Depo-Provera Lawsuit in Nebraska

Depo-Provera Lawyer Near You in NE

You chose Depo-Provera for its simplicity: four appointments yearly, no daily pill, nearly perfect effectiveness. Your doctor never mentioned brain tumors. Years later, when the MRI finally explained your worsening headaches and vision problems, the words “meningioma” and “brain surgery” altered everything.

Across Nebraska’s communities, from Omaha high-rises to Scottsbluff family clinics to Grand Island medical centers, women are discovering that their contraceptive choice potentially harbored a devastating secret. The synthetic hormone that prevented pregnancy may have silently triggered abnormal cell growth in the protective membrane surrounding their brains.

At Foster James, we stand beside Nebraska women confronting this unthinkable betrayal. Attorneys James Foster and Fob James IV have the pharmaceutical litigation experience needed to hold Pfizer accountable for not disclosing these risks.

Call us now at 855-211-8999 for a confidential, no-cost evaluation of your potential claim.

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 Nebraska for years, especially in public health clinics and OB-GYN offices that offer long-acting contraceptive options. 

Many of the women we’ve spoken with across Omaha, Lincoln, Grand Island, and surrounding areas 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.

From Cancer Drug to Contraceptive: Depo-Provera’s Untold Nebraska Story

Depo-Provera arrived in Nebraska clinics with fanfare in the early 1990s: a revolutionary contraceptive option requiring just four injections yearly. What many Nebraska women never learned was the medication’s troubled regulatory past and potential long-term risks.

Originally developed as a cancer treatment, medroxyprogesterone acetate (Depo-Provera) faced repeated FDA rejections as a contraceptive in 1967, 1978, and 1983. 

Regulators cited concerns about cancer risks and inadequate safety data. Nevertheless, the drug gained approval for birth control in countries with less stringent regulatory oversight as early as 1969.

Only in 1992 did American women, including thousands in Nebraska, gain access to this injectable contraceptive. Its administration pattern proved particularly appealing in the state’s rural communities, where winter travel barriers and significant distances to healthcare facilities make frequent medical visits challenging.

Beyond contraception, Nebraska healthcare providers frequently prescribed Depo-Provera for conditions like endometriosis, abnormal uterine bleeding, and endometrial hyperplasia. This expanded the medication’s reach to women who weren’t primarily seeking birth control.

The troubling gap in Nebraska women’s informed consent: emerging medical literature suggesting a potential link between prolonged synthetic progestin exposure and meningioma development remained largely uncommunicated during routine injections. 

Across the United States, many women received dozens of injections over the years without awareness of this possible neurological risk, information that might have altered their healthcare decisions.

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

How Meningiomas Reshape Nebraska Lives

The term “benign brain tumor” creates a dangerous misconception. While meningiomas rarely spread beyond their original location, earning them the technical classification of “benign,” their effects on Nebraska patients’ lives prove anything but mild.

These tumors emerge from the meninges, three protective layers that envelop the brain and spinal cord. As the abnormal cells multiply, the growing mass exerts increasing pressure on adjacent brain tissue. This pressure creates the devastating cascade of neurological symptoms that Nebraska patients experience.

Initial warning signs often appear ordinary. Persistent headaches resistant to over-the-counter medication. Sporadic blurred vision or unusual blind spots while driving on I-80. Unexplained moments of confusion during routine conversations. Tingling sensations or weakness on one side. Hearing loss or constant ringing that specialists can’t explain.

For many Nebraska patients, diagnosis follows months of worsening symptoms and unsuccessful treatments for misidentified conditions. 

Treatment protocols vary based on tumor location, size, and symptom severity. Nebraska neurosurgeons often recommend surgical intervention for accessible tumors: a procedure requiring temporary skull removal to access and extract the tumor. Recovery extends over months, with patients facing significant work absences and rehabilitation needs.

When tumors nestle near critical structures like the brainstem or major blood vessels, Nebraska patients may undergo stereotactic radiosurgery. This targeted radiation approach aims to halt tumor growth without physical extraction. Many require anti-seizure medications, steroids, and pain management regimens that introduce additional side effects and limitations.

The Hormone-Tumor Connection in Depo-Provera Cases

The scientific foundation linking Depo-Provera to meningioma risk has grown increasingly solid, providing crucial support for Nebraska women’s legal claims.

In March 2024, researchers published findings in the British Medical Journal that examined over 108,000 women, including 18,061 who underwent meningioma surgery. Their analysis revealed users of synthetic progestins—including medroxyprogesterone acetate, Depo-Provera’s active ingredient—faced dramatically elevated meningioma risk. Most significantly, Depo-Provera users showed a 5.55-fold increased risk compared to non-users.

The biological mechanism appears straightforward: many meningiomas contain progesterone receptors that, when activated by synthetic progestins like those in Depo-Provera, may stimulate abnormal cell growth. 

This hormone-responsive characteristic explains why women constitute approximately 70% of meningioma patients and why those receiving additional synthetic hormones face a potentially higher risk.

European health authorities implemented regulatory responses to these findings. French medical regulators restricted high-dose progestin prescriptions and required patient acknowledgment of meningioma risks before receiving these medications. Similar precautions emerged in several European Union countries.

Concerning disparities exist between international and domestic response. While the FDA mandated a “black box” warning for Depo-Provera regarding bone density loss, no similar warning about potential meningioma risk appears on American packaging or patient information materials, despite mounting scientific evidence of 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 Nebraska 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.

Nebraska Law and Depo-Provera Claims: Understanding Your State-Specific Rights

Successful Depo-Provera litigation in Nebraska requires expertise on the state’s distinct legal framework that differs significantly from other jurisdictions.

Statute of Limitations

The statute of limitations presents the foremost consideration. Nebraska Revised Statute § 25-224 establishes a four-year window for product liability claims, generally running from the date of injury. 

However, Nebraska recognizes a valuable “discovery rule” under § 25-213 that potentially extends this deadline until you discover the connection between Depo-Provera and your meningioma. 

This judicial interpretation proves especially relevant since many women learned of this potential association only after recent medical studies.

Statute of Repose

For cases where significant time has passed since Depo-Provera administration, Nebraska’s statute of repose (also found in § 25-224) creates an absolute ten-year deadline from the product’s first sale for use. 

However, in pharmaceutical cases where the manufacturer allegedly concealed known risks, Nebraska courts have sometimes applied exceptions to this limitation.

Nebraska’s Product Liability Standards

The state’s product liability standards, outlined in Freeman v. Hoffman-La Roche, Inc., 260 Neb. 552 (2000), require establishing that Depo-Provera was defective due to inadequate warnings about meningioma risk, making it unreasonably dangerous when used as prescribed. 

Your case must demonstrate that this inadequate warning directly contributed to your injuries: a standard known as “proximate cause.”

The “learned intermediary doctrine,” formally adopted by the Nebraska Supreme Court in Freeman, creates additional considerations. This doctrine holds that pharmaceutical manufacturers fulfill their duty to warn by providing complete risk information to prescribing physicians, who then assume responsibility for patient communication. 

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

Comparative Negligence Statute

Lastly, Nebraska’s comparative negligence statute (§ 25-21,185.09) allows recovery even when multiple factors contributed to your condition. However, Nebraska employs a “modified 50% rule.” Thus, if you’re found more than 50% responsible, recovery may be barred entirely.

Common Questions from Nebraska Depo-Provera Recipients

How can we prove my meningioma relates to Depo-Provera when I received injections at a clinic that closed years ago?

Documentation challenges shouldn’t deter you from exploring legal options. Nebraska maintains several pathways to reconstruct your medication history. 

The Nebraska Prescription Drug Monitoring Program contains records of many medications prescribed statewide. Pharmacies typically preserve dispensing records well beyond minimum requirements. 

Nebraska Medicaid maintains extensive prescription histories for program participants. Medical records from other providers often reference birth control methods even when the prescribing clinic has closed. 

Our firm employs specialized investigators familiar with the state’s healthcare documentation systems to locate these essential records.

Could my meningioma have developed regardless of Depo-Provera use?

While meningiomas can develop without hormonal influence, scientific evidence increasingly suggests Depo-Provera may substantially elevate this risk for certain women. 

Several factors strengthen the connection in individual cases: extended duration of use (Nebraska women who received injections for multiple years show higher correlation); absence of family history or other known risk factors; tumor characteristics showing hormone receptor positivity; and temporal relationship between exposure and tumor development.

What compensation might reflect the value of my Nebraska meningioma case?

Nebraska law recognizes multiple damage categories to address the full impact of pharmaceutical injuries. These typically include: 

• Medical expenses (both past costs and projected future needs)
• Income reduction (calculated based on Nebraska wage data and your specific occupation)
• Diminished earning capacity (particularly important for professionals facing cognitive limitations)
• Physical pain and emotional suffering 
• Loss of life enjoyment 

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 Nebraska Depo-Provera Lawyer Today

Your meningioma diagnosis may have come without warning, a moment that changed everything. In the midst of coping with the medical and emotional toll, it’s hard to think about legal steps. But in Nebraska, time matters. The law gives you only a limited window to act, and that window closes a little more each day.

Pharmaceutical companies aren’t standing still. Their legal teams work constantly to defend against claims just like yours, often arguing that too much time has passed or that patients should have known the risks earlier.

When women in Nebraska speak up, they not only seek justice for themselves. They help shine a light on the broader impact of Depo-Provera in our communities. Your story can help hold companies accountable and protect others from similar harm.

At Foster James, we understand what’s at stake. We offer free, confidential consultations with our Depo-Provera attorneys to help you understand your rights and your options. Call 855-211-8999 or fill out our secure online form. We’re here to listen and guide you forward.