Depo-Provera

What the Depo-Provera lawsuit is about

Depo-Provera lawsuits allege that the contraceptive injection caused intracranial meningiomas and that warnings were inadequate. Federal MDL-3140 is before Judge M. Casey Rodgers in Florida. Pfizer and the Pharmacia defendants dispute liability. Court orders now confirm a private settlement program for eligible claims alongside continued litigation for other plaintiffs.

Depo-Provera Lawsuit update: September 2026

Settlement registration; litigation continues for remaining claims. Court orders confirm a private settlement program documented in July 2026. CMO 13 appoints BrownGreer as administrator, and CMO 14 identifies November 30, 2026 as the registration deadline. CMO 12 states that the original December Pilot trial was canceled; the court calendar still lists a September 18 Rule 702 hearing for ongoing litigation. Eligibility and payments are not automatic.

The September 1, 2026 JPML report lists 6,403 pending actions in MDL-3140, compared with 6,294 on August 3. Its 6,510 total historical actions include cases no longer pending; neither figure is a count of people eligible for payment.

Official court records checked September 14, 2026.

Case status snapshot

• Federal proceeding: MDL-3140; U.S. District Court, Northern District of Florida (Pensacola)
• Judge: Judge M. Casey Rodgers
• JPML transfer date: 2025-02-07
• Pending actions: 6,403 as of September 1, 2026
• Current phase: Settlement registration; litigation continues for remaining claims
• Settlement: Court orders confirm a confidential settlement program for eligible Depo-Provera claims, with BrownGreer appointed administrator on August 5, 2026. CMO 14 identifies November 30, 2026 as the registration deadline. The public orders reviewed September 14 do not disclose an aggregate fund or individual payout grid. This is a private agreement, not a class settlement requiring a fairness hearing. Nonparticipating and ineligible claims continue under court procedures.

Verified litigation updates

• JPML reports 6,403 pending actions on September 1, 2026, compared with 6,294 on August 3; 6,510 total historical actions are reported separately. Source
• CMO 12 confirms a private settlement and cancellation of the original December Pilot trial; the September 18 Rule 702 hearing remains listed for ongoing litigation. Source
• The August 5 CMO 13 appoints BrownGreer PLC as settlement administrator to review records and determine eligibility. Source
• The August 10 CMO 14 identifies November 30, 2026 as the settlement registration deadline and sets procedures for continuing claims. Source

Current status

Court orders confirm a private settlement program documented in July 2026. CMO 13 appoints BrownGreer as administrator, and CMO 14 identifies November 30, 2026 as the registration deadline. CMO 12 states that the original December Pilot trial was canceled; the court calendar still lists a September 18 Rule 702 hearing for ongoing litigation. Eligibility and payments are not automatic.

Court orders confirm a confidential settlement program for eligible Depo-Provera claims, with BrownGreer appointed administrator on August 5, 2026. CMO 14 identifies November 30, 2026 as the registration deadline. The public orders reviewed September 14 do not disclose an aggregate fund or individual payout grid. This is a private agreement, not a class settlement requiring a fairness hearing. Nonparticipating and ineligible claims continue under court procedures.

Key issues in the lawsuit

Depo-Provera lawsuits generally focus on allegations that users were not adequately warned about the risk of developing one or more meningiomas after receiving the injectable contraceptive. A meningioma is a tumor that forms in the membranes around the brain and spinal cord. Some meningiomas may be monitored, while others may require surgery, radiation, or ongoing neurological care.

The main factual questions are likely to include how long a person used Depo-Provera, how many injections were received, whether the product was the brand-name medication or a generic equivalent, and whether the diagnosis involved a qualifying meningioma. Legal questions may include warning adequacy, product labeling, causation, statute of limitations, and whether a plaintiff can show that different warnings would have affected prescribing or treatment decisions.

Defendants can dispute these claims in several ways. They may argue that the scientific evidence does not prove causation for a particular person, that warnings were legally adequate, that a person’s tumor had another explanation, or that the claim was filed too late. Those disputes are one reason individual medical and pharmacy records matter so much.

How claims may be evaluated

A Depo-Provera claim review usually starts with the use timeline. Prescription records, pharmacy records, injection logs, clinic notes, OB/GYN records, primary care records, and insurance histories may help show when injections occurred and how long use continued. The more specific the timeline, the easier it may be to compare product use with diagnosis and treatment history.

The diagnosis timeline is equally important. Brain imaging, neurosurgery records, pathology reports, neurology notes, radiation oncology records, and hospital records can help identify the tumor type, location, treatment, symptoms, and date of discovery. A lawyer may also want to know whether the tumor was incidental, symptomatic, surgically removed, recurrent, or treated with radiation.

Causation review may look at dose, duration, timing, other hormone exposure, prior medical conditions, family history, and whether medical providers discussed Depo-Provera in connection with the diagnosis. None of those facts automatically proves or defeats a claim, but they can affect how the claim is evaluated.

Common fact patterns

One common fact pattern may involve a person who received Depo-Provera injections for contraception over several years through an OB/GYN office, community clinic, public health clinic, or primary care provider and later learned that a brain scan showed a meningioma. Another may involve a person who stopped using the medication years earlier but was diagnosed after headaches, vision changes, seizures, balance issues, or other neurological symptoms led to imaging.

Some people may have records showing regular injection appointments every three months. Others may have gaps in use, changed providers, or received injections at different clinics. A claim may be easier to evaluate when there are dated records showing injections, the prescribing provider, the pharmacy or clinic involved, the diagnosis date, and the medical course after diagnosis.

Families may also review claims where a person required brain surgery, radiation, long-term monitoring, or experienced lasting neurological effects. Wrongful death issues may require separate state-law analysis and are not something this page can evaluate.

What can make a claim harder to evaluate

Missing injection records can make it harder to prove product use and duration. This can happen when clinics close, records are old, providers changed electronic systems, or the person cannot remember where injections were received. Insurance records, pharmacy records, patient portal downloads, and old appointment calendars may sometimes help fill gaps.

Timing can also complicate review. A very short use history, an uncertain diagnosis date, or a tumor found long after use may require closer medical and legal analysis. Other medical factors, prior tumor history, genetic conditions, other hormone treatments, or incomplete pathology records may also affect causation review.

Legal issues can make a claim harder as well. Prior releases, bankruptcy claims, estate issues, or filing deadlines may limit options. A lawyer would need to review the specific documents and state law before giving an opinion.

Why state law may still matter

Even when cases are coordinated in a federal MDL, state law may still matter. A person’s claim may be evaluated under the law of the state where they lived, received injections, were diagnosed, or experienced injury. State law can affect filing deadlines, discovery rules, wrongful death claims, damages, and what warnings or proof may be required.

For example, some deadlines may run from the date of diagnosis, while others may involve discovery of a possible connection between the product and injury. These rules are fact-specific. A national proceeding can coordinate common issues, but it does not erase state-law differences.

Questions to ask before contacting a lawyer

• Can I identify where and when I received Depo-Provera injections?
• Do I have pharmacy, clinic, OB/GYN, or insurance records showing use?
• What type of meningioma was diagnosed, and when was it first found?
• Did I have surgery, radiation, monitoring, or lasting neurological symptoms?
• How could my state’s filing deadline apply to my diagnosis timeline?
• What records would a lawyer need before giving an initial claim review?

Sources and status notes

Counts use the September 1 JPML report and August 3 report. Court assignments and transfer dates use the JPML by-number report. Status was checked September 14, 2026 against public court records; these public indexes are not complete live dockets.

• CMO 12 confirms a private settlement and cancellation of the original December Pilot trial; the September 18 Rule 702 hearing remains listed for ongoing litigation.
• The August 5 CMO 13 appoints BrownGreer PLC as settlement administrator to review records and determine eligibility.
• The August 10 CMO 14 identifies November 30, 2026 as the settlement registration deadline and sets procedures for continuing claims.

Defendants dispute the allegations. Hearing schedules do not establish an outcome, and pending-action counts do not establish settlement eligibility. State filing deadlines and settlement-program deadlines are different.

Who may be affected

• People with documented use of or exposure to Depo-Provera birth control injections.
• People later diagnosed with meningioma brain tumors.
• People who can identify approximate dates, locations, providers, employers, or exposure circumstances.
• Families evaluating possible wrongful death issues should ask a lawyer how state law may apply.

Where can I track the Depo-Provera lawsuit?

Use the mass tort settlement tracker to compare public settlement posture, the deadline tracker for filing-window and key-date notes , and the MDL statistics tracker for federal case counts and court assignments.

What injuries does the Depo-Provera lawsuit involve?

• Meningioma
• Brain tumor diagnosis
• Surgery
• Radiation treatment
• Neurological symptoms

What evidence is needed for Depo-Provera claims?

• Prescription records
• Injection dates
• OB/GYN or clinic records
• Brain imaging reports
• Pathology or neurology records
• Surgery and radiation records

How has the Depo-Provera lawsuit progressed?

What is the Depo-Provera settlement status?

Court orders confirm a confidential settlement program for eligible Depo-Provera claims, with BrownGreer appointed administrator on August 5, 2026. CMO 14 identifies November 30, 2026 as the registration deadline. The public orders reviewed September 14 do not disclose an aggregate fund or individual payout grid. This is a private agreement, not a class settlement requiring a fairness hearing. Nonparticipating and ineligible claims continue under court procedures.

What are the Depo-Provera lawsuit filing deadlines?

Deadlines vary by state and may depend on diagnosis date, discovery date, exposure history, wrongful death issues, and other facts. A lawyer can evaluate how the relevant deadline rules may apply.

State-by-state guide links