Depo-Provera Shot Lawsuit Filed Over Brain Tumor That Required Surgical Removal and Radiation Treatments

Indiana woman indicates that side effects of Depo-Provera shots caused a large meningioma to develop, alleging Pfizer failed to adequately warn about the brain tumor risks.

According to allegations raised in a recently filed product liability lawsuit, an Indiana woman developed a large meningioma from Depo-Provera shots, which had to be surgically removed. However, since Pfizer failed to warn about the risk, she continued to receive the birth control injections, which caused the brain tumor to aggressively regrow.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Lesley and Justin Noble in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana on October 15, indicating that the manufacturers knew or should have known that the birth control injection increases the risk of developing meningiomas, but failed to provide any brain tumor warnings for Depo-Provera users or the medical community.

Depo-Provera is a hormonal birth control shot, which contains medroxyprogesterone acetate, a synthetic form of the hormone progesterone. It has been aggressively marketed for more than 30 years as a safe and effective means of preventing pregnancy, by inhibiting ovulation, thickening cervical mucus to block sperm, and thinning the uterine lining to prevent a fertilized egg from implanting.

Since the injection only needs to be administered four times a year, the birth control shot is widely used by more than 70 million women annually. However, a study published earlier this year raised serious concerns about potential Depo-Provera brain tumor side effects, finding that women face a 5.5 increased risk of developing meningioma, which can be life-threatening and often require surgical removal.

As a result of the findings, many women are just now learning that Depo-Provera shots may have caused their brain tumors, and the Nobles join a growing number of individuals now pursuing Depo-Provera shot lawsuits against Pfizer, alleging that they may have avoided a meningioma if accurate warnings and information had been provided.

Depo-Provera Lawsuit

Did you or a loved one receive Depo-Provera injections?

Depo-Provera lawsuits are being pursued by women who received birth control shots and developed brain tumors. See if you qualify for a settlement.

Learn More SEE IF YOU QUALIFY FOR COMPENSATION

Lesley Noble indicates that she began receiving Depo-Provera shots in January 1995, and continued to receive them nearly every three months until October 2018.

The complaint indicates that side effects of Depo-Provera caused Noble to suffer dizziness that resulted in a serious fall in December 2008, which resulted in a fractured vertebra, facial lacerations and severe bruising. She required 17 stitches for the facial injuries.

By the fall of 2015, she began suffering incontinence, frustration, irritability, depression and confusion, as well as continuing dizziness and light sensitivity. A year later, she began receiving outpatient psychological treatment, and by 2017 she found herself experiencing apathy and sleeping for 18 to 20 hours per day.

Testing revealed that Lesley had developed a large meningioma, which was surgically removed in July 2017.

“Even after the meningioma was surgically removed, Lesley continued to receive injections of Depo-Provera because Defendants failed to warn her and her physicians of the risks and defects of Depo-Provera,” the lawsuit states. “Because Defendants failed to warn Lesley and Lesley’s physician of Depo-Provera’s defects, Lesley’s meningioma began to aggressively regrow approximately six (6) months after the initial surgery was completed to remove it.”

According to the Depo-Provera shot lawsuit, Noble underwent 36 rounds of radiation treatments to stop the growth of the brain tumor, unaware that the birth control injection had any connection to her meningioma.

The lawsuit indicates that the drug manufacturers purposefully concealed the Depo-Provera brain tumor risks to maximize profits, even at the expense of women’s health. As a result, the couple presents claims for strict liability, negligent manufacturing, breach of express warranty, violation of Indiana consumer protection laws, negligence, failure to warn and loss of consortium.

October 2024 Depo-Provera Lawsuit Update

The lawsuit filed by the Nobles is among the earliest lawsuits filed against Pfizer since information about the meningioma risk was uncovered in a study published in the medical journal The BMJ in March 2024.

However, lawyers across the nation are reviewing Depo-Provera shot lawsuits for women diagnosed with brain tumors, to determine whether financial compensation may be available. Therefore, the size and scope of the litigation is expected to rapidly grow in the coming weeks and months.

Drug makers have a responsibility to thoroughly investigate and assess the safety of their product. This includes conducting rigorous research and clinical trials to identify potential risks, such as the association between Depo-Provera and brain tumors.

Depo-Provera lawyers are providing free consultations, and all claims are being investigated on a contingency fee basis, which means that there are no fees or expenses paid unless a settlement or lawsuit payout is received.


Find Out If You Qualify For a Depo Provera Lawsuit

0 Comments

Share Your Comments

I authorize the above comments be posted on this page*

Want your comments reviewed by a lawyer?

To have an attorney review your comments and contact you about a potential case, provide your contact information below. This will not be published.

NOTE: Providing information for review by an attorney does not form an attorney-client relationship.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

More Top Stories

Pfizer Agrees Brain Tumor Lawsuits Over Depo-Provera Should Be Centralized in MDL
Pfizer Agrees Brain Tumor Lawsuits Over Depo-Provera Should Be Centralized in MDL (Posted today)

Birth control shot manufacturer supports the consolidation of Depo-Provera brain tumor lawsuits, but argues that the claims should be centralized in the Southern District of New York, where the company is headquartered.