Depo-Provera Lawsuit in North Dakota

Depo-Provera Lawyer Near You in ND

You trusted your doctor’s recommendation for Depo-Provera: a convenient quarterly injection instead of daily pills. Years later, the unexplained headaches, vision changes, and memory problems finally made sense when the neurologist said those dreaded words: “brain tumor.”

From Fargo medical offices to Bismarck women’s health clinics to rural Williston practices, North Dakota women are discovering an unsettling connection between their birth control method and life-altering meningioma diagnoses. The synthetic hormone they received every three months may have stimulated abnormal cell growth in the protective membrane surrounding their brains.

Foster James stands beside North Dakota women confronting this medical betrayal. Attorneys James Foster and Fob James IV are preparing cases against manufacturers who potentially recognized this risk but failed to warn patients and their healthcare providers adequately. Call us now at 855-211-8999 for a confidential assessment of your potential claim. At no cost.

Call us at 855-211-8999 right now or Click to Email

Depo-Provera Lawsuit Updates — May 2025

The Depo-Provera multidistrict litigation (multidistrict litigation, or MDL-3140), centralized in the Northern District of Florida and overseen by Judge M. Casey Rodgers, has seen rapid developments since its formation in late 2024.

The lawsuits allege that Pfizer’s Depo-Provera birth control shot significantly increases the risk of meningioma brain tumors, a link supported by recent scientific studies.

May 16, 2025 

A woman from Iowa joins the Depo-Provera MDL, alleging that the contraceptive injection caused her to develop an intracranial meningioma after receiving approximately 25 injections between 2008 and 2016.

Her symptoms included double vision, slurred speech, and numbness. The case is now part of the coordinated litigation in Florida.

May 12, 2025

The Court issued Pretrial Order No. 23 outlining a new process for identifying and correcting deficiencies in plaintiff complaints filed in the Depo-Provera MDL.

Complaints must allege use of a covered Depo-Provera product and diagnosis of a specific type of meningioma, and must include both the plaintiff’s and each defendant’s citizenship.

May 6, 2025 

The Court outlined the official process for identifying deficiencies in plaintiffs’ proof of product use and injury in the Depo-Provera MDL. Each plaintiff must submit a completed Use/Injury Questionnaire and upload documentary proof showing their use of a covered Depo-Provera product and diagnosis of a qualifying meningioma.

Plaintiffs must follow specific formatting rules, including page limits and bookmarked PDF uploads, with acceptable documentation types. If issues remain unresolved, the Court may issue an Order to Show Cause, and unresolved cases may be dismissed with prejudice.

April 28, 2025 

A Utah woman joins the MDL after alleging that Depo-Provera caused her to develop a Grade II-III meningioma. She underwent brain surgery in 2008 and claims she only connected her diagnosis to the drug in 2024.

April 21, 2025 

A Kentucky family files a lawsuit claiming the wife developed an intracranial meningioma requiring brain surgery after Depo-Provera use between 2001 and 2006. The case has been transferred into the MDL.

March 27, 2025

The Court approved document search and production protocols for Defendants Prasco, Greenstone, and Viatris in the Depo-Provera MDL. Each company outlined how it will gather relevant emails and records, focusing on documents related to its involvement with the product.

They will use agreed-upon search terms to identify potentially important files and check the accuracy of those searches using random sampling.

The goal is to ensure the results are thorough but not overly burdensome. If needed, the search terms can be adjusted, and the parties must work together to resolve any disputes. If no agreement can be reached, they may ask the Court to step in.

March 16, 2025

The Court appointed leadership teams for both Plaintiffs and Defendants in the Depo-Provera MDL.

The order also created joint committees for settlement discussions and coordination with state court actions. All appointments are personal, effective for one year, and may be renewed upon court approval.

March 15, 2025

The Court held its second Case Management Conference for the Depo-Provera MDL. It approved several agreed-upon procedures, including how plaintiffs will prove product use and injury and how Pfizer will handle electronic document production.

Generic drugmakers Greenstone, Viatris, and Prasco were told to submit affidavits about their involvement with the drug. A full discovery and briefing schedule was also set for five pilot cases, lasting through March 2026.

March 14, 2025 

On March 14, 2025, the Court issued several important orders to streamline proceedings in the Depo-Provera multidistrict litigation against defendants Pfizer, Inc., Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. LLC, Pharmacia LLC, Greenstone LLC, Viatris Inc., and Prasco LLC.

First, the Court approved a Confidentiality Orderestablishing rules for handling and protecting sensitive documents and information, including trade secrets, private health records, and privileged communications.

Second, the Court adopted Pfizer’s proposed protocol for collecting, reviewing, and validating potentially responsive electronically stored information (ESI). This protocol outlines search term development, statistical sampling, and validation steps. Generic drugmaker defendants must submit a similar plan by March 21.

Third, the Court issued an order, “Threshold Proof of Use and Injury Requirements,” requiring all plaintiffs to submit proof of Depo-Provera use and documentation of their alleged meningioma diagnosis through an online system.

Plaintiffs must complete this “Proof of Use/Injury Questionnaire” within 120 days of filing or transfer into the MDL. A separate protocol will be developed for cases lacking definitive product identification.

March 13, 2025 

A Georgia woman files suit after developing brain tumors linked to Depo-Provera. She used the shot from 2008 to 2014 and was diagnosed in 2018. Her case is transferred to MDL-3140.

Additionally, the Court approved a process for plaintiffs to file their Depo-Provera cases directly into the MDL in Florida to save time and avoid transfer delays. Each case must list where it would have originally been filed and follow the rules against combining multiple plaintiffs in one complaint.

This order does not affect where the case can eventually be tried, and it won’t change which state’s laws apply. Lawyers must check for duplicate filings and serve complaints through the designated MDL system.

March 11, 2025

The Court appointed a Common Benefit Special Master to oversee the management of the forthcoming Common Benefit Fund. The Special Master will work closely with plaintiffs’ leadership and report to the Court as needed. His responsibilities include monitoring fund-related activities and maintaining detailed billing records. Compensation will be drawn from the Common Benefit Fund once it is established.

March 9, 2025

The Court scheduled oral presentations for all attorneys who applied for plaintiff leadership positions. Presentations will take place in Pensacola on March 13 and 14, immediately following the case management conference.

Each applicant will have five minutes to present and must highlight one key attribute they wish the Court to consider.

March 1, 2025

In Pretrial Order No. 6, the Court appointed a Data Administrator to manage the large volume of information in the litigation. The Administrator is authorized to collect, organize, and analyze plaintiff data, oversee discovery repositories, track dismissals, and help prevent duplicate filings.

A public website will also be maintained to provide access to case management orders, schedules, and approved materials. All data-related work will remain protected by privilege and the work product doctrine unless intentionally disclosed to opposing parties.

Moreover, in Pretrial Order No. 7, the Court appointed retired Judge David Herndon as Special Master to support the management of the MDL and its five pilot cases. He is authorized to communicate with the parties and the Court on an ex parte basis regarding case progress.

February 28, 2025

Judge Rodgers, through Pretrial Order No. 5, opened the application process for permanent plaintiffs’ leadership positions in MDL No. 3140. Attorneys with cases filed or transferred into the MDL may apply by submitting a completed form by March 7, 2025.

Applications will be reviewed confidentially, and selected applicants may be invited to present their qualifications on March 13 or 14.

February 23, 2025

In Case Management Order No. 1, the Court outlined key directives following the February 21 conference. BrownGreer was appointed to provide litigation support, and all plaintiffs must file individual complaints unless claims arise from the same factual basis. 

Five pilot cases were selected to proceed through early discovery and trial to address shared legal and scientific issues. The Court ordered the parties to meet by March 3 to develop discovery protocols and submit leadership proposals by February 28, with an emphasis on experience, diversity, and capacity to manage the litigation.

February 13, 2025

In Pretrial Order No. 4, Judge Rodgers established filing and docketing procedures for MDL No. 3140. All filings must be made electronically to the master docket and, when relevant, to individual case dockets. 

The Court implemented a modified pro hac vice admission process, waiving the certificate of good standing requirement and duplicate fee payments for attorneys previously admitted in related cases.

February 12, 2025 

Judge Rodgers issued Pretrial Order No. 3 requiring all attorneys who plan to attend the initial case management conference in person to notify the Court. Notices via email must include the attorney’s name, firm, client(s) represented, and whether the client(s) will attend. 

February 11, 2025 

In Pretrial Order No. 2, Judge Rodgers consolidated all current and future Depo-Provera cases for coordinated pretrial proceedings in MDL No. 3140. The Court scheduled the initial case management conference for February 21, 2025, in Pensacola, Florida, and directed parties to meet and submit a joint report by February 18 addressing leadership, discovery, document management, and other procedural matters. 

All responsive pleadings from defendants are stayed until a future deadline is set, and discovery is paused pending further court orders. The order also outlines interim administrative procedures, participation requirements for counsel, and communication protocols with the Court. 

February 8, 2025 

In Pretrial Order No. 1, the Northern District of Florida assigned Magistrate Judge Hope T. Cannon to all cases under MDL No. 3140. This includes the original 27 actions centralized by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, as well as any future tag-along or related cases filed, transferred, or removed to this court. 

The order was issued by Judge Rodgers to promote judicial efficiency. It applies universally across all proceedings in the Depo-Provera products liability litigation.

February 7, 2025 

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated 27 Depo-Provera lawsuits into MDL No. 3140 and assigned the case to Judge Rodgers in the Northern District of Florida. Plaintiffs claim that prolonged use of Depo-Provera caused them to develop intracranial meningiomas, and that the drug makers failed to provide adequate warnings or promote a safer alternative, Depo-SubQ Provera 104. 

While many plaintiffs pushed for centralization in California, the Panel chose Florida due to the court’s resources and Judge Rodgers’ experience managing nationwide product liability cases. 

The centralization is aimed at reducing duplicative discovery, avoiding conflicting rulings, and promoting efficiency. The MDL is limited to claims involving meningiomas allegedly linked to Depo-Provera or its generic versions.

February 1, 2025

A class action lawsuit was filed requesting that Pfizer fund a long-term medical monitoring program for women exposed to Depo-Provera, including regular MRIs to detect meningiomas early.

January 4, 2025

Sources suggest that Pfizer supported forming an MDL but requested that it be placed in the Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs, on the other hand, advocated for the Northern District of California.

December 23, 2024

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) announced that it would hold a hearing to decide whether to consolidate Depo-Provera lawsuits into an MDL.

November 13, 2024 

According to reports, initial Depo-Provera lawsuits were filed in California federal court and Philadelphia state court. These early filings establish momentum in favorable venues for plaintiffs. 

With bellwether case discovery underway and leadership appointments complete, the MDL is advancing faster than most pharmaceutical mass torts. Plaintiffs’ attorneys nationwide, including Foster James, LLC, are actively preparing cases for early trial phases.

Depo-Provera has been commonly prescribed in North Dakota for years, particularly in rural clinics, public health units, and OB-GYN offices offering long-acting birth control options.

Many of the women we’ve heard from across Fargo, Bismarck, Grand Forks, and smaller surrounding communities received their injections through Medicaid programs or local health centers that serve lower-income and underserved populations.

If you’ve used Depo-Provera and were later diagnosed with a brain tumor, this is a pivotal moment to consult a lawyer. Contact our law firm today to see if your claim qualifies under the current MDL structure.

What Is A Depo-Provera Lawsuit in North Dakota?

A Depo-Provera lawsuit in North Dakota involves legal claims from individuals who suffered serious side effects, such as bone density loss or hormonal disorders, after using the contraceptive injection. Plaintiffs argue the manufacturer failed to adequately warn about the risks, leading to ongoing personal injury or product liability cases.

Get a Free Case Review

Potential Defendants in a Depo-Provera Brain Tumor Lawsuit

Several companies are named in Depo-Provera lawsuits based on their roles in manufacturing, distributing, or licensing the injectable contraceptive. Each defendant’s involvement varies based on timing, corporate mergers, and regulatory responsibilities:

Pfizer Inc. – As the current owner of the Depo-Provera brand, Pfizer is the central defendant in this litigation. Since acquiring Pharmacia & Upjohn in 2002, Pfizer has maintained control over the drug’s formulation, marketing, and labeling. Plaintiffs allege that the company failed to provide adequate warnings about the drug’s potential to cause meningiomas. Given Pfizer’s scale and direct responsibility, it is the primary target in most cases.

Greenstone LLC – A Pfizer subsidiary that operated as an “authorized generic” distributor of Depo-Provera before the FTC-mandated divestiture. Greenstone is named in many cases based on its distribution of chemically identical versions of the drug without the Pfizer label.

Pharmacia & Upjohn – This legacy entity was the original developer of Depo-Provera and submitted the early U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) applications for contraceptive approval. Plaintiffs assert that the company failed to adequately investigate or disclose risks associated with long-term use of medroxyprogesterone acetate prior to Pfizer’s acquisition.

Prasco Laboratories – After Greenstone’s divestment, Prasco obtained the exclusive license to distribute the authorized generic version of Depo-Provera starting in late 2020. The company contends it should not be held liable for cases involving use before its distribution began. Nonetheless, it has been named in lawsuits based on its role as a current distributor.

Viatris Inc. – This global pharmaceutical company was formed through the 2020 merger of Upjohn, Greenstone, and Mylan. Plaintiffs argue that Viatris played a role in distributing Depo-Provera and its generic equivalents after the merger and should be held liable for product safety and labeling.

These companies are alleged to have failed in one or more areas, including product safety testing, risk communication, and post-market surveillance. While Pfizer remains the focal point, all named defendants face scrutiny for their involvement in bringing Depo-Provera to patients without sufficient warnings.

Depo-Provera’s History and North Dakota Usage

Depo-Provera appeared in North Dakota clinics in the early 1990s, marketed as an innovative contraceptive requiring only quarterly appointments. What manufacturers seldom disclosed was the medication’s problematic regulatory history and emerging risk profile.

Initially created as a cancer treatment, medroxyprogesterone acetate (Depo-Provera) was repeatedly denied FDA approval for contraceptive use in 1967, 1978, and 1983.

Regulators expressed serious reservations about cancer risks and insufficient long-term safety data. Despite these concerns, the drug gained contraceptive approval in several countries with less rigorous regulatory standards starting in 1969.

American women, including those across North Dakota, finally gained access to this injectable contraceptive in 1992. The medication proved particularly valuable in North Dakota’s remote communities, where harsh winter conditions and substantial travel distances to medical facilities make frequent healthcare visits impractical.

Beyond preventing pregnancy, North Dakota healthcare providers commonly prescribed Depo-Provera for gynecological conditions including endometriosis, endometrial hyperplasia, and abnormal uterine bleeding. This practice expanded the medication’s reach to women not seeking contraception.

A major gap in informed consent emerged: growing scientific literature suggesting a link between prolonged synthetic progestin exposure and meningioma development rarely factored into patient discussions. Many North Dakota women received years of injections without any mention of potential neurological risks.

Call us at 855-211-8999 right now or Click to Email

How Meningiomas Transform North Dakota Lives

The medical classification “benign tumor” severely understates the life-altering reality of meningiomas. While these growths rarely metastasize, earning them the technical label “benign,” their effects on North Dakota patients prove anything but harmless.

Meningiomas develop in the meninges, the three-layered protective covering surrounding the brain and spinal cord. As these tumors expand, they exert pressure on adjacent brain tissue, disrupting neurological function and creating a cascade of debilitating symptoms.

Many North Dakota patients initially notice ordinary signs. Headaches that persist despite medication. Visual disturbances while driving across North Dakota’s open highways. Unexplained memory gaps during routine conversations. Hearing difficulties or persistent ringing sounds. Gradual weakness affecting one side of the body.

Diagnosis typically follows months of worsening symptoms and ineffective treatments for incorrectly identified conditions. Treatment depends on tumor location, size, and symptom severity.

North Dakota neurosurgical teams often recommend surgical removal when tumors are accessible: a procedure involving temporary skull removal to extract the growth. Recovery spans months with substantial work absences and rehabilitation requirements.

For tumors positioned near vital brain structures, patients may undergo focused radiation treatment instead of surgery. Many require ongoing medications for seizure prevention, brain swelling reduction, and pain management, each introducing additional side effects and limitations.

Research Connecting Depo-Provera to Meningiomas

The scientific foundation linking Depo-Provera to increased meningioma risk continues to solidify, strengthening North Dakota women’s legal claims.

A landmark March 2024 British Medical Journal study examined data from over 108,000 women, including 18,061 meningioma surgery patients. Researchers discovered that users of synthetic progestins, including Depo-Provera’s active ingredient, faced substantially elevated meningioma risk. Most notably, Depo-Provera users showed a 5.55-fold higher risk compared to non-users.

The biological mechanism appears straightforward: many meningiomas contain progesterone receptors that, when stimulated by synthetic progestins like those in Depo-Provera, may promote abnormal cell growth. This hormone-responsive quality explains both why women represent approximately 70% of meningioma patients and why those receiving additional synthetic hormones face a potentially higher risk.

International regulatory authorities responded to these scientific developments. French medical regulators restricted high-dose progestin prescriptions and mandated patient acknowledgment of meningioma risks before administration. Similar protective measures appeared across multiple European Union countries.

A stark disparity exists between international and domestic responses. While the FDA required a “black box” warning about bone density loss with Depo-Provera, no similar warning regarding potential meningioma risk appears on American packaging, despite compelling scientific evidence suggesting this association.

Essential Documentation for Your Depo-Provera Meningioma Claim

Successful pharmaceutical litigation requires methodical evidence collection from both client and counsel. This strategic division of responsibilities allows optimal case development while respecting your medical circumstances.

What You’ll Need to Provide

Here are the essential documents you’ll need to provide for your Depo-Provera claim:

Medical Records Authorization Forms 

Your signature on HIPAA-compliant release forms empowers our litigation team to obtain neurological reports, diagnostic imaging studies, surgical records, and oncology treatment plans directly from your healthcare providers.

Rather than burdening you with collecting extensive medical documentation during your recovery, your signed authorizations establish the pathway for us to secure these records.

Depo-Provera Administration History 

Provide any available information about your injection schedule and providers. Treatment notes, clinic names, prescribing physicians, and timeframes of administration strengthen causation arguments. Even approximations such as “began treatment in 2010, discontinued approximately 2015” establish valuable chronological parameters.

While pharmacy records or appointment documentation offer additional verification, your recollected history provides the investigative framework we subsequently validate through official medical channels.

Financial Documentation 

Meningioma diagnosis often creates immediate and sustained financial hardship. Medical invoices, income verification showing pre- and post-diagnosis earnings, work absence documentation, and receipts for uncovered medical expenses help establish economic damages.

These quantifiable losses form a substantial component of pharmaceutical liability claims and require thorough documentation to withstand scrutiny during litigation proceedings.

Personal Impact Narrative 

Consider preparing a written account detailing how your meningioma diagnosis has altered daily functioning. Specific examples of activities now compromised include meal preparation, community participation, household maintenance, and occupational duties.

These demonstrate tangible quality-of-life impairments. This firsthand testimony humanizes your medical experience and illustrates practical consequences beyond clinical terminology.

What Our Firm Will Develop

While you focus on gathering your medical records and proof of Depo-Provera use, our firm will handle the legal groundwork. This includes:

Expert Medical Analysis 

Our firm engages board-certified neurologists, neurosurgical specialists, and endocrinological experts with specific knowledge of hormone-responsive central nervous system tumors.

These medical professionals examine your specific diagnostic profile to establish the biological connection between synthetic progestin exposure and subsequent tumor development. Their specialized assessments transform individual medical circumstances into admissible expert testimony.

Scientific Literature Documentation 

Our legal team systematically compiles peer-reviewed medical research linking synthetic hormones to elevated meningioma risk. We secure relevant epidemiological studies, medical journal publications, and regulatory advisories that establish the scientific foundation of your claim.

This medical literature review requires specialized knowledge but builds essential causation evidence without your direct involvement.

Historical Product Information Analysis 

Our attorneys obtain and analyze Depo-Provera labeling, package inserts, FDA correspondence, and physician prescribing guidelines from the relevant time period of your treatment.

These historical product documents help establish what safety information was, or should have been, disclosed to patients and physicians during your course of injections.

Pharmaceutical Company Internal Records 

Through formal discovery procedures, our legal team pursues corporate documentation that is not publicly accessible. Internal communications, adverse event reporting, clinical trial data, and regulatory correspondence often reveal corporate knowledge of meningioma risks that preceded appropriate warnings to patients and physicians.

Call us at 855-211-8999 right now or Click to Email

Recoverable Damages in Depo-Provera Meningioma Cases

For North Dakota women, a meningioma diagnosis marks not an isolated medical event but the beginning of a permanently altered life trajectory deserving thorough compensation. These include:

Medical Expenses

• Diagnostic costs: Including brain MRIs, CT scans, and specialized neuroimaging that meningioma patients often require for initial diagnosis and ongoing monitoring
• Surgical intervention: Covering craniotomy procedures and associated hospital costs for tumor removal
• Radiation treatment: Including stereotactic radiosurgery and other radiation-based treatments when surgery isn’t possible
• Hospital stays: Accounting for both immediate post-surgical care and any subsequent hospitalizations
• Follow-up neurological care: Ongoing specialist consultations necessary for monitoring and symptom management
• Medication expenses: Including anti-seizure medications, steroids, and pain management therapies
• Future medical monitoring: Compensation for the lifetime of surveillance typically required after a meningioma diagnosis

Income and Earning Capacity

• Lost wages: Immediate income loss during treatment and recovery periods
• Reduced earning capacity: Documented decrease in ability to maintain previous employment or advance professionally due to cognitive or physical limitations
• Career trajectory interruption: Compensation for deviation from established career progression
• Early retirement: Economic impact of forced early exit from the workforce
• Benefits loss: Value of health insurance, retirement contributions, and other employment benefits forfeited due to work limitations

Functional Impairment and Life Quality

• Activities of daily living: Compensation for limitations in self-care, household management, and independent functioning
• Permanent neurological deficits: Long-term impacts on cognition, memory, speech, vision, or motor control
• Rehabilitation services: Including physical therapy, occupational therapy, cognitive rehabilitation, and speech therapy
• Adaptive equipment: Home modifications, assistive technology, and medical devices necessary for functioning
• In-home support services: Professional caregiving and domestic assistance are necessary due to functional limitations

Non-Economic Damages

• Physical pain and suffering: Compensation for acute surgical pain and chronic headaches, vision disturbances, and neurological symptoms
• Emotional distress: Psychological impact of diagnosis, treatment invasiveness, and ongoing health uncertainty
• Life enjoyment diminishment: Lost opportunities for recreational activities, hobbies, and personal fulfillment
• Relationship impairment: Impact on marriage, parenting capabilities, and other significant relationships

Additional Compensation Categories

• Mental health treatment: Psychological counseling and psychiatric care for trauma, depression, and anxiety disorders related to diagnosis and symptoms
• Travel expenses: Costs associated with accessing specialized medical centers for treatment
• Wrongful death benefits: For families who lost loved ones due to meningioma complications, including funeral and burial expenses, loss of financial support and household services, loss of companionship and guidance, and survival action damages for pre-death pain and suffering.

The value of your claim depends on numerous factors, including age at diagnosis, tumor size and location, treatment requirements, documented functional limitations, and pre-existing medical conditions. We’ll work diligently to ensure all current and future damages are thoroughly documented and accurately quantified in your case.

North Dakota-Specific Legal Considerations for Depo-Provera Claims

Filing a lawsuit requires understanding several North Dakota-specific legal provisions that directly impact your Depo-Provera case:

Statute of Limitations

The statute of limitations represents an immediate consideration. North Dakota Century Code § 28-01-18 generally provides a six-year period for product liability claims. However, for pharmaceutical cases, the state follows the “discovery rule” established in case law.

This means the filing deadline may begin when you reasonably discovered the connection between Depo-Provera and your meningioma, not when you first received injections or initially experienced symptoms.

Product Liability Standards

North Dakota’s product liability standards require demonstrating that Depo-Provera was defectively designed or marketed due to inadequate warnings about meningioma risk.

Your claim must establish that this insufficient warning directly contributed to your injuries, the legal concept of “proximate cause” central to North Dakota product liability law.

Additionally, the state recognizes the “learned intermediary doctrine” in pharmaceutical cases. This doctrine holds that drug manufacturers fulfill their duty to warn by providing complete risk information to prescribing physicians rather than directly to patients.

Your legal claim must address whether manufacturers adequately informed North Dakota healthcare providers about emerging meningioma research.

Modified Comparative Fault Statute

North Dakota’s modified comparative fault statute (§ 32-03.2-02) allows recovery even when multiple factors contributed to your condition. However, the state applies a 50% bar rule. If you’re found 50% or more responsible, recovery is barred entirely. This becomes relevant when evaluating other potential risk factors or delayed medical attention.

Wrongful Death Statute

For families who lost loved ones to meningioma complications, the state’s wrongful death statute (§ 32-21-01) enables specific family members to pursue claims. These cases must typically be filed within two years of death under North Dakota law.

Questions North Dakota Women Ask About Depo-Provera Lawsuits

How can we establish the connection between my Depo-Provera use and meningioma when I received injections at a clinic that’s now closed?

Record reconstruction shouldn’t prevent you from exploring legal options. North Dakota maintains several ways to document your medication history.

State pharmacies typically maintain dispensing records beyond minimum requirements. North Dakota Medicaid retains comprehensive prescription histories for program participants. Medical records from other providers often mention birth control methods even when the prescribing clinic has closed. Our firm uses specialized investigators familiar with North Dakota’s healthcare documentation systems to locate these essential records.

How does compensation value get determined for North Dakota meningioma cases?

North Dakota law recognizes multiple damage categories to address pharmaceutical injuries comprehensively. These typically include:

• Medical expenses (both past costs and anticipated future needs)
• Lost income (calculated using North Dakota wage data and your specific occupation)
• Diminished earning capacity (especially significant for professionals facing cognitive limitations)
• Household services value (quantifying activities you can no longer perform)
• Physical pain and emotional suffering
• Loss of life enjoyment

Each case value depends on individual factors like tumor severity, treatment complexity, permanent deficits, and pre-diagnosis earning history.

Contact a North Dakota Depo-Provera Lawyer Today

A meningioma diagnosis can turn your life upside down: physically, emotionally, and financially. In North Dakota, where access to care can already feel stretched in rural communities, finding answers shouldn’t come with more obstacles.

But the law doesn’t wait. North Dakota’s statute of limitations sets a firm deadline for filing your claim, and every day that passes makes your case harder to pursue. While you’re focused on recovery, pharmaceutical companies are already preparing their defense.

Speaking up matters. When women in North Dakota come forward, they not only pursue the justice they deserve. They help highlight the real-world consequences of corporate negligence. Your action can make a difference for others, too.

Foster James is here to help. We offer free, private consultations to explain your legal options and determine whether you may have a claim. Call us at 855-211-8999 or fill out our secure online form to have a free consultation with an experienced Depo-Provera lawyer. You won’t pay anything unless we recover compensation for you.

Open 24 hours.