Depo-Provera and Meningioma Risk

What this docket is about

Depo-Provera is the brand name for the medroxyprogesterone acetate injectable contraceptive, marketed by Pfizer (and originally Upjohn). A 2024 BMJ study found that women who used the injection for one year or more had a meaningfully elevated risk of intracranial meningioma. Multidistrict litigation has formed. Massachusetts plaintiffs are eligible to participate. Documentation of injection dates, prescribing pharmacy, and meningioma diagnosis are the central proofs.

Pfizer and the Depo-Provera multidistrict litigation

The Depo-Provera meningioma docket is consolidated as In re: Depo-Provera (Medroxyprogesterone Acetate) Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3140, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida before Judge M. Casey Rodgers (the same court that handled the 3M Combat Arms Earplug MDL). The principal defendant is Pfizer Inc., as successor to the original Upjohn marketing entity and current holder of the Depo-Provera new drug application. Greenstone LLC, the Pfizer subsidiary that markets the generic medroxyprogesterone acetate injection, is named in parallel. The plaintiff theory is failure to warn: the United States product label did not disclose the elevated meningioma risk associated with long-term use even though the European product label included a meningioma warning beginning in roughly 2014.

Massachusetts plaintiffs participate in the MDL on the same terms as plaintiffs from any other state. The Massachusetts statute of limitations runs from the date of diagnosis under M.G.L. c. 260 sec. 2A read with the discovery rule of M.G.L. c. 260 sec. 2D, because the connection between Depo-Provera use and meningioma was not reasonably knowable to a Massachusetts patient until the BMJ study results were published. Pharmaceutical product liability under M.G.L. c. 106 sec. 2-318 reaches both the manufacturer and the prescribing relationship; the central proof set is the documented injection history (pharmacy records or prescriber records establishing dose, date, and duration) and the diagnostic record establishing the meningioma.

What the 2024 BMJ study found and what it requires for a Massachusetts claim

The 2024 BMJ study (Roland, Weill, Mahmoudi, et al., Use of progestogens and the risk of intracranial meningioma: national case-control study, BMJ 2024;384:e078078) conducted a nationwide French case-control study of more than 100,000 women, finding that prolonged medroxyprogesterone acetate use (one year or longer) was associated with a roughly 5.6-fold increased risk of intracranial meningioma requiring surgical intervention. The study followed earlier French research on cyproterone acetate and other high-dose progestogens, and was the first large dataset to isolate medroxyprogesterone acetate as the at-risk agent. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists issued a clinical update in 2024 acknowledging the finding and recommending shared decision-making for long-term users.

A Massachusetts Depo-Provera claim turns on four documentary elements that the firm helps gather at intake. First, the pharmacy or prescriber record showing injection dates and duration (the typical Depo-Provera regimen is one injection every three months; one year of use is four injections; long-term use is twelve or more). Second, the MRI or CT scan report identifying an intracranial meningioma, ideally with the tumor location, size, and growth pattern documented. Third, the neurology or neurosurgery clinical notes documenting the diagnostic workup and any treatment plan (observation, radiation, or surgical resection). Fourth, the absence of other meningioma risk factors that would weaken causation (prior cranial radiation, neurofibromatosis type 2, or family history of NF2). The firm coordinates record retrieval and works with treating neurosurgery practices in Massachusetts to assemble the diagnostic file.

Who may qualify

The firm screens for the following criteria. Meeting all of them is not a guarantee of acceptance; the actual evaluation happens in conversation with the firm.

• Used Depo-Provera (medroxyprogesterone acetate injection) for one year or more, in any time period
• Diagnosed with meningioma (a brain tumor) at any point after use began
• Diagnosis can be confirmed with medical records (MRI report, neurology / neurosurgery records)
• Lived in Massachusetts at the time of use or diagnosis

What happens after you submit

The screening lands directly in Jim Glaser Law's intake queue with the docket name and your answers. The firm reaches out within one business day to confirm fit and explain next steps. Cases that fit the docket are filed by the firm or coordinated with national lead counsel as appropriate. Cases that do not fit are referred without fee to other Massachusetts counsel where appropriate.

Mass tort representation is typically on contingency, meaning no attorney's fee unless and until the matter resolves with a recovery to the client; case-related costs and expenses are addressed in the written fee agreement.

How Depo-Provera matters move through multidistrict litigation

Mass tort claims like Depo-Provera are typically coordinated through multidistrict litigation under 28 U.S.C. sec. 1407. Multidistrict litigation, generally referred to as MDL, is the federal procedural mechanism that consolidates many individual lawsuits filed in different federal districts against a common defendant for the purposes of coordinated pretrial proceedings. The cases are transferred to a single transferee court chosen by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. Each plaintiff retains a separate case with separate damages and a separate client relationship with their counsel, but discovery, expert development, and bellwether trial work are shared across the docket. This procedural posture allows individual plaintiffs to access the depth of investigation and expert resources that the defendant brings to its side without the cost of replicating that investigation for every individual matter.

Bellwether trials are individual cases selected from the MDL to be tried first, producing real verdict data that informs the valuation of the rest of the docket. Most MDLs eventually resolve through a global settlement framework negotiated between plaintiffs' lead counsel and the defendant after enough bellwether trials have established the range of likely outcomes. The global settlement framework typically assigns each plaintiff to a tier based on documented injury severity, exposure profile, and other case-specific factors, with the tier determining the base settlement amount.

What Massachusetts residents should know about Depo-Provera timelines

Mass tort matters typically run two to five years from the initial filing through to final settlement, although individual cases can resolve faster or slower depending on the bellwether schedule and any tiered settlement framework. The early stages of a case (filing, discovery, expert disclosure) can move quickly; the middle stages (bellwether trial scheduling, negotiation of global resolution terms) tend to be slower; the final stages (individual case valuation, distribution of settlement funds) move at the pace of the administrator processing thousands of individual claims. Massachusetts residents participating in the docket should expect that the firm will keep them updated on docket-wide developments while their individual case proceeds; substantive case decisions are made jointly between the firm and the client at each material juncture.

The statute of limitations question for Depo-Provera matters depends on the law of the state where the injury occurred or where the plaintiff resides at the time of filing, which for Massachusetts residents is M.G.L. c. 260 sec. 2A (three years from injury) with the discovery rule applying where the connection between exposure and injury was not reasonably knowable at the time of exposure. For latent-injury dockets the discovery rule extends the practical filing window significantly beyond three years from exposure, but the rule is fact-specific and the safest path is prompt counsel evaluation once injury is suspected.

The role of national lead counsel in a Depo-Provera matter

Most mass tort dockets are coordinated through a structure that includes national lead counsel appointed by the transferee court to manage the shared discovery, expert development, and bellwether trial work that benefits all plaintiffs in the docket. National lead counsel typically consists of a small number of experienced plaintiff-side firms with the resources and expertise to drive the centralized work. Individual plaintiff counsel (firms like Jim Glaser Law representing individual clients) work alongside national lead counsel on the individual case development while benefiting from the shared work. The court typically allocates a share of the eventual recovery to a common-benefit fund that compensates national lead counsel for the shared work; this allocation is set out in the engagement letter at intake. The client's individual recovery accounts for the common-benefit allocation in the same way it accounts for the firm's contingency fee.

Documents and evidence that strengthen a Depo-Provera claim

Mass tort Depo-Provera matters are evaluated on the strength of the documentary record. The categories of documentation that matter most include the following. Diagnostic confirmation of the qualifying injury (medical records identifying the specific diagnosis, the date of diagnosis, and the treating provider). Exposure history (records, employment history, product records, prescription records, or other documentation establishing the exposure that caused the injury). Treatment history (records of all treatment received for the qualifying condition, including prescriptions, surgeries, and ongoing care). Employment and income records (where the injury affects earning capacity, records of wages, lost work time, and disability determinations). Out-of-pocket expense records (medical bills not covered by insurance, transportation to treatment, equipment purchases, and other related costs).

Clients do not need to gather all of this before the screening; the firm requests records on the client's behalf once representation is in place. What clients should do proactively is preserve any records already in their possession and avoid destroying or discarding anything that might be relevant to the matter. The firm's medical records authorization at intake gives the firm the access it needs to gather the rest.

How the firm evaluates a prospective Depo-Provera claim

The screening conversation walks through six questions in order. Question one: when was the exposure or first dose? The answer establishes the limitations window and the discovery-rule analysis under Massachusetts law. Question two: when was the qualifying diagnosis made and by which provider? The diagnostic record is the central piece of the file; without it the claim does not proceed regardless of how strong the rest of the facts are. Question three: what was the duration and intensity of the exposure? Mass tort dockets typically include exposure-intensity criteria that determine fit and the eventual settlement tier. Question four: what was the medical treatment course and the continuing prognosis? Treatment records establish damages and the persistence-of-injury element. Question five: is there any prior litigation against the same defendant for the same injury type? Prior litigation can affect the available recovery routes (some dockets are closed to new plaintiffs after a global resolution). Question six: are there any disqualifying factors? Each docket has docket-specific disqualifiers (prior settlement releases, workers' compensation election, certain exposure profiles) that the firm reviews at intake.

The screening produces one of three outcomes. Fit: an engagement letter follows and the firm opens the file. Marginal fit: the firm requests additional documentation and re-evaluates. Not a fit: the prospective client is told plainly and referred to other counsel where appropriate. The intake call is offered without charge regardless of the outcome.

Fees for Depo-Provera representation

Mass tort representation is accepted on contingency, meaning no attorney fee is owed unless and until the matter resolves with a recovery to the client. The fee percentage applicable to Massachusetts mass tort engagements is governed by Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.5 and is set out in the written fee agreement at intake. Case-related costs and expenses for mass tort matters include medical-record requests, expert evaluation fees, MDL participation costs, and the share of common-benefit fees that the MDL court typically allocates to lead counsel for the shared discovery and bellwether work that benefits all plaintiffs in the docket. These costs are also addressed in the written fee agreement and are typically advanced by the firm and reimbursed from any recovery. The first telephone consultation is offered without charge regardless of whether you proceed with the screening.

Massachusetts-specific considerations for Depo-Provera

Massachusetts plaintiffs participating in a Depo-Provera mass tort docket are evaluated under both the federal MDL framework and the Massachusetts substantive law that applies to their individual claim. Three Massachusetts-specific elements recur in this docket. First, the three-year limitations period under M.G.L. c. 260 sec. 2A applies to the underlying tort claim, modified by the Massachusetts discovery rule for latent-injury exposures where the connection between exposure and injury was not reasonably knowable until the diagnosis. Second, comparative-negligence principles under M.G.L. c. 231 sec. 85 can reduce a Massachusetts plaintiff's recovery in proportion to assigned fault and bar recovery entirely above fifty percent. Third, Massachusetts claimants who have previously received workers' compensation, third-party tort settlements, or other releases relating to the same injury may face a coordination-of-benefits or release-bar analysis that the firm walks through at screening before opening the file.

Jim Glaser Law screens Massachusetts Depo-Provera matters at no cost. The screening conversation covers eligibility, the documentary record, the Massachusetts statute-of-limitations analysis, and the engagement framework before any commitment is asked of the client. The firm is admitted in Massachusetts only and coordinates with national lead counsel and out-of-state co-counsel as the MDL framework and any associated state-court matter requires.