike our competitors who just read from a script.
• Lower cost per compensable and higher quality than other call centers.
• Our agents are not incentivized to sign unqualified cases unlike most others.

To learn more visit our mass tort intake page

Comparative Settlement Analysis

Looking at how settlements have played out in similar cases can give us an idea of what to expect with Depo-Provera.

Settlement amounts for mild injuries could range from $1,000 to $10,000. For moderate injuries, settlements might land between $20,000 and $75,000.

Severe injuries could command payouts of $75,000 to $200,000, while wrongful death cases might go higher. However, wrongful death claims are expected to be rare.

The actual numbers will depend on how litigation develops, the strength of jury decisions, and the manufacturer's willingness to settle.

Here's how Depo-Provera compares to other mass tort cases:

1. Hair Relaxer
   1. Projected Settlements: Severe cases (e.g., uterine cancer) are expected to settle between $300,000 and $1.75 million.
   2. Comparison: Depo-Provera settlements for severe meningiomas ($75,000–$200,000) are likely lower due to the less life-threatening of meningiomas nature (even when severe) compared to uterine or ovarian cancers.
   3. Key Distinction: Hair relaxer cases benefit from larger-scale epidemiological studies, while Depo-Provera cases rely on narrower research.
2. Talcum Powder
   1. Average Settlements: $100,000 to over $1 million, with some jury awards exceeding $100 million for ovarian cancer cases.
   2. Comparison: Depo-Provera settlements will likely align more with the lower end of talc payouts, as meningiomas are serious but usually non-fatal, unlike ovarian cancer.
   3. Key Distinction: In addition to scientific studies, the Talc litigation also features evidence of corporate misconduct, which may not be as prominent in Depo-Provera cases.
3. Essure Litigation
   1. Average Settlements: $40,000 to $500,000, with high-value cases exceeding $1 million.
   2. Comparison: Depo-Provera settlement projections are similar, as both involve contraceptive products with serious but non-life-threatening health consequences.
   3. Key Distinction: Essure claims frequently involve device-related complications, while Depo-Provera lawsuits focus on pharmaceutical risks.

Comparing these cases reveals clear trends: settlements tend to reflect the severity of injuries, the strength of scientific evidence, and whether the claims involve misconduct by the defendant.

These factors should guide both sides in evaluating the potential value of individual cases and the overall litigation.

Key Takeaways

• Moderate Settlement Ranges: Depo-Provera payouts ($100,000–$500,000) are expected to fall in the mid-range compared to other mass torts, generally lower than cancer-related cases like talc and Roundup.
• Severity Drives Settlements: Severe and life-threatening injuries typically command higher payouts. While meningiomas are serious, they're rarely fatal, leading to lower settlements than cases involving fatal conditions.
• Litigation Momentum Matters: Early jury verdicts favoring plaintiffs could significantly boost future settlement values, as seen in Roundup and talcum powder cases.
• Broader Implications: Cases involving products marketed primarily to women often resonate strongly with juries. Highlighting gender equity issues and the disproportionate health risks faced by women can be a powerful strategy.

The Legal Calls Advantage - how we're different

• We know what really matters to you is the cost per compensable case.
• Our fraud detection department is second to none.
• Need medical records? Just ask.
• Non-incentivized intake agents! Most case originators pay a bonus to their agents on signing, which leads to signing unqualified claimants.
• We conduct in-depth interviews by asking open-ended non-leading questions, like an attorney would do.

Click here to book a call

Moving Forward in Depo-Provera Litigation

The Depo-Provera litigation presents unique challenges and opportunities. Legal professionals who understand the scientific evidence, settlement benchmarks, and effective litigation strategies can set themselves apart in this field. By highlighting the unique challenges and opportunities in Depo-Provera cases, lawyers can position their firms for success. A clear understanding of scientific evidence, settlement benchmarks, and litigation strategy is critical for securing favorable outcomes for plaintiffs. Lawyers cannot forget the complex causation issues ahead and will need to collaborate intensly with experts to build the case.

Craig H. Alinder, Vice President

Office: 802-664-4201 | Email: craig@legalcalls.com

LegalCalls.com | Calendly | Download our most recent price sheet

Legal Calls, 2108 N Street, Suite 4809, Sacramento, CA 95816, (877) 853-5801

‍

‍