Connecticut plaintiffs challenge statute of repose in Depo-Provera meningioma cases

A lawyer representing 72 women in Connecticut says a state exception tied to a drug’s useful life could let Depo-Provera-related meningioma claims survive a 10-year statute of repose. The argument could shape how late-emerging injury cases move forward in Connecticut and beyond.

Why it matters: - The Connecticut fight could decide whether women who say Depo-Provera caused meningiomas can pursue claims even when their injuries surfaced more than 10 years after their last dose. - The issue centers on whether an exception to Connecticut’s statute of repose applies when an injury occurs during a drug’s useful life. - A broader ruling could affect how latent injury cases are evaluated in other Depo-Provera lawsuits.

What happened: - Greg Vigna, MD, JD, said his firm represents 72 women who filed in Connecticut state court alleging Depo-Provera-related meningiomas. - Vigna said the firm contends Connecticut’s useful-life exception applies and changes how the statute of repose should be applied. - The filing dates and case numbers listed for Connecticut include KNL-CV-26-6082310S, KNL-CV-26-6082311S, KNL-CV-26-6082376S and KNL-CV-26-6082378S. - Vigna also said the firm represents Depo-Provera claimants in California, Washington, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Connecticut, and in the federal multidistrict litigation in Florida.

The details: - Vigna said Depo-Provera is linked to a dose-dependent increase in meningioma risk. - Vigna said medical literature has reported mutations associated with meningiomas and tumorigenic properties tied to Depo-Provera. - The Connecticut theory is that the injury happens while Depo-Provera is detectable and therapeutically active in the body, which the firm argues qualifies as harm during the drug’s “useful life.” - Vigna said that framework may allow Connecticut plaintiffs whose injuries arose more than 10 years after their last dose to keep their cases alive. - In California, the firm said it represents latent injury cases and identified four Bellwether Defense picks it says some view as weaker cases. - Vigna said latent injuries are cases where the meningioma was caused years earlier but did not manifest until years or decades later. - Vigna said meningiomas can require surgery, radiation and medical monitoring. - The firm said information about known or knowable Depo-Provera risks matters to whether women would have chosen to use the drug.

Between the lines: - The useful-life argument is a legal timing strategy. If accepted, it could shift focus from when a woman filed suit to when the alleged harm occurred in relation to the drug’s active life. - The litigation also appears to be building around latent injury science, where causation and diagnosis can be separated by many years. - Vigna said he prescribed Depo-Provera from 1993 to 1996 and was not aware of the risks discussed in these cases. - Vigna said he would not have prescribed the drug had he known the risks his firm alleges were knowable at the time. - Vigna said the firm looks forward to reviewing Pfizer’s complaint files related to meningiomas.

What's next: - The Connecticut claims will likely test whether courts accept the useful-life exception as a way around the statute of repose. - The California Bellwether Defense selections listed by the firm could help shape how liability arguments are viewed in the broader litigation. - The outcome may influence how judges assess late-manifesting injury claims tied to Depo-Provera across multiple jurisdictions.

The bottom line: - The Connecticut cases are about more than one state’s deadline rule. They are a test of whether alleged drug injuries that emerge years later can still reach court.