Depo-Provera Lawsuit in Georgia

Depo-Provera Lawyer Near You in GA

Women across Georgia are discovering an alarming connection: after years of receiving Depo-Provera birth control injections, they’re being diagnosed with meningioma brain tumors. What’s more troubling is that Pfizer may have known about this risk but failed to warn patients and doctors properly.

At Foster James we represent Georgia women affected by this serious health issue. Attorneys James Foster and Fob James IV have the pharmaceutical litigation experience needed to hold Pfizer accountable for not disclosing these risks.

If you or someone you love has been affected, we are ready to listen and help. Our law firm offers free consultations and personalized guidance. Call us anytime at 855-211-8999 or contact us online via our secure website.

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 Order establishing 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, are actively preparing cases for early trial phases.

Depo-Provera has been widely prescribed in Georgia for years, particularly in public health clinics and OB-GYN practices offering long-acting contraceptive options. 

Many of the women we’ve spoken with across Atlanta, Savannah, Augusta, and beyond received these injections through local Medicaid providers or community health centers.

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.

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.

What Is Depo-Provera, and How Did It Become So Widely Used?

Depo-Provera, a long-acting hormonal contraceptive, is the brand name for medroxyprogesterone acetate. Commonly referred to as the birth control shot, it is administered via intramuscular injection every three months. Because it doesn’t require daily attention and offers over 99% effectiveness when taken on schedule, Depo-Provera became popular among women seeking a reliable and low-maintenance form of birth control.

Its widespread adoption is backed by data: a National Health Statistics Report released in December 2023 noted that approximately 24.5% of sexually experienced women in the United States had used Depo-Provera at some point between 2015 and 2019.

The drug’s history is long and contentious. First developed in the 1950s by Upjohn (a company that later became part of Pfizer), medroxyprogesterone acetate was originally intended to treat certain cancers. 

In 1967, Upjohn submitted its first application to the FDA seeking approval for Depo-Provera as a contraceptive. The agency rejected it over safety concerns, specifically, the possibility of cancer risks. Similar applications were denied in 1978 and 1983.

Despite these U.S. regulatory setbacks, the drug gained approval in international markets, including France, in 1969. It took until 1992 for the FDA to approve Depo-Provera for use as a contraceptive in the U.S., after accumulating decades of global data and further clinical studies.

In addition to contraception, Depo-Provera has also been prescribed off-label to manage gynecological conditions such as endometriosis. The injectable works by using a synthetic form of the hormone progestin, which suppresses ovulation and alters the cervical mucus to prevent sperm from reaching an egg.

Although generic versions of Depo-Provera exist today, many of those are still produced by Pfizer and distributed under different names. The long road to approval and the scope of its global use now form part of the broader conversation about its safety, and the growing number of lawsuits linking Depo-Provera to serious neurological harm.

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

Study Linking Depo-Provera to Brain Tumors

In March 2024, the British Medical Journal published a large-scale study investigating the link between progestin-based drugs like Depo-Provera and the risk of meningioma, a tumor that forms in the membranes surrounding the brain and spinal cord.

The study analyzed data from the French National Health Data System, focusing on 108,366 women, including 18,061 who had undergone surgery for meningioma. 

Researchers found that long-term use (defined as more than one year) of certain synthetic progestins, specifically medrogestone, medroxyprogesterone acetate (the active ingredient in Depo-Provera), and promegestone, was associated with a markedly higher risk of meningioma.

In contrast, other hormone therapies, such as progesterone and various hormonal IUDs, showed no statistically significant increase in risk. For Depo-Provera specifically, the data was alarming: among the 18,061 cases, 9 had been exposed to medroxyprogesterone acetate versus just 11 exposures among 90,305 controls. 

This translates to an odds ratio of 5.55, meaning users of Depo-Provera were over five times more likely to develop a meningioma compared to non-users.

This study is one of the strongest pieces of scientific evidence to date supporting the plaintiffs’ claims. Its scale, methodology, and focus on real-world exposure make it difficult for the defense to refute, particularly as the litigation proceeds toward bellwether trials.

Understanding the Impact of Meningioma and Depo-Provera Injuries

Meningiomas can range in severity, but even benign tumors may require surgery, radiation therapy, or ongoing neurological monitoring. For many women, the effects are life-altering, impacting memory, vision, motor function, and long-term quality of life.

In addition to physical pain, the diagnosis often comes with emotional distress, loss of income, and months or years of medical care. 

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

When pursuing compensation through a Depo-Provera lawsuit, we’ll identify and document the full scope of your damages. We develop comprehensive damage models tailored to each client’s circumstances, often collaborating with medical economists, life-care planners, and neurological specialists to ensure nothing is overlooked:

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.

Georgia-Specific Legal Considerations for Depo-Provera Claims

Successful pharmaceutical litigation in Georgia requires understanding several key aspects of state law that will directly impact your case.

Statute of Limitations

The statute of limitations is an immediate consideration. Georgia Code § 9-3-33 establishes a two-year window for personal injury claims, which typically begins running from the date of injury. 

In pharmaceutical cases, Georgia courts may apply the “discovery rule,” which can extend this filing deadline to when you reasonably discovered (or should have discovered) the connection between your medication and your injury. 

This judicial interpretation becomes particularly important for Depo-Provera patients who only recently learned about potential meningioma risks.

Comparative Negligence Statute

Georgia’s comparative negligence statute (Georgia Code § 51-12-33) allows recovery even when multiple factors contributed to your injury. However, Georgia applies a modified comparative negligence approach. Thus, if you’re found 50% or more responsible, recovery may be barred entirely. 

This provision becomes relevant when evaluating other potential meningioma risk factors or delayed medical care.

Wrongful Death Statute

For families who lost loved ones to meningioma complications, Georgia’s wrongful death statute (Georgia Code § 51-4-2) enables specific family members to pursue claims for “the full value of the life of the deceased.” 

This includes both economic damages (like lifetime expected earnings) and non-economic damages (like loss of companionship). These claims typically must be filed within two years of death under Georgia law.

Questions Georgia Women Ask About Depo-Provera Lawsuits

What if I no longer have records of my Depo-Provera injections?

This common concern shouldn’t discourage you from exploring legal options. Medical records often remain available even when clinics close or years have passed. Georgia pharmacies typically preserve dispensing records beyond the minimum requirements. 

Georgia Medicaid maintains prescription histories for program participants. Medical records from subsequent providers often reference previous birth control methods. Insurance claims history frequently documents medication coverage. Our experienced investigators know how to locate these essential records through established channels.

What compensation might be available in a Georgia Depo-Provera case?

Georgia law recognizes several damage categories in pharmaceutical injury cases. These typically include:

• Medical expenses (both past costs and anticipated future needs)
• Lost wages and income
• Diminished earning capacity
• Pain and suffering
• Diminished quality of life

The potential value of your case depends on many individual factors, including the severity of your tumor, the extent of treatment required, permanent effects, and impact on your ability to work and enjoy life activities. Each case is evaluated based on its specific circumstances.

Will pursuing a legal claim affect my ongoing medical care?

Georgia law prohibits healthcare discrimination based on legal actions against third parties like pharmaceutical manufacturers. Your right to pursue compensation from Depo-Provera manufacturers remains entirely separate from your relationship with current healthcare providers. 

Georgia healthcare systems, including Emory Healthcare, Piedmont Healthcare, and Wellstar Health System, provide care based on medical necessity, not litigation status. Georgia insurance regulations also protect patients engaged in pharmaceutical litigation from coverage discrimination.

What if I received Depo-Provera in Georgia but now live elsewhere?

This cross-jurisdictional situation remains entirely manageable. If you received Depo-Provera in Georgia medical facilities, Georgia law may apply to certain aspects of your case, regardless of your current residence. 

Our firm regularly handles multi-state pharmaceutical claims and can determine which state’s laws provide the most favorable position for your specific circumstances. 

Your case evaluation will include analysis of these jurisdictional questions based on where you received treatment, where you were diagnosed, and where you currently reside.

What information will I need to provide to evaluate my case?

To assess your potential claim, we’ll need basic information about:

• Your history of Depo-Provera use (approximate dates and locations)
• Your meningioma diagnosis (when and where diagnosed)
• Treatments you’ve undergone
• How this condition has affected your life, work, and daily activities

During your free consultation with Foster James, we’ll discuss these details and explain how Georgia law applies to your specific situation. This initial evaluation helps determine if you have a viable claim worth pursuing.

Why Has the FDA Not Recalled Depo-Provera?

Despite mounting evidence, the FDA has not recalled Depo-Provera or added a warning for brain tumor risk. While a “black box” warning exists for bone density loss or osteoporosis, the FDA has so far not mandated label changes for meningioma.

By contrast, regulators in France and other countries have issued stronger guidance on limiting progestin-based contraceptives. Plaintiffs argue that Pfizer had a duty to warn regardless of the FDA’s inaction.

This disconnect is part of why the lawsuits are moving forward: manufacturers are not absolved of responsibility simply because the FDA hasn’t acted.

How Much Does It Cost to Hire a Lawyer?

At Foster James, we represent clients on a contingency-fee basis. That means:

• No upfront fees
• No hourly billing
• You pay nothing unless we recover compensation

What Happens When You Work With Our Firm

Foster James takes an aggressive and personal approach to every Depo-Provera case. You won’t be passed off to a call center or treated like a file number. 

From the moment you reach out, our attorneys take the time to listen, understand your story, and build a strong legal foundation.

We limit the number of cases we accept to ensure each client receives the attention they deserve. Our reputation has been built on this principle, and it shows in the results we’ve achieved nationwide.

Contact a Georgia Depo-Provera Lawyer Today

If you or someone you love in Georgia has been diagnosed with a brain tumor after receiving Depo-Provera, you may be facing more than just a medical crisis. You may have unanswered questions about how this happened and what your rights are. 

Time matters. Georgia law limits how long you have to take legal action, and waiting too long could close the door to the justice and support you deserve.

At Foster James, we’re here to listen and help. We offer free, confidential consultations to discuss your specific circumstances and walk you through your legal options. Call us at 855-211-8999 or fill out our secure online form. You won’t owe anything unless we recover compensation for you.

Open 24 hours.