What You Should Know About the Paragard Lawsuit

The Paragard lawsuit is the civil action instituted by a firm of attorneys on behalf of the victims who used the Paragard Copper T IUD is a birth control mechanism, and it fractured inside the uterine cavity.

Not only have these fractured copper pieces the ability to cause substantial damage in the user’s body, but they have had to be retrieved via major surgery. Therefore, a multidistrict litigation exercise has been instituted against the IUD’s manufacturers to claim for medical costs (including fertility treatment), loss of income, and pain and suffering.

The question that begs is, what do you need to know about the Paragard lawsuit?

By way of answering this question, let’s consider the following points:

The difference between a class action lawsuit and multidistrict litigation

A class action lawsuit is where a group of plaintiffs with similar claims group together to file a claim against a common defendant. It is one claim, filed by an attorney, on behalf of a group of people. The salient point here is that the group is represented collectively by one individual or an attorney.

This claim originated in the USA. And it is a US phenomenon. It is primarily used for group action against a manufacturer such as the Ranitidine class-action lawsuit against the antacid manufacturers Zantac. It is designed to provide damages like medical costs, physical pain, and loss of income to users diagnosed with cancer.

Multidistrict litigation, on the other hand, is where a large number of individual lawsuits are consolidated so that they can be heard in one federal court. These lawsuits must all be similar, and they must be against the same defendant. This description provides an accurate description of the Paragard lawsuit.

The grounds for the lawsuit

The grounds for the lawsuit are as follows:

The UID’s design is defective

Because the UID can fracture and has fractured in the uterus, it is deemed to have design flaws. Therefore, the design poses a risk to users. The manufacturer should have foreseen that one of the device’s two arms might break off, especially when it is removed from the uterus.

There is a manufacturing defect

Not only is the IUD’s design flawed, but the manufacturing process is flawed. The device is defective when it leaves the manufacturing plant. And this defect is such that it can inflict harm with serious consequences such as perforated organs and the need for major surgery to remove the fractured pieces.

The device’s packaging was not adequately labeled

The device manufacturers failed to warn both users and medical professionals that there is a risk that the UID might break into pieces when removed from the uterine cavity. Secondly, it did not advise physicians of the possible ways that this damage might be avoided, and the IUD removed without breaking.

Final thoughts

Therefore, if you have found yourself in a similar situation where you have used the Paragard Copper UID, it’s essential to consult with an attorney as soon as possible. Various US states have instituted a statute of limitation of between one and two years for this litigation exercise. Consequently, you only have a short time to initiate legal action against the product’s manufacturer from the date of injury.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

fifty seven − = fifty four