Depo-Provera is a birth control shot that many women in the United States have relied on for years. It’s given about once every three months and contains medroxyprogesterone acetate, a lab-made version of the hormone progesterone. In recent years, Depo shot lawsuits have been filed as women began sharing stories of serious health problems they believe are tied to long-term use of the shot. Some of them have been diagnosed with meningiomas, a type of brain tumor that can lead to lasting health challenges and needs intensive treatment.
The lawsuits accuse Pfizer, Inc. of knowing about these risks and not warning patients. Dozens of these claims have now been brought together in a multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the Northern District of Florida. If you’ve been diagnosed with a brain tumor after using Depo-Provera, you might be able to pursue compensation through a Depo-Provera lawsuit. Keep reading to learn more about the health risks being linked to the shot, the allegations against Pfizer, and the legal options available to those affected.
Depo-Provera, often called the birth control shot, is the brand name for medroxyprogesterone acetate. It’s an injectable form of contraception given in the arm or buttocks about every three months. It’s a highly effective, low-maintenance option that doesn’t require daily pills or regular device changes when taken on schedule.
Pfizer has made billions from Depo-Provera sales over the years. Nearly one in four sexually active women in the United States had used Depo-Provera at least once between 2015 and 2019, according to a December 2023 National Health Statistics Report.
The drug has a long and complicated history. Depo-Provera was first developed in the 1950s by Upjohn (now part of Pfizer). It was originally created as an injectable treatment for certain cancers, not birth control. Depo-Provera works by delivering a high dose of progestin that prevents ovulation. But early on, it ran into pushback from the FDA. Approval requests in 1967, 1978, and 1983 were denied because of cancer concerns, an early sign of the safety questions that fuel today’s Depo-Provera lawsuits over brain tumor risks.
While the U.S. held off, other countries moved forward. France approved it for contraception in 1969, and over the years, it became widely available abroad. It wasn’t until 1992 that the FDA finally gave the green light for contraceptive use in the United States.
Many women today still use Depo-Provera not only for birth control but also to help with conditions like endometriosis and heavy menstrual bleeding. It can even lower the risk of endometrial cancer. When used correctly, a single shot can prevent pregnancy for up to 14 weeks.
Depo-Provera is designed to prevent pregnancy in a few different ways. Its main job is to stop the ovaries from releasing an egg each month. Without ovulation, there’s nothing for sperm to fertilize.
It also makes other changes in the body that make pregnancy less likely:
The shot is given in the arm or buttocks about every 12 weeks. It’s considered a very effective form of birth control when it’s taken on schedule.
Depo-Provera is best known as a birth control shot that many women rely on. But it isn’t just for preventing pregnancy. The drug is also prescribed for a range of other health issues in women:
However, there are concerns about the long-term use of Depo-Provera, despite its benefits in many ways. Bone density loss is one of them, which means bones can get weaker over time. And now, the ongoing lawsuits are looking into whether Depo-Provera might raise the risk of serious health problems, like brain tumors known as meningiomas. These concerns are at the heart of the multidistrict litigation currently underway.
Depo-Provera can cause a variety of side effects. Some are mild and might ease up after a while, while others can be more serious or long-lasting. Regular checkups are important to catch any problems early and get the right treatment if you’re using the shot.
Here are some of the common side effects many women notice:
There are also less common side effects to be aware of:
If you’ve experienced any of these side effects, especially the more serious ones, it’s a good idea to talk with your doctor. Some of these issues are at the heart of the ongoing Depo-Provera lawsuits that many women have filed.
Using Depo-Provera for a long time can lead to some serious health problems. Some effects might not go away, like bone loss, which can be permanent. Others include delays in getting pregnant again and ongoing changes in your menstrual cycle. There are also rare but serious risks like blood clots, cancer, and mental health issues.
Here’s what you should know:
The FDA says it’s best not to use Depo-Provera for more than two years unless necessary because of these risks. If you notice any serious symptoms, don’t wait to get medical help.
The biggest worry about Depo-Provera right now is a possible link to brain tumors called meningiomas. Recent studies show that women who use Depo-Provera for more than a year might have a higher chance of getting these tumors.
Depo-Provera contains a synthetic hormone similar to progesterone. Since meningiomas often react to progesterone, this hormone might help the tumors grow, especially after using the shot for a long time. Many women affected by these tumors have used Depo-Provera for several years. The risk isn’t clearly mentioned on the drug’s label in the U.S., even though recent research points to this connection.
Another serious side effect is bone loss. Long-term use of Depo-Provera can weaken bones, making fractures and osteoporosis possible. Doctors usually advise not to use it for more than two years without checking bone health.
These side effects are the main focus of the current lawsuits: brain tumor risk and whether women were properly warned about it.
Recent studies show a clear link between Depo-Provera and an increased risk of meningiomas, a type of brain tumor that reacts to hormones.
One big study from France, published in 2024, looked at data from over 18,000 women who had surgery for these tumors. It found that women who used Depo-Provera for a year or more were about five times more likely to develop meningiomas compared to women who didn’t use it. The risk didn’t go up for women who used it for less than a year, and it went down after they stopped using the shot for more than a year. This study focused specifically on the injectable form of Depo-Provera.
An older study from Indonesia in 2018 showed an even higher risk—around 30 times greater—for women who used the shot for a long time, especially over 10 years. This supports the idea that the longer you use Depo-Provera, the higher the risk.
Other studies from around the world agree: using synthetic hormones like the one in Depo-Provera for a long time raises the chance of these tumors, especially since meningiomas often have receptors that respond to these hormones.
Doctors have noticed that some tumors shrink after women stop using Depo-Provera, which suggests the hormone helps them grow.
That said, one recent article called for more research, especially about other hormonal drugs, but it didn’t disagree with the link for Depo-Provera’s injectable form.
Some countries have already updated their guidelines because of these findings. For example, France now requires doctors to check the risks and benefits every year when prescribing Depo-Provera. Other countries have added warnings about the tumor risk on the drug labels. The U.S. FDA, as of mid-2025, hasn’t made this update yet.
A meningioma is a tumor that grows from the meninges, which are the layers of tissue that protect the brain and spinal cord. These tumors are the most common type of primary brain tumor in adults, making up around 37 to 42 percent of all cases. Most meningiomas are benign, meaning they’re not cancer, and they tend to grow slowly. Many people don’t even notice symptoms for years.
The World Health Organization divides meningiomas into three groups, based on how aggressive they are:
Meningiomas happen more often in women, about 1.6 to 3 times more than in men, which is thought to be related to hormones. Most diagnoses happen in people in their 50s or 60s, and the risk goes up with age.
How doctors treat meningiomas depends on the size of the tumor, where it’s located, how fast it’s growing, the symptoms it’s causing, and the patient’s overall health and age. Here are the common approaches:
Radiation can shrink the tumor, slow its growth, or kill leftover cells after surgery.
Meningiomas are a type of brain tumor that might be connected to Depo-Provera. They usually grow slowly and may not cause any symptoms for a while. But as they get bigger, they can press on the brain and cause problems.
If you’ve used Depo-Provera and notice any of these signs, talk to your doctor ASAP:
Most of these tumors aren’t cancer, but they can still cause serious health issues. Treatment like surgery or radiation might be needed.
If you’ve been diagnosed with a brain tumor after using Depo-Provera, you might be able to get help with medical bills and other costs. Keep reading to find out more.
Because of serious side effects like meningiomas and bone density loss, many women who used Depo-Provera have started filing Depo lawsuits against Pfizer.
Pfizer took over Depo-Provera in 2003 after merging with Pharmacia, becoming responsible for the drug’s safety and quality. Since then, concerns have grown over the risks linked to long-term use of Depo-Provera.
Research suggests that women using Depo-Provera for more than a year may be up to five times more likely to develop meningiomas, a type of brain tumor. Despite this evidence, Pfizer has not updated the drug’s warning labels to properly inform patients about these risks.
Because of this, many affected women believe Pfizer failed to provide necessary warnings and are pursuing legal action.
MDL 3140 brings together multiple lawsuits about Depo-Provera, the birth control shot, into one federal court case. These cases are being heard in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, with Judge M. Casey Rodgers presiding since February 2025. The lawsuits claim that Depo-Provera and its generic forms may raise the risk of developing meningiomas, a type of brain tumor.
By mid-2025, dozens of cases remain pending, and new claims continue to be added as more women learn about the potential risks. The plaintiffs say they developed brain tumors after using Depo-Provera for a long time and that Pfizer and other manufacturers didn’t properly warn users.
Pfizer denies these claims, stating the drug is safe when used correctly. The court is focused on questions like whether Depo-Provera causes these tumors, whether the makers knew about the risks, and if they gave enough warnings.
There’s also discussion about safer options, like Depo-SubQ Provera 104, which uses a lower dose and a different injection method.
Consolidating the lawsuits in one court helps keep things organized and avoid conflicting rulings. While the cases are grouped, each claim is treated individually.
To take part, plaintiffs need to prove they used Depo-Provera and were harmed. Sometimes missing medical records can make this tricky. Deadlines for filing may be extended since some say they didn’t learn about the risks until recently.
If you or a loved one was diagnosed with a brain tumor after Depo-Provera, it’s important to understand the legal options available. This MDL is an important part of making sure companies are held responsible and that affected women can seek compensation.
If you’re looking at a Depo-Provera shot lawsuit, these are the main companies you’ll hear about:
The Depo shot lawsuits focus on several important points:
The lawsuit Depo-Provera users pursue focuses on product liability and negligence claims.
August 1, 2025 – New Study Links Depo-Provera to Higher Brain Tumor Risk
A new study has found that women who used Depo-Provera for more than a year were 3.5 times more likely to develop a meningioma (a type of brain tumor) compared to women who took combination birth control pills. This research strengthens cases for women suing the drug’s makers for not warning about this risk.
July 17, 2025 – Nearly 100 More Lawsuits Filed
In just a month, almost 100 women joined the federal lawsuit over brain tumors linked to Depo-Provera, bringing the total to 435 cases. Pfizer is pushing a “pre-emption” defense, arguing the FDA wouldn’t have let them warn women about this risk. Women can still join the lawsuit.
July 2, 2025 – Court Deadlines Set
Judge M. Casey Rodgers has set new deadlines in the case. Pfizer is again using the pre-emption defense, a tactic drug companies often try but rarely win. The court aims to wrap up pre-emption arguments by October.
June 17, 2025 – Case Status Update Filed
Before an upcoming court meeting, both sides submitted a status update. Discovery is ongoing, with Pfizer already turning over more than 10 million pages of documents. Lawyers for the women will review these records for proof the companies knew about the brain tumor risk but didn’t warn patients.
June 2, 2025 – Court Streamlines Complaint Process
Judge Rodgers approved a process to fix errors in filed complaints. Each plaintiff must list the exact Depo-Provera product used and the specific type of brain tumor diagnosed. This is meant to keep the case moving efficiently.
May 20, 2025 – Claim Requirements Clarified
Judge Rodgers clarified that every plaintiff must fill out a Proof of Use/Injury Questionnaire and submit medical records showing they developed an intracranial meningioma after using Depo-Provera. Timely, complete documentation is crucial for having a valid claim.
May 13, 2025 – Pfizer Turns Over 1 Million More Documents
Pfizer and two other defendants have now produced over 8 million pages of documents. Plaintiffs’ lawyers will be reviewing them for missing or hidden information. The scientific evidence in these cases remains strong.
May 1, 2025 – Generic Manufacturers Must Join Discovery
Judge Rodgers confirmed that generic makers Greenstone LLC and Viatris Inc. must participate fully in the case. Lawyers will investigate what these companies knew about Depo-Provera’s link to brain tumors.
April 16, 2025 – Co-Defendants Miss Court Deadline
Generic Depo-Provera makers Greenstone and Viatris missed a court-ordered filing deadline in the group lawsuit. They have since submitted the required affidavits, but Judge M. Casey Rodgers stressed the importance of meeting deadlines. Missing one this early could hurt their credibility in the case.
April 1, 2025 – Record Collection Made Easier for Plaintiffs
Women in the lawsuit will need medical, insurance, and pharmacy records to support their claims. Judge Rodgers issued an order to make gathering these records easier, especially for women who took Depo-Provera decades ago. She also requested distribution records from Pfizer, which could strengthen some claims.
March 18, 2025 – Direct Filing in Florida Now Allowed
Women with Depo-Provera-related brain tumor claims can now file directly in Florida federal court. This avoids the usual step of filing in state court first, speeding up the process without losing any legal benefits.
March 3, 2025 – Special Master and Data Administrator Appointed
Judge Rodgers appointed retired Judge David Herndon as Special Master to help manage the litigation and a data administrator to handle the large number of documents. She will oversee five pilot cases, signaling that the court wants this case to move quickly.
February 26, 2025 – Attorneys Outline Next Steps
With the group lawsuit now formed, lawyers are setting timelines, exchanging documents, appointing lead attorneys, and debating whether claims involving generic Depo-Provera will be allowed.
February 21, 2025 – Lawsuit Progressing Quickly
Since the MDL was created, Judge Rodgers has already moved state-level cases to Florida federal court and held a case management conference. She is known for handling large mass torts efficiently, raising hopes for quicker settlements, possibly within 1–2 years.
February 7, 2025 – Multidistrict Litigation Approved
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation created MDL 3140 for Depo-Provera brain tumor cases. This lets women file as part of a group while keeping their own claims for compensation. The MDL will be handled in the Northern District of Florida, likely by Judge Rodgers.
February 3, 2025 – MDL Location Still Pending
A January 30 hearing confirmed that the Depo-Provera MDL would move forward, but not where it would be based. Lawyers debated between California and New York. A final decision from the Judicial Panel was expected by February 7.
January 28, 2025 – MDL Decision Expected Soon
Women suing over Depo-Provera-related brain tumors are waiting for a decision on how their cases will be handled. A hearing in early February will decide if the lawsuits will be combined into one multidistrict litigation (MDL). Plaintiffs are pushing for California federal court, which could offer better filing options for women who used generic versions.
January 16, 2025 – Lawsuits Likely to Move Forward as MDL
The Depo-Provera brain tumor cases will likely be grouped into an MDL instead of a class action. In an MDL, each woman keeps her own claim and can pursue compensation for her specific injuries, while benefiting from the efficiency of a consolidated process.
January 15, 2025 – Pfizer Uses Pre-Emption Defense
Pfizer claims it tried to add a warning about meningiomas (brain tumors) to Depo-Provera’s label but says the FDA rejected the change for lack of evidence. This is part of a common legal strategy known as a pre-emption defense, which rarely succeeds. Many legal experts still believe Pfizer will face liability.
January 10, 2025 – MDL Hearing Set for End of January
A hearing on January 30 will determine if the lawsuits will be consolidated into an MDL and where they will be heard. Plaintiffs want the cases in California, while defendants are pushing for New York. Because Pfizer agrees an MDL should be created, the lawsuits are likely to move forward.
January 3, 2025 – Pfizer Agrees to MDL but Wants New York Venue
Pfizer has agreed the Depo-Provera brain tumor lawsuits should be consolidated into an MDL. However, they want the cases heard in New York, while plaintiffs prefer California. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation will make the final decision.
January 2, 2025 – Attorneys Push for Depo-Provera MDL
Attorneys representing 22 women with brain tumors have formally requested that the lawsuits be combined into an MDL. If approved, this would allow women to join the group litigation while keeping their individual claims for compensation.
December 23, 2024 – Black and Hispanic Women May Face Higher Risks
CDC data shows that 42% of Black women and 27% of Hispanic women have used Depo-Provera, compared to 20% of white women and 7% of Asian women. This means Black and Hispanic women may be more affected by brain tumors linked to the birth control shot, highlighting disparities in contraceptive use and potential health risks.
December 18, 2024 – California Woman Files Lawsuit Years After Tumor Diagnosis
Faith Lowery of Bakersfield, CA, filed a Depo-Provera lawsuit more than 10 years after her first brain tumor diagnosis. She used Depo-Provera from 2001 to 2014, receiving about 50 injections. In 2014, she developed severe symptoms and was diagnosed with a meningioma, requiring brain surgery. She was diagnosed with another meningioma in 2022. Lowery says she only recently learned her tumors may be linked to Depo-Provera, showing that even women diagnosed years ago may still have the right to file claims.
December 11, 2024 – California Venue Could Help Women Who Took Generic Depo-Provera
Attorneys have asked to consolidate Depo-Provera lawsuits in California federal court. California’s strong innovator liability laws would let women sue Pfizer even if they took generic versions of the drug. This could help more women, especially those who used the generic form, seek compensation for brain tumors linked to the birth control shot.
December 3, 2024 – Consolidation Could Protect Future Claimants
Plaintiffs’ attorneys have requested that current and future Depo-Provera lawsuits be grouped into an MDL. This would allow women who develop brain tumors in the future, possibly years after stopping the drug, to join the litigation. The motion specifically includes any future cases involving Depo-Provera and cerebral meningiomas.
December 2, 2024 – Six Defendants Named in MDL Request
In their request to create an MDL, attorneys for 22 women named six companies as defendants: Pfizer, Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. LLC, Greenstone LLC, Viatris Inc., Pharmacia LLC, and Prasco LLC. These companies manufactured or sold Depo-Provera and its generic versions. If the MDL is approved, all could face liability for allegedly causing brain tumors.
November 27, 2024 – Depo-Provera Cases Could Form MDL
Lawyers for plaintiffs have asked the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to combine 22 Depo-Provera lawsuits into an MDL, proposing the Northern District of California. Pfizer’s defense team may push for New York instead, which is considered more favorable to pharmaceutical companies and is home to Pfizer’s headquarters. The panel will review the request in early 2025, with more filings expected before the hearing.
November 26, 2024 – Legal Grounds in the Depo-Provera Lawsuit
These lawsuits claim Pfizer failed to warn about serious side effects, including the link between Depo-Provera and brain tumors. If you’ve been diagnosed with a brain tumor or meningioma after using the drug, you may be eligible for compensation. Ethen Ostroff Law has reviewed related claims and offers free case evaluations.
November 22, 2024 – New Lawsuit Targets Healthcare Groups and Pharmacies
On November 15, 2024, Madison Le filed suit in California against Pfizer, other Depo-Provera makers, and organizations like Kaiser Permanente. Her attorneys say these groups knew about the risks through their own research but continued to profit from the drug’s use.
November 21, 2024 – Some Depo-Provera Brain Tumors Can’t Be Operated On
While many women with Depo-Provera-related meningiomas undergo surgery, some tumors can’t be removed because of their location or involvement with critical brain structures. Inoperable tumors may require radiation, hormone therapy, or experimental treatments, often leading to prolonged symptoms and life disruption.
November 20, 2024 – Nevada Woman Develops Three Brain Tumors After 20 Years of Use
Tina Stephens-Smith used Depo-Provera for two decades before developing headaches, vision problems, and speech issues. Scans revealed three calcified meningiomas. Her lawsuit alleges Pfizer knew of the risks but failed to warn U.S. patients.
November 19, 2024 – Study Backs Preoperative Imaging for Meningioma Patients
A review in the Journal of Neuroimaging stresses the value of advanced imaging for meningioma patients, especially those with tumors linked to Depo-Provera. Better imaging can improve surgical planning and patient outcomes.
November 18, 2024 – Study Finds 53% Higher Meningioma Risk
A Swedish study of over 1 million women found that Depo-Provera users had a 53% greater chance of developing a meningioma. The U.S. rate is about 11 cases per 100,000 women annually; for Depo-Provera users, it’s closer to 16.
November 15, 2024 – Progesterone Study Strengthens Lawsuits
A January 2024 study by David Bailey found that stopping progesterone drugs like Depo-Provera can shrink meningiomas. This supports both the general and specific causation arguments lawyers need to prove in court.
November 14, 2024 – Ongoing Concerns About Meningioma Risk
Ethen Ostroff Law continues to hear from people worried about brain tumors after using Depo-Provera. Meningiomas can cause headaches, vision issues, neurological damage, and sometimes permanent disability.
November 12, 2024 – Canada Warns Patients, U.S. Still Does Not
Pfizer has warned Canadian patients about the meningioma risk from Depo-Provera since at least 2016 but has not added the same warning for U.S. patients. Many American women are just now learning of the risk and are suing for lack of disclosure.
November 9, 2024 – California Woman Files Lawsuit After Brain Tumor Surgery
Mayra Valencia took Depo-Provera for 23 years before an MRI revealed a brain tumor. She underwent major surgery in 2024 to remove it. Her lawsuit points to studies going back to 1983 linking progesterone use to meningiomas.
November 7, 2024 – Potentially High Settlement Values
Depo-Provera settlements may exceed $100,000 on average, with some much higher. Factors include the strong evidence of risk, severity of the injury, Pfizer’s financial capacity, and the relatively small number of expected lawsuits compared to other mass torts.
November 1, 2024 – Lawsuits May Also Explore Breast Cancer Link
While most lawsuits focus on meningiomas, older studies have suggested a possible connection between Depo-Provera and breast cancer, especially in long-term users.
November 1, 2024 – California Woman Files After Two Brain Tumor Surgeries
Anjanna Lawson began Depo-Provera injections at age 16 and used them until 2024. She has undergone brain surgery and radiation but still lives with symptoms. Her lawsuit names Pfizer and multiple related companies as defendants.
October 29, 2024 – New California Lawsuit May Push Toward MDL
Kathleen Fazio has filed suit against Pfizer and related companies in the Central District of California. Early federal filings suggest lawyers may soon ask to consolidate Depo-Provera cases into an MDL, allowing one judge to oversee pretrial proceedings.
No cases have been filed in New York, where Pfizer is based, because of historically unfavorable rulings. Instead, early filings are expected in California, Massachusetts, Vermont, and Illinois, states more open to “innovator liability” claims that allow brand-name makers to be sued over injuries caused by generic versions.
October 28, 2024 – Another California Woman Sues Pfizer
Monique Jones has filed in the Central District of California, adding to a growing trend of lawsuits in states with strong innovator liability laws. Her complaint claims Pfizer can be held responsible for failing to update safety warnings, even for patients who took generic versions, because generic labels must match the original drug’s label.
October 25, 2024 – Indiana Woman Sues Over Brain Tumor
Lesley Noble took Depo-Provera for 20 years before being diagnosed with a brain tumor in 2017. After surgery, the tumor regrew within six months, leading to 36 rounds of radiation. She and her husband are demanding a jury trial for the harm she has endured.
October 22, 2024 – First Federal Lawsuit Lists 9 Allegations
Kristina Schmidt’s lawsuit in California federal court accuses Pfizer and co-defendants of nine counts, including failure to warn, defective design, negligence, misrepresentation, and breach of warranty. She alleges the companies knowingly sold a drug that could cause meningiomas without proper warnings.
October 17, 2024 – Possible Link to Spinal Cord Tumors
New research suggests Depo-Provera’s hormone exposure may also cause spinal meningiomas. While less than 13% of meningiomas occur in the spinal cord, they make up about a quarter of all spinal tumors.
October 11, 2024 – Pfizer’s Role in Generic Liability Under Scrutiny
A key issue in these lawsuits is whether Pfizer can be held liable for tumors caused by its “authorized generic” versions of Depo-Provera. Many of these generics were made by Pfizer-owned subsidiaries at the same facilities as the brand drug. Courts are expected to spend years debating Pfizer’s responsibility.
October 4, 2024 – California Woman Sues Over Brain Tumor
Kristina Schmidt filed in Northern California, alleging her brain tumor was caused by Depo-Provera 17 years after use. She has undergone significant treatments and claims Pfizer knew for decades about the risk but failed to warn.
October 4, 2024 – Depo-Provera Linked to Major Cancer Risk Increase
Early studies suggest Depo-Provera increases the risk of certain tumors more than fivefold, one of the highest rates among commercial drugs. For comparison, Roundup litigation involved a 69% increased cancer risk and saw verdicts topping $1 billion. Lawyers believe the Depo-Provera evidence is even stronger.
August 2024 – New Cases Keep Coming In
Depo-Provera lawsuits continue to be filed nationwide. People who believe they’ve been affected are encouraged to contact Ethen Ostroff Law for a free case review.
July 14, 2024 – New York Nurse Diagnosed with Brain Tumor
A nurse from New York says Depo-Provera injections caused her brain tumor. She began experiencing severe headaches and trouble speaking before undergoing surgery in May 2024. She is now recovering.
July 12, 2024 – Pfizer Has Not Updated U.S. Warning Label
Even with growing evidence connecting Depo-Provera to brain tumors, Pfizer has yet to update its U.S. warning label to reflect the risk.
April 25, 2024 – Pfizer Responds to BMJ Study
Pfizer publicly acknowledged a British Medical Journal study linking Depo-Provera to brain tumors. The company says it is working with regulators to update its product labels.
March 29, 2024 – BMJ Study Finds Higher Tumor Risk
A British Medical Journal study reports that people who use an injectable form of medroxyprogesterone acetate (Depo-Provera) for a year or more may face an increased risk of meningioma, a type of brain tumor.
October 31, 2021 – Canada Settlement on Bone Density Loss
A Canada-wide class action settlement was reached over Depo-Provera’s link to bone density loss. This case set a precedent for current lawsuits involving brain tumor claims.
May 2008 – Quebec Court Certifies Class Action
The Superior Court of Quebec certified a national class action against Pfizer regarding Depo-Provera’s safety.
November 2004 – FDA Issues Black Box Warning
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration required Pfizer to add a “black box” warning to Depo-Provera labels. It warns that prolonged use may lead to irreversible and serious bone density loss.
If you’re thinking about filing a Depo-Provera lawsuit, here’s a clear look at the steps involved. Having someone who knows these cases well can really help you stay on track.
To qualify, you need to meet all these requirements:
If you want to check if you qualify, contact Ethen Ostroff Law for a free case review.
Not everyone who used Depo-Provera will qualify for a lawsuit. Some common disqualifiers include:
Also, if you haven’t used Depo-Provera or its authorized generics at least twice, or if you’ve already filed or settled a claim with another law firm, you may not qualify.
For a full eligibility check, reach out to Ethen Ostroff Law for a free case review.
To file a Depo lawsuit, you need proof that connects the drug to your diagnosis and shows how it affected your life. Important evidence includes:
Gathering them helps support your Depo lawsuit claim.
If you were diagnosed with a brain tumor after using Depo-Provera, you might be able to seek compensation for several kinds of losses, such as:
Settlements in Depo-Provera cases can vary a lot depending on many factors. Since the lawsuits are still new, payouts usually range from around $100,000 up to $5 million or more, depending on the situation.
Strong evidence linking the tumor to Depo-Provera helps cases a lot. If Pfizer is found to have acted badly on purpose or through gross negligence, the payout can be much higher because of punitive damages. Most cases settle out of court for a guaranteed amount, but trials could bring bigger payouts or risk losing everything.
Small Depo lawsuits with minor tumors might settle for $100,000 to $500,000. Serious cases needing lots of treatment and showing negligence can reach $1 million to $5 million or more.
The time you have to file a Depo shot lawsuit depends on your state and usually falls between 1 and 6 years from when you discovered the injury. For most personal injury or product liability cases, that clock starts when you are diagnosed or when you realize your condition is linked to Depo-Provera. If the injury wasn’t obvious right away, some states may allow extra time to file.
There are special rules for minors or people who can’t handle their own affairs. In those cases, the deadline may pause until they turn 18 or regain capacity. Wrongful death claims have different deadlines, usually starting from the date of death. Because these rules vary a lot, it’s important to talk to an attorney at Ethen Ostroff Law as soon as possible. We’ll help make sure you don’t miss your chance and assist with gathering all the needed documents.
Cases involving Depo-Provera and brain tumors can be very complex. Big companies like Pfizer have experienced legal teams working hard to protect their interests. That’s why having a knowledgeable attorney on your side is crucial. To make sure your case gets the attention it deserves and to level the playing field, a skilled lawyer will:
Depo-Provera has changed the lives of many women and their families in tough ways. Brain tumors affect not just health but everyday life and financial stability. If this is your case, it’s important to know what steps you can take next. We focus on getting clear answers, collecting the proof you need, and challenging those responsible, helping you recover the compensation that reflects all you’ve been through.
At Ethen Ostroff Law, our approach includes:
Reach out today for a free consultation. You pay nothing unless we win your lawsuit.
Yes. As of 2025, lawsuits are underway claiming Pfizer failed to warn about serious health risks, including a higher chance of developing meningioma brain tumors after long-term use. Research shows women who used the shot for at least a year face a significantly greater risk of these tumors, which can cause severe neurological issues. Over 400 cases are part of a federal multidistrict litigation (MDL), and the number is expected to grow as more people learn about the potential dangers.
As of mid-2025, around 550 cases are active in the federal MDL. This number has been climbing quickly in recent months, and lawyers expect it could eventually reach 16,000 to 18,000 as more people come forward. There are also a smaller number of related lawsuits in state courts. The MDL process allows these cases to move through the courts more efficiently while keeping each person’s claim separate.
Payouts vary based on the severity of the injury. Severe cases involving aggressive brain tumors and major life impacts could see settlements between $650,000 and over $1.5 million, while moderate cases may range from $300,000 to $650,000. Less severe cases may settle for under $300,000, with the lowest payouts going to those with minimal or no symptoms. These numbers are early estimates and may change as trials progress and more settlement data becomes available.
Depo-Provera is still FDA-approved and effective at preventing pregnancy, but it comes with serious risks. Studies and lawsuits link it to meningioma brain tumors, bone density loss, blood clots, and severe depression. U.S. labels warn about some of these dangers but do not yet include the brain tumor warning that exists in Europe. Anyone considering or currently using the shot should have a careful discussion with their healthcare provider about the benefits and risks.
There isn’t a traditional Depo-Provera class action lawsuit where all claimants are part of one single case. Instead, the lawsuits are being handled through a multidistrict litigation (MDL), which acts like a Depo class action lawsuit by combining cases for efficiency but keeps each person’s claim separate. Instead of a Depo shot class action lawsuit, this MDL was set up in early 2025 in the Northern District of Florida to manage the increasing number of claims related to brain tumors linked to Depo-Provera. If you’re considering a claim, this MDL process means your case will be part of a larger group while still allowing individual attention to your specific situation.
Nicholas began his post-graduate career clerking for the Honorable Linda Rovder Fleming in the Cambria County Court of Common Pleas. From there, he quickly found his calling in workers’ compensation, personal injury, and Social Security disability law—areas where he could directly impact people’s lives in moments of crisis. He’s helped clients navigate complex legal claims, including securing a settlement exceeding $300,000.
Nicholas brings clear communication, genuine empathy, and an unrelenting drive to achieve the best outcomes for his clients. Whether he’s navigating a complex workers’ comp claim or pushing for a major settlement, he brings focus, dedication, and deep legal knowledge to every case.
He’s also a proud member of Pennsylvania Advocates for Justice and remains active in various professional legal organizations. Nicholas is licensed to practice law in Pennsylvania.
When he’s not fighting for the injured, Nicholas is enjoying time with his family, kicking a soccer ball around, hitting the golf course, or cheering on Pittsburgh’s local teams.
Joe Ring heads the workers’ compensation department at Ethen Ostroff Law, where he takes pride in fighting for injured workers.
Joe is a Philadelphia native and maintains deep roots in the area. As the grandson of a Philadelphia Firefighter, son of a Philadelphia public school teacher, and veteran of the United State Marine Corps, he was taught to value service, dedication, and hard work. He applies these values to every case and takes great satisfaction in representing hard-working clients with those same traits.
After obtaining his bachelor’s degree in history from St. Vincent College in Western Pennsylvania, he graduated from Villanova Law School in 2012 and, since then, has litigated hundreds of workers’ compensation hearings and trial depositions on behalf of both employers and injured workers. During this time, Mr. Ring has written articles and presented Continuing Legal Education courses on developments in Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Law. He is active in local professional organizations, and, in 2022, he served a Co-chairperson of the Philadelphia Bar Associations Workers’ Compensation Section.
Since coming to EOL in 2024, he has dedicated his practice entirely to helping injured workers navigate the system and obtain their rightful benefits.
Joe is licensed to practice in Pennsylvania.
Brandon Zanan heads the personal injury claim department with Ethen Ostroff Law.
Brandon’s education in both law and medicine assist him in expertly representing badly injured victims. Brandon has a Master’s Degree in Forensic Medicine from the Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine, with a concentration in anatomy and pathology. With this knowledge, Brandon is skilled at analyzing medical records and understanding injuries that are common in personal injury claims. He uses this expertise in conjunction with listening carefully to each client’s needs, in order to fiercely advocate for clients and tell their stories when they would not otherwise have a voice.
Brandon’s background includes a variety of experience and skills in various areas of civil practice. He is the author and editor of numerous books for the George T. Bisel Publishing Company, including “Pennsylvania Damages” and the “Pennsylvania Vehicle Code Annotated,” two texts that are frequently relied on by lawyers and judges across Pennsylvania as authoritative resources on personal injury law.
Brandon is a member of the Pennsylvania and Montgomery Bar Associations. He is also a member of Pennsylvania Association for Justice, and has served as an executive board member of the Montgomery American Inn of Court.
He is admitted to practice in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the United States District Courts for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and Middle District of Pennsylvania, the State of New Jersey, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, and in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Brandon has represented many clients in motor vehicle, premises liability, animal bite, and products liability cases across Pennsylvania and New Jersey and has obtained outstanding results with millions of dollars recovered for his clients.
He has been named a Pennsylvania Rising Star from 2021 onward. The “Super Lawyers-Rising Star®”, list recognizes no more than 2.5 percent of attorneys in each state
Brandon currently lives in Malvern with his wife Rachel and their son Max.
Effective Date: July 10, 2024
General Information
Welcome to the website of Ethen Ostroff Law, PLLC (“EO”). By accessing or using our website, you agree to be bound by these Terms and Conditions (“Terms”). If you do not agree with these Terms, please do not use our website.
Use
EO hereby grants you a non-exclusive, non-transferable, revocable, limited right and license to access and use the Site solely for your personal use in accordance with these Terms of Use. You shall not, in any way, otherwise copy, reproduce, distribute, transmit, display, perform, reproduce, publish, license, modify, create derivative works from, sell, or exploit the Site.
EO may at any time, for any reason, and without notice or liability: (a) modify, suspend, or terminate operation of or access to the Site and related services, or (b) change, revise, or modify the Site and affiliated services.
Messaging and Automated Calls
When you opt-in, you will receive text messages (SMS/MMS) on your mobile number. These messages may contain information about your case, and the message frequency may vary from user to user. Please note that message and data rates may apply. If you wish to opt out of this service, you can do so anytime by simply texting “STOP” to the phone number. Once you text “STOP” to us, we will send you an SMS to confirm that you have been unsubscribed. If you encounter any issues, you can reply with the keyword “HELP” to get assistance. Please be aware that carriers are not responsible for any delayed or undelivered messages.
By providing your phone number and submitting a form on our website, you consent to receive communications, including automated calls, texts, and pre-recorded messages, from EO and its affiliates. These communications may include updates about your case, promotional offers, and other information. You understand that these calls may be generated using automated technology, and that standard message and data rates may apply.
Your consent to receive automated calls is not a condition of any purchase or service. By checking the consent box on our contact form or by calling our firm, you agree to these Terms and Conditions and provide your written consent to receive these communications. You may opt out of these communications at any time by replying STOP to any text message or by contacting us at [insert contact information].
State-Specific Compliance
EO complies with all federal and state laws regarding automated calls and telemarketing practices. Certain states have additional restrictions on the use of automated dialing systems and pre-recorded messages. The following states have more restrictive regulations:
If you are a resident of one of these states, EO will obtain your prior express written consent before making any automated calls or sending pre-recorded messages to you.
By submitting a form inquiry or calling our firm, you agree to us contacting you, and your checking the box when submitting your form inquiry serves as written consent.
Information and Legal Disclaimer
The information contained in this website is for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal advice. Testimonials and case results contained in this website are for demonstrative purposes only, and do not constitute a guarantee of any particular outcome in a specific case.
By requesting a free consultation with Ethen Ostroff Law, PLLC, you agree to the following:
The law differs in every jurisdiction, and you should not rely on any opinion except that of an attorney you have retained, who has a professional duty to advise you after being fully informed of all the pertinent facts, and who is licensed in the applicable state, and is familiar with the applicable law. Internet subscribers, mobile application users, and online readers should seek professional counsel about their legal rights and remedies. You should not act or refrain from acting on the basis of any information found on the Site. Any actions or decisions about your legal rights should be based on the particular facts and circumstances of your situation, and appropriate legal advice from an attorney retained directly by you. EO EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ALL LIABILITY WITH RESPECT TO ACTIONS TAKEN OR NOT TAKEN BASED UPON ANY INFORMATION OR OTHER CONTENTS OF THIS SITE. Viewing the Site, or communicating with EO by Internet e-mail or through the Site does not constitute or create an attorney-client relationship with anyone. The content and features on the Site do not create, and are not intended to create, an attorney-client relationship, and shall not be construed as legal advice. The content and features of the Site, including means to submit a question or information, do not constitute an offer to represent you or otherwise give rise to an attorney/client relationship.
THE SITE IS PROVIDED “AS IS”. EO MAKES NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, REGARDING THE SITE AND ONLINE SERVICES AND HEREBY DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND OR NATURE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, ACCURACY, AND NON-INFRINGEMENT. WITHOUT LIMITING THE FOREGOING, EO DOES NOT GUARANTEE THAT THE ONLINE SERVICES OR PRODUCTS WILL MEET YOUR REQUIREMENTS, OR WILL BE ERROR-FREE, UNINTERRUPTED, OR FREE OF VIRUSES OR OTHER HARMFUL COMPONENTS, OR THAT ANY DEFECTS WILL BE CORRECTED.
Accounts
To use some features of the Site, you may be required to create an account. In connection therewith, you agree to provide and maintain true, accurate, current, and complete information about yourself. You are responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of the information you hold for your account login, including your password, and for all Submissions made from your account. You agree to notify us immediately of any unauthorized use of your login. EO may suspend access to your account if it suspects illegal or improper use, or for other reasons, such as for account management purposes, at its sole discretion.
Confidentiality is Not Guaranteed
Information sent to Ethen Ostroff Law, PLLC. via Internet e-mail or through the Site is not secure and is done on a non-confidential basis. EO may make reasonable efforts to keep communications private, but because of the nature of Internet communications and the absence of an attorney/client relationship, we cannot promise or guarantee confidentiality.
DISCLAIMER – This Site Does Not Provide Medical Diagnosis or Advice
The content provided on the Site, such as documents, text, graphics, images, videos, news alerts, pharmaceutical drug recalls, prescription medication history, or information on litigation concerning the foregoing topics, or other materials, is for informational purposes only. The information is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always consult a physician for diagnosis and treatment of any medical condition or for any questions you may have regarding a health concern. Never disregard professional medical advice, alter a prescription plan in any way, or delay or refrain from seeking medical advice because of something you have read or seen on the Site. Links to other sites are provided for information only. Use of trade names is for identification only and does not constitute endorsement by EO.
Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the Site may present information about pharmaceutical drug recalls, which is for information purposes only. Such information is not necessarily the most current information on the subject and may or may not be updated based on the last information concerning such recalls. Do not make any decisions regarding medication or medical providers based on information from the Site, including but not limited to information we provide about drug recalls.
EO Is Not Responsible for Content; Limitation on Liability
EO may periodically change, remove, or add the material on the Site without notice. This material may contain technical or typographical errors. EO DOES NOT GUARANTEE ITS ACCURACY, COMPLETENESS OR SUITABILITY. EO assumes no liability or responsibility for any errors or omissions in the contents of the Site. Your use of the Site is at your own risk. Under no circumstances shall EO or any other party involved in the creation, production, or delivery of the Site be liable to you or any other person for any indirect, special, incidental, or consequential damages of any kind arising from your access to, or use of, the Site. TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW IN NO EVENT SHALL EO BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES RELATING TO THIS MATERIAL, FOR ANY USE OF THIS WEBSITE, OR FOR ANY OTHER LINKED WEBSITE.
Third-party Web Sites
The Site contains links to third-party websites for the convenience of our users. EO does not endorse any of these third-party sites and does not imply any association between EO and those sites. EO does not control these third-party websites and cannot represent that their policies and practices will be consistent with these Terms of Use. If you use links to access and use such websites, you do so at your own risk. EO is not responsible for the contents or availability of any linked sites. These links are provided only as a convenience to the recipient. These Terms only apply to the Site and do not apply to any linked sites. We encourage you to read and understand the terms of use of any linked sites that you visit. Links do not imply that we sponsor, endorse, are affiliated with or associated with, or are legally authorized to use any trademark, trade name, service mark, design, logo, symbol, or other copyrighted materials displayed on or accessible through any linked site.
EO Clients
Only individuals who have entered into a mutually signed retainer agreement with EO are EO clients (“EO Clients”).
Legal and Ethical Requirements
EO has tried to comply with all legal and ethical requirements in compiling the Site. We welcome comments about our compliance with the applicable rules and will update the Site as warranted, upon learning of any new or different requirements.
Ethen Ostroff Law reserves the right to refer or sell leads that come through any of Ethen Ostroff Law’s marketing.
Ethen Ostroff Law also may sell leads on certain campaigns generated in association with third party marketing companies.
Governing Laws in Case of Dispute; Jurisdiction
These Terms of Use shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Pennsylvania, USA, without regard to any choice of law principles. Any and all disputes arising hereunder shall be governed as set forth in the Arbitration section below.
Submissions
You are solely responsible for any information, content, or material you transmit to or through the Site (“Submissions”). You understand that Submissions are considered non-confidential and non-proprietary. Furthermore, you grant EO an unrestricted, irrevocable, perpetual, transferable, sublicensable, worldwide, royalty-free license to use, copy, reproduce, display, publish, publicly perform, transmit, and distribute any Submission, without compensation or accounting to you or anyone else. You represent and warrant that: (a) you have the right to submit the Submission to EO and grant the licenses as described above; (b) EO will not need to obtain licenses from any third party or pay royalties to any third party for its use of the Submission; (c) the Submission does not infringe any third party’s rights, including intellectual property rights and privacy rights; and (d) the Submission complies with these Terms of Use and all applicable laws and regulations.
EO takes no responsibility and assumes no liability for any Submission.
Arbitration
Any and all claims by you arising out of or related to the Site or your use thereof may be resolved only through a binding arbitration proceeding to be conducted under the auspices of the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. Both your agreement to arbitrate all controversies, disputes and claims, and the results and awards rendered through the arbitration, will be final and binding on you and may be specifically enforced by legal proceedings. Arbitration will be the sole means of resolving such controversies, disputes and claims, and you waive your rights to resolve such controversies, disputes and claims by court proceedings or any other means. You agree that judgment may be entered on the award in any court of competent jurisdiction and, therefore, any award rendered shall be binding. The arbitrator may not consolidate more than one person’s claims, and may not otherwise preside over any form of a representative or class proceeding. You understand that by agreeing to arbitration as a mechanism to resolve all controversies, disputes and claims between us, you are waiving certain rights, including the right to bring an action in court, the right to a jury trial, the right to broad discovery, and the right to an appeal. You understand that in the context of arbitration, a case is decided by an arbitrator (one or more), not by a judge or a jury.
International Use
The Site is controlled, operated, and administered by EO from offices within the United States of America and is only intended for use therein. We make no representation regarding use of the Site outside of the United States.
Other Terms
If, for any reason, our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, or any portion thereof to be unenforceable, such provision shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give the intended effect thereof, and the remainder of these Terms of Use and Privacy Policy shall continue in full force and effect. EO’s failure to act with respect to a breach by you or others does not waive our right to act with respect to that breach or subsequent or similar breaches. No consent or waiver by EO hereof will be deemed effective unless in writing. These Terms of Use, together with our Privacy Policy, as each is currently posted, constitute the entire agreement between EO and you with respect to your use of the Site and supersede all previous written or oral agreements relating to the subject matter hereof, that this agreement shall not supersede, restrict, or replace any agreements governing the attorney-client relationship between EO and EO Clients.
EO may, in its sole discretion and without prior notice, block and/or terminate your access to the Site and if we determine that you have violated these Terms of Use or other terms or agreements or that may be associated therewith or if you use the Site in a way that we deem, in our sole discretion, to be an unacceptable use.
