Paragard IUD

The Paragard IUD docket, built on claims that the copper intrauterine device can fracture or break during removal — with fragments sometimes migrating and requiring surgical retrieval, in some cases including hysteroscopic or laparoscopic procedures — carries 4,185 pending actions roughly five years after centralization, making it one of the more substantial active device dockets by volume. The injury event here is typically acute and identifiable (a documented breakage during a removal procedure), which tends to produce a more straightforward incident-based causation record than a chronic-exposure drug injury, even as the broader litigation works through the design-defect and warnings theories common to a device mass tort.

For a funder, the central diligence variables in this docket are the severity of the retained-fragment injury and the complexity of the retrieval procedure required — claims range from straightforward in-office fragment removal to complex surgical retrieval with associated complications, and that range drives meaningful variation in both damages and litigation strength across the claims population. A sizable pending-action count combined with an incident-based (rather than epidemiological) causation record generally supports a more tractable underwriting process than a docket built on cumulative-exposure or general-causation uncertainty.

Medical-lien considerations are substantial and fairly direct in this docket given the surgical-retrieval costs frequently involved, and should be sized to the specific retrieval procedure and any associated complications documented for each claimant.

Given the docket's meaningful scale, portfolio-level inventory finance is a reasonable structure for a firm with real volume, underwritten with attention to retrieval-procedure complexity and documented complications across the book. Criterica Capital's mass-tort finance and medical-lien receivables products both apply here.

Criterica Intelligence's structural brief covers the design-defect and warnings theories at issue in more depth.

Pre-settlement funding is a non-recourse purchase of a portion of the proceeds of a pending legal claim — not a loan. If the case does not result in a recovery, nothing is owed. Rates, fees, and repayment terms are disclosed in full in the funding agreement, which the applicant’s attorney reviews before signing. Availability and terms vary by state.