Depo-Provera Lawsuit in Mississippi

Depo-Provera Lawyer Near You in MS

They told you it was safe. A simple injection every three months. Convenient, reliable, and doctor-recommended. Now, years later, the headaches won’t stop. The vision changes. The memory lapses. The diagnosis that changed everything: meningioma.

For women across Mississippi who received Depo-Provera birth control injections and later developed brain tumors, the sense of betrayal runs deep. You made healthcare decisions based on information that may have been incomplete, and that omission has altered your life’s trajectory.

At Foster James, we represent Mississippi women whose trust was broken by pharmaceutical companies that potentially knew more than they disclosed. Attorneys James Foster and Fob James IV have the pharmaceutical litigation experience needed to hold Pfizer accountable. Call 855-211-8999 today for a free, confidential consultation.

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 was 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 widely prescribed in Mississippi 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 Jackson, Gulfport, Hattiesburg, and other parts of Mississippi received these injections through local Medicaid clinics 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.

What Is A Depo-Provera Lawsuit in Mississippi?

A Depo-Provera lawsuit in Mississippi involves legal claims by individuals who suffered adverse side effects, such as bone density loss or hormonal complications, after using the contraceptive injection Depo-Provera. Plaintiffs allege that the manufacturer failed to provide adequate warnings about these risks, prompting personal injury and product liability suits.

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.

The Depo-Provera Story: What Mississippi Women Weren’t Told

Depo-Provera entered American medicine not as a contraceptive but as a cancer treatment in the 1950s. The FDA rejected applications for contraceptive use in 1967, 1978, and 1983, citing safety concerns, including potential cancer risks. 

Meanwhile, women in other countries had been receiving injections since 1969. It wasn’t until 1992 that American women gained access to this quarterly birth control option.

The injection’s convenience made it particularly attractive in Mississippi communities with limited healthcare access. Many state physicians also prescribed Depo-Provera for endometriosis and other gynecological conditions, expanding the population of exposed women.

What many Mississippi women didn’t know: evidence suggesting a potential link between progestin-based treatments like Depo-Provera and meningioma development was emerging in medical literature. 

This vital information, necessary for informed consent, remained largely uncommunicated to women receiving quarterly injections across the state.

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

When a Tumor Changes Everything: The Medical Reality of Meningiomas

Meningiomas develop in the protective membrane surrounding your brain and spinal cord. While doctors classify these tumors as “benign” in 90% of cases, this technical term offers cold comfort to those experiencing their devastating effects.

The warning signs often begin subtly: persistent headaches, visual disturbances, memory gaps, sudden seizures, and hearing loss. As the tumor grows, symptoms intensify, eventually forcing medical intervention.

Diagnosis typically comes after an MRI or CT scan reveals the unwelcome mass pressing against delicate brain tissue. Treatment options depend on the tumor’s location and size, but most symptomatic cases require surgical intervention, such as a craniotomy, where surgeons temporarily remove part of the skull to access and remove the tumor.

For tumors nestled against vital brain structures, complete removal becomes too dangerous. Patients then face radiation therapy or radiosurgery. Many require ongoing medication to control seizures, reduce brain swelling, and manage pain.

The physical ordeal extends far beyond initial treatment. Even after “successful” surgery, patients report persistent headaches, vision impairments, balance problems, memory difficulties, and concentration issues that permanently alter their abilities.

Research Connecting Depo-Provera and Brain Tumors

Scientific evidence linking synthetic progestins to increased meningioma risk continues to strengthen. In March 2024, a groundbreaking study published in the British Medical Journal examined data from over 108,000 women and discovered that extended use of synthetic progestins, including Depo-Provera’s active ingredient, substantially increased meningioma risk. 

Most telling: women who used Depo-Provera were over five times more likely to develop these tumors compared to non-users. International health authorities took notice. French regulators implemented restrictions on high-dose progestin medications based on meningioma concerns. 

Yet in the United States, no such warnings appear on Depo-Provera’s labeling, despite the FDA requiring a “black box” warning for other side effects like bone density loss.

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

Life After Diagnosis: Lasting Impacts That Demand Compensation

The ripple effects of a meningioma continue long after initial treatment, transforming daily life in ways that demand appropriate compensation.

Physical limitations become a persistent reality. Headaches resistant to medication create daily suffering. Vision impairments turn routine activities like driving into significant challenges. Balance disturbances increase fall risk. Seizure disorders require ongoing treatment with their own side effects.

Cognitive function also rarely returns to pre-tumor baseline. Memory deficits make professional responsibilities increasingly difficult. Processing speed slows dramatically, turning once-quick tasks into lengthy ordeals. Communication difficulties manifest as word-finding problems or trouble following conversations.

Financial security often crumbles. Medical costs accumulate rapidly despite insurance coverage. Income loss during treatment and recovery depletes savings meant for retirement or children’s education. Career trajectory flattens as promotions become unattainable. Healthcare costs continue indefinitely with ongoing monitoring needs.

Under Mississippi Code § 11-1-60, non-economic damages deserve particular attention, as physical pain, emotional suffering, and diminished life quality represent genuine losses that fair compensation must address.

Mississippi-Specific Legal Considerations for Depo-Provera Cases

Filing a successful Depo-Provera lawsuit in Mississippi requires understanding several state-specific provisions that directly impact your case.

Under Mississippi Code § 15-1-49, product liability claims must typically be filed within three years. For Depo-Provera cases, this timeline generally begins when you discovered the connection between your tumor and the medication, and not when you first received injections or when symptoms appeared.

Mississippi’s Product Liability Act (§ 11-1-63) requires demonstrating that the product was defective because it failed to contain adequate warnings, rendering it “unreasonably dangerous” when used as intended. Your claim must establish that this inadequate warning was the proximate cause of your injuries.

Furthermore, Mississippi follows a “learned intermediary doctrine” that holds manufacturers fulfill their duty to warn by providing appropriate information to prescribing physicians. Your case must address whether manufacturers provided adequate information to your healthcare providers about potential meningioma risk.

Lastly, the state’s pure comparative fault rule under § 11-7-15 allows recovery even if multiple factors contributed to your injury, though compensation may be reduced by your percentage of responsibility (if any).

Questions Mississippi Women Ask About Depo-Provera Lawsuits

How can I know if my meningioma is connected to Depo-Provera?

Medical research shows women using Depo-Provera for over one year have significantly higher meningioma risk. 

Factors strengthening this connection include duration of use, absence of other risk factors, and tumor characteristics consistent with hormone-sensitive growth patterns. Our firm works with neurological specialists who review your medical history to assess potential causation.

What if I received injections years ago and no longer have records?

This shouldn’t discourage you from seeking legal advice. We have proven methods to document your Depo-Provera history through pharmacy databases, insurance claims history, medical providers’ office notes, and state Medicaid records (when applicable).

What compensation might I receive?

Each case value depends on tumor severity, extent of permanent effects, impact on earning capacity, age at diagnosis, and projected future medical needs. 

Mississippi law allows recovery for both economic damages (medical expenses, lost income) and non-economic damages (pain, suffering, diminished quality of life).

What if my loved one passed away from meningioma complications?

Mississippi’s wrongful death statute (§ 11-7-13) allows certain family members to pursue claims when a loved one’s death results from another party’s wrongful act or negligence. These claims may include medical expenses, funeral costs, loss of companionship, and other damages.

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 Mississippi Depo-Provera Lawyer Today

Your meningioma diagnosis changed everything in an instant. But Mississippi law won’t wait for you to fully heal before requiring action. 

Evidence preservation becomes more challenging with each passing month. Medical records get archived or purged. Healthcare providers relocate or retire. The sooner we begin investigating, the stronger foundation we can build.

Meanwhile, pharmaceutical companies deploy teams of defense attorneys developing strategies to minimize their liability. They’re analyzing research and preparing arguments designed to limit your compensation.

Don’t let uncertainty delay your action. Your initial consultation at Foster James, comes with no obligation and no cost. We’ll evaluate your situation, explain your options honestly, and help you make an informed decision.

Call 855-211-8999 today or fill out our secure online form to speak with our experienced Depo-Provera attorneys.

Your time to seek justice is limited, but our commitment to your case is not.

Open 24 hours.