Lawsuits filed by women who used the Depo-Provera birth control shot and were later diagnosed with meningioma brain tumors are subject to state filing deadlines known as statutes of limitations and, in many states, an additional outer cutoff known as a statute of repose.  

As of April 2026, more than 3,400 cases have been consolidated in federal multidistrict litigation (MDL 3140) in the Northern District of Florida, and additional cases continue to be filed in state courts across the country. The first bellwether trial in the MDL is scheduled for December 7, 2026. 

The deadlines for filing a Depo-Provera meningioma lawsuit vary widely from state to state, ranging from one year to six years after the cause of action accrues. The discovery rule, which most states recognize in some form, generally delays accrual of the limitations period until the woman knew or reasonably should have known both that she had a meningioma and that her tumor may have been linked to her use of medroxyprogesterone acetate.  

For most U.S. patients, the discovery-rule trigger date is either the March 2024 BMJ study by Roland and colleagues, which found a 5.55-fold increased risk of intracranial meningioma in long-term Depo-Provera users, or the FDA’s December 2025 update to the Depo-Provera label formally adding meningioma to the warning section. 

This guide walks through the basic legal concepts that govern the deadline analysis, lists the relevant statute and deadline for all 50 states plus the District of Columbia, and then explores the more complex doctrines that frequently determine whether a Depo-Provera claim is timely. 

For more information about how statutes of limitations may affect your ability to take legal action or to start the process of filing claim today, contact the lawyers at Hissey Mulderig & Friend by calling our office toll-free at 1-866-806-8117, or send us a message using our free Depo-Provera claims submission form on the right side of this page. 

Brief Overview of the Legal Concepts

A statute of limitations is a procedural deadline for filing a lawsuit that typically begins running from the date of injury or, where the discovery rule applies, from the date the plaintiff knew or reasonably should have known of the injury and its cause. Statutes of limitations can generally be tolled by minority, mental incapacity, fraudulent concealment, or other equitable doctrines. 

A statute of repose, by contrast, is a substantive outer limit on liability that runs from a fixed event such as the date the product was first sold, manufactured, or delivered. Statutes of repose are generally not subject to the discovery rule and, in many states, cannot be tolled even by fraudulent concealment or by the plaintiff’s minority. Roughly 15 to 20 states currently have an enforceable product-liability statute of repose, with several additional states (Arizona, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Utah) having had their original repose statutes struck down by their state supreme courts. 

The discovery rule is recognized in some form in nearly every U.S. state and is the single most important doctrine for Depo-Provera meningioma plaintiffs. Because meningiomas can take years or decades to grow large enough to be detected, and because the connection between Depo-Provera and meningioma was not publicly established in the United States until 2024 to 2025, the discovery rule typically delays the start of the limitations clock for women diagnosed with meningioma after long-term use of the birth control shot. 

Equitable tolling and fraudulent concealment doctrines may pause the limitations period when the defendant has actively concealed information necessary for the plaintiff to bring suit. These doctrines are central to the Depo-Provera multidistrict litigation, where plaintiffs allege that Pfizer warned Canadian and European patients about the meningioma risk years before it warned U.S. patients. 

State-by-State Statute of Limitations Guide

Each entry below lists the statute citation, the deadline to file a lawsuit (in plain English), whether the state recognizes a discovery rule, and whether the state imposes a product-liability statute of repose. Statute citations are linked to the official state government statute portals. 

Alabama

• Statute citation: Ala. Code § 6-2-38 
• Deadline to File a Lawsuit: 2 years from the date of meningioma diagnosis 
• Discovery rule: Limited 
• Statute of repose: No product-specific statutory repose 

Alaska

• Statute citation: Alaska Stat. § 09.10.070 
• Deadline to File a Lawsuit: 2 years from the date the woman knew or should have known that Depo-Provera may have caused her meningioma 
• Discovery rule: Yes 
• Statute of repose: None applicable to product liability 

Arizona

• Statute citation: Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-542 
• Deadline to File a Lawsuit: 2 years from the date the woman knew or should have known that her meningioma was caused by Depo-Provera 
• Discovery rule: Yes 
• Statute of repose: None enforceable against products 

Arkansas

• Statute citation: Ark. Code Ann. § 16-116-203 
• Deadline to File a Lawsuit: 3 years from the date the woman knew or should have known of the connection between her meningioma and Depo-Provera 
• Discovery rule: Yes 
• Statute of repose: None applicable to products 

California

• Statute citation: Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 335.1 
• Deadline to File a Lawsuit: 2 years from the date the woman knew or should have known that her meningioma was linked to her use of Depo-Provera 
• Discovery rule: Yes 
• Statute of repose: None applicable to products 

Colorado

• Statute citation: Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-106 
• Deadline to File a Lawsuit: 2 years from the date the woman knew or should have known that Depo-Provera may have caused her meningioma 
• Discovery rule: Yes 
• Statute of repose: None applicable to pharmaceuticals; 10-year presumption of non-defectiveness under § 13-21-403(3) 

Connecticut

• Statute citation: Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-577a 
• Deadline to File a Lawsuit: 3 years from the date the woman knew or should have known that her meningioma was caused by Depo-Provera 
• Discovery rule: Yes 
• Statute of repose: 10 years from the date the defendant last parted with possession or control of the product, with limited exceptions 

Delaware

• Statute citation: 10 Del. C. § 8119 
• Deadline to File a Lawsuit: 2 years from the date of meningioma diagnosis; 3 years from diagnosis if the injury was not discoverable within 2 years 
• Discovery rule: Yes, limited 
• Statute of repose: None applicable to products 

District of Columbia (Washington, D.C.)

• Statute citation: D.C. Code § 12-301 
• Deadline to File a Lawsuit: 3 years from the date the woman knew or should have known of the connection between her meningioma and Depo-Provera 
• Discovery rule: Yes 
• Statute of repose: None applicable to products 

Florida

• Statute citation: Fla. Stat. § 95.11 
• Deadline to File a Lawsuit: 4 years from the date the woman knew or should have known that her meningioma was linked to her use of Depo-Provera; 2 years for general negligence claims under HB 837 
• Discovery rule: Yes for latent injury or disease 
• Statute of repose: 12 years from delivery if useful life is 10 years or less, otherwise 20 years, with exceptions for latent injury and fraudulent concealment 

Georgia

• Statute citation: O.C.G.A. § 51-1-11 
• Deadline to File a Lawsuit: 2 years from the date of meningioma diagnosis 
• Discovery rule: Limited; recognized for continuing tort and latent disease 
• Statute of repose: 10 years from first sale for use or consumption, with a negligent failure-to-warn carve-out under § 51-1-11(c) that has been recognized by Georgia courts as preserving certain claims even after the 10-year period 

Hawaii

• Statute citation: Haw. Rev. Stat. § 657-7 
• Deadline to File a Lawsuit: 2 years from the date the woman knew or should have known that Depo-Provera may have caused her meningioma 
• Discovery rule: Yes 
• Statute of repose: None applicable to products 

Idaho

• Statute citation: Idaho Code § 5-219 
• Deadline to File a Lawsuit: 2 years from the date of meningioma diagnosis 
• Discovery rule: Limited 
• Statute of repose: 10-year rebuttable presumption of non-defectiveness under Idaho’s Product Liability Reform Act, Idaho Code § 6-1403 

Illinois

• Statute citation: 735 ILCS 5/13-202 
• Deadline to File a Lawsuit: 2 years from the date the woman knew or should have known that her meningioma was caused by Depo-Provera 
• Discovery rule: Yes 
• Statute of repose: The shorter of 10 years from first sale or 12 years from first delivery under 735 ILCS 5/13-213 

Indiana

• Statute citation: Ind. Code § 34-20-3-1 
• Deadline to File a Lawsuit: 2 years from the date the woman knew or should have known of the connection between her meningioma and Depo-Provera 
• Discovery rule: Yes for latent disease 
• Statute of repose: 10 years from delivery to the initial user, with a limited two-year savings provision for causes accruing in years 8 to 10 

Iowa

• Statute citation: Iowa Code § 614.1 
• Deadline to File a Lawsuit: 2 years from the date the woman knew or should have known that her meningioma was linked to her use of Depo-Provera 
• Discovery rule: Yes 
• Statute of repose: 15 years from first purchase, lease, bailment, or installation under § 614.1(2A), with an important exception for fraudulent concealment 

Kansas

• Statute citation: Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-513 
• Deadline to File a Lawsuit: 2 years from the date the woman knew or should have known that Depo-Provera may have caused her meningioma, with a 10-year outer limit on the discovery period 
• Discovery rule: Yes 
• Statute of repose: 10-year useful-safe-life rebuttable presumption under K.S.A. § 60-3303 

Kentucky

• Statute citation: KRS § 413.140 
• Deadline to File a Lawsuit: 1 year from the date of meningioma diagnosis 
• Discovery rule: Limited but recognized for latent injuries 
• Statute of repose: Rebuttable presumption of non-defectiveness if injury occurs more than 5 years after sale or 8 years after manufacture under KRS § 411.310 

Louisiana

• Statute citation: La. Civ. Code art. 3493.11 
• Deadline to File a Lawsuit: 2 years from the date the woman knew or should have known that her meningioma was caused by Depo-Provera, for actions arising on or after July 1, 2024; 1 year for actions arising before that date. Some Louisiana commentators read Act 423 as not extending to product-liability claims governed by the Louisiana Products Liability Act, which would remain at 1 year. The point is unsettled and Depo-Provera plaintiffs in Louisiana should treat the deadline conservatively. 
• Discovery rule: Yes, under the doctrine of contra non valentem 
• Statute of repose: None applicable to products 

Maine

• Statute citation: 14 M.R.S. § 752 
• Deadline to File a Lawsuit: 6 years from the date of meningioma diagnosis 
• Discovery rule: Limited 
• Statute of repose: None applicable to products 

Maryland

• Statute citation: Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-101 
• Deadline to File a Lawsuit: 3 years from the date the woman knew or should have known of the connection between her meningioma and Depo-Provera 
• Discovery rule: Yes 
• Statute of repose: None applicable to products 

Massachusetts

• Statute citation: Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260 § 2A 
• Deadline to File a Lawsuit: 3 years from the date the woman knew or should have known that her meningioma was linked to her use of Depo-Provera 
• Discovery rule: Yes 
• Statute of repose: None applicable to products 

Michigan

• Statute citation: Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5805 
• Deadline to File a Lawsuit: 3 years from the date the woman knew or should have known that Depo-Provera may have caused her meningioma 
• Discovery rule: Yes for latent injury 
• Statute of repose: None. Michigan’s prior pharmaceutical-immunity statute, MCL § 600.2946, was repealed effective February 13, 2024 by 2023 PA 285. The repeal is prospective only, so injuries occurring before February 13, 2024 remain subject to the prior immunity regime. 

Minnesota

• Statute citation: Minn. Stat. § 541.05 
• Deadline to File a Lawsuit: 6 years from the date of meningioma diagnosis for negligence-based product liability; 4 years from diagnosis for strict-liability claims 
• Discovery rule: Limited; “some damage” rule for most cases, with discovery analysis for latent injuries 
• Statute of repose: No bright-line repose; useful-life affirmative defense under Minn. Stat. § 604.03 is a jury question 

Mississippi

• Statute citation: Miss. Code § 15-1-49 
• Deadline to File a Lawsuit: 3 years from the date the woman knew or should have known that her meningioma was caused by Depo-Provera 
• Discovery rule: Yes, statutory under § 15-1-49(2) for latent injury or disease 
• Statute of repose: None applicable to products 

Missouri

• Statute citation: Mo. Rev. Stat. § 516.120 
• Deadline to File a Lawsuit: 5 years from the date the damage was capable of ascertainment, under Missouri’s “capable of ascertainment” standard at § 516.100 
• Discovery rule: Yes 
• Statute of repose: None applicable to products 

Montana

• Statute citation: Mont. Code Ann. § 27-2-204 
• Deadline to File a Lawsuit: 3 years from the date the woman knew or should have known of the connection between her meningioma and Depo-Provera 
• Discovery rule: Yes for latent injury 
• Statute of repose: None applicable to products 

Nebraska

• Statute citation: Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-224 
• Deadline to File a Lawsuit: 4 years from the date the woman knew or should have known that her meningioma was linked to her use of Depo-Provera 
• Discovery rule: Yes 
• Statute of repose: 10 years from first sale or lease for products manufactured in Nebraska 

Nevada

• Statute citation: Nev. Rev. Stat. § 11.190 
• Deadline to File a Lawsuit: 2 years from the date the woman knew or should have known that Depo-Provera may have caused her meningioma 
• Discovery rule: Yes for latent-injury product cases 
• Statute of repose: None applicable to products 

New Hampshire

• Statute citation: N.H. Rev. Stat. § 508:4 
• Deadline to File a Lawsuit: 3 years from the date the woman knew or should have known that her meningioma was caused by Depo-Provera 
• Discovery rule: Yes, statutory 
• Statute of repose: None enforceable; New Hampshire’s product repose was held unconstitutional in Heath v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. 

New Jersey

• Statute citation: N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:14-2 
• Deadline to File a Lawsuit: 2 years from the date the woman knew or should have known of the connection between her meningioma and Depo-Provera 
• Discovery rule: Yes 
• Statute of repose: None applicable to products 

New Mexico

• Statute citation: N.M. Stat. Ann. § 37-1-8 
• Deadline to File a Lawsuit: 3 years from the date the woman knew or should have known that her meningioma was linked to her use of Depo-Provera 
• Discovery rule: Yes for latent injury 
• Statute of repose: None applicable to products 

New York

• Statute citation: N.Y. CPLR § 214-c 
• Deadline to File a Lawsuit: 3 years from the date the woman knew or should have known that Depo-Provera may have caused her meningioma, under the latent-toxic-substance discovery rule 
• Discovery rule: Yes, codified at CPLR § 214-c, one of the most plaintiff-friendly latent-injury discovery rules in the country 
• Statute of repose: None applicable to products 

North Carolina

• Statute citation: N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52 

• Deadline to File a Lawsuit: 3 years from the date the meningioma became apparent or reasonably should have become apparent 

• Discovery rule: Yes, statutory 

• Statute of repose: 12 years from initial purchase under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-46.1, strictly enforced 

North Dakota

• Statute citation: N.D. Cent. Code § 28-01-16 
• Deadline to File a Lawsuit: 6 years from the date the woman knew or should have known that her meningioma was caused by Depo-Provera 
• Discovery rule: Yes for latent injury 
• Statute of repose: None enforceable; North Dakota’s product repose was held unconstitutional in Dickie v. Farmers Union Oil Co. 

Ohio

• Statute citation: Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.10 
• Deadline to File a Lawsuit: 2 years from the date the woman knew or should have known of the connection between her meningioma and Depo-Provera, under the statutory discovery rule for “ethical drugs” at § 2305.10(B)(2) 
• Discovery rule: Yes 
• Statute of repose: 10 years from initial product delivery under § 2305.10(C)(1) 

Oklahoma

• Statute citation: 12 Okla. Stat. § 95 
• Deadline to File a Lawsuit: 2 years from the date the woman knew or should have known that her meningioma was linked to her use of Depo-Provera 
• Discovery rule: Yes for latent injury 
• Statute of repose: None applicable to products 

Oregon

• Statute citation: ORS 30.905 
• Deadline to File a Lawsuit: 2 years from the date the woman knew or should have known that Depo-Provera may have caused her meningioma 
• Discovery rule: Yes, statutory 
• Statute of repose: 10 years from first purchase, or longer if the state of manufacture has a longer repose period 

Pennsylvania

• Statute citation: 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5524 
• Deadline to File a Lawsuit: 2 years from the date the woman knew or should have known that her meningioma was caused by Depo-Provera 
• Discovery rule: Yes 
• Statute of repose: None applicable to drug manufacturers 

Rhode Island

• Statute citation: R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-1-14 
• Deadline to File a Lawsuit: 3 years from the date the woman knew or should have known of the connection between her meningioma and Depo-Provera 
• Discovery rule: Yes, statutory and judicial 
• Statute of repose: None enforceable; Rhode Island’s product repose was struck down in Kennedy v. Cumberland Eng’g Co. 

South Carolina

• Statute citation: S.C. Code Ann. § 15-3-530 
• Deadline to File a Lawsuit: 3 years from the date the woman knew or should have known that her meningioma was linked to her use of Depo-Provera 
• Discovery rule: Yes, statutory 
• Statute of repose: None applicable to products 

South Dakota

• Statute citation: S.D. Codified Laws § 15-2-12.2 
• Deadline to File a Lawsuit: 3 years from the date the woman knew or should have known that Depo-Provera may have caused her meningioma 
• Discovery rule: Yes, statutory for product liability 
• Statute of repose: None applicable to products 

Tennessee

• Statute citation: Tenn. Code § 28-3-104 
• Deadline to File a Lawsuit: 1 year from the date the woman knew or should have known that her meningioma was caused by Depo-Provera 
• Discovery rule: Yes within the 1-year limitations period; not available to extend the statute of repose 
• Statute of repose: 6 years from injury or 10 years from first purchase, whichever is shorter, under Tennessee Products Liability Act § 29-28-103, strictly enforced even in prescription drug cases 

Texas

• Statute citation: Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.003 
• Deadline to File a Lawsuit: 2 years from the date the woman knew or should have known of the connection between her meningioma and Depo-Provera, for negligence and strict-liability claims; 4 years for breach-of-warranty claims 
• Discovery rule: Yes in latent-injury cases 
• Statute of repose: 15 years from sale under § 16.012, with a critical latent-disease carve-out at § 16.012(d) 

Utah

• Statute citation: Utah Code § 78B-6-706 
• Deadline to File a Lawsuit: 2 years from the date the woman knew or should have known that her meningioma was linked to her use of Depo-Provera 
• Discovery rule: Yes, statutory 
• Statute of repose: None applicable to products. Utah’s original product repose was held unconstitutional in Berry v. Beech Aircraft, and the current Utah Code § 78B-6-706 is a discovery-based statute of limitations rather than a repose 

Vermont

• Statute citation: 12 V.S.A. § 512 
• Deadline to File a Lawsuit: 3 years from the date the woman knew or should have known that Depo-Provera may have caused her meningioma 
• Discovery rule: Yes 
• Statute of repose: None applicable to products 

Virginia

• Statute citation: Va. Code § 8.01-243 
• Deadline to File a Lawsuit: 2 years from the date of meningioma diagnosis 
• Discovery rule: Limited; Virginia applies discovery narrowly, making fraudulent concealment under Va. Code § 8.01-229 particularly important for latent-injury Depo-Provera claims 
• Statute of repose: None applicable to products 

Washington

• Statute citation: RCW 7.72.060 
• Deadline to File a Lawsuit: 3 years from the date the woman knew or should have known that her meningioma was caused by Depo-Provera 
• Discovery rule: Yes, statutory 
• Statute of repose: 12-year rebuttable useful-safe-life presumption, with exceptions for warranty, intentional misrepresentation, and concealment 

West Virginia

• Statute citation: W. Va. Code § 55-2-12 
• Deadline to File a Lawsuit: 2 years from the date the woman knew or should have known of the connection between her meningioma and Depo-Provera 
• Discovery rule: Yes 
• Statute of repose: None applicable to products 

Wisconsin

• Statute citation: Wis. Stat. § 893.54 
• Deadline to File a Lawsuit: 3 years from the date the woman knew or should have known that her meningioma was linked to her use of Depo-Provera 
• Discovery rule: Yes, particularly significant in pharmaceutical cases 
• Statute of repose: 15 years from manufacture for strict-liability claims under Wis. Stat. § 895.047(5), with carve-outs for negligence, breach of warranty, and latent disease 

Wyoming

• Statute citation: Wyo. Stat. § 1-3-105 
• Deadline to File a Lawsuit: 4 years from the date the woman knew or should have known that Depo-Provera may have caused her meningioma 
• Discovery rule: Yes for latent injuries 
• Statute of repose: None applicable to products 

Deep-Dive: The Legal Doctrines That Determine Whether a Depo-Provera Claim Is Timely

The Discovery Rule and Its Application to Depo-Provera Plaintiffs

The discovery rule is the single most important doctrine for Depo-Provera meningioma plaintiffs and the reason that women who used the birth control shot years or even decades ago may still have viable claims. The rule, which most states recognize either by statute or by judicial decision, generally requires three elements before the limitations period begins to run: actual or constructive knowledge of the injury, actual or constructive knowledge of its cause, and actual or constructive knowledge of facts implicating the defendant’s responsibility. 

For the typical Depo-Provera meningioma plaintiff, the second element, knowledge that medroxyprogesterone acetate could cause meningioma, was not reasonably knowable in the United States until the publication of Roland and colleagues’ study in The BMJ in March 2024. That French national case-control study found a 5.55-fold increased risk of intracranial meningioma in women using injectable medroxyprogesterone acetate for at least one year. The link was reinforced by a 2025 Cleveland Clinic and Case Western Reserve study published in JAMA Neurology that analyzed more than ten million U.S. women and found a 2.43-fold increased relative risk among Depo-Provera users. 

The clearest discovery-rule trigger date for U.S. plaintiffs is December 2025, when the FDA approved an update to Depo-Provera’s warning label, formally adding meningioma to the warning section and patient counseling information. Before that date, the average reasonably-diligent U.S. patient would not have known of the link, since Pfizer’s pre-2024 U.S. label contained no meningioma warning, while Canadian and European labels had referenced the risk for years. 

In states with strong, plaintiff-friendly discovery rules, including New York’s CPLR § 214-c, Ohio’s specific statutory discovery rule for ethical drugs at § 2305.10(B)(2), Mississippi’s § 15-1-49(2), and Texas’s discovery rule for latent disease, plaintiffs can credibly argue that the limitations period began running, at the earliest, on the BMJ publication date in March 2024 and, more conservatively, on the FDA label change in December 2025. 

A handful of states apply the discovery rule narrowly. Alabama, Idaho, Kentucky, Maine, and Virginia are typically grouped as “limited” discovery rule states for product-liability purposes. Florida limits the discovery rule to specific statutory categories rather than applying it broadly. New York’s CPLR § 214-c provides one of the most plaintiff-friendly latent-toxic-substance discovery rules in the country, but the general personal-injury statute at CPLR § 214 remains injury-based. In states with limited discovery rules, the analysis is more challenging and may need to be supported by evidence of fraudulent concealment or by application of the latent-injury exception. 

Statutes of Repose and Why They Matter for Depo-Provera Claims

A statute of repose differs from a statute of limitations in two critical respects. First, it begins running from a fixed event, typically the date the product was first sold or delivered, rather than from the date of injury or discovery. Second, it is generally treated as substantive rather than procedural, which means it is much more difficult to extend through tolling, discovery, or equitable doctrines. 

Roughly 15 to 20 states currently have an enforceable product-liability statute of repose with periods ranging from six to fifteen years. The states with the most significant repose statutes for Depo-Provera plaintiffs are Texas (15 years), Iowa (15 years), Wisconsin (15 years), Florida (12 years), North Carolina (12 years), Washington (12-year presumption), Connecticut (10 years), Georgia (10 years), Idaho (10-year presumption), Illinois (10 or 12 years depending on theory), Indiana (10 years), Kansas (10-year useful-safe-life presumption), Nebraska (10 years), Ohio (10 years), Oregon (10 years), and Tennessee (6 years from injury or 10 years from purchase, whichever is shorter). Kentucky imposes a rebuttable presumption of non-defectiveness rather than an absolute repose. Arizona, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Rhode Island, and Utah have all had their original product-liability repose statutes struck down by their state supreme courts on constitutional grounds. 

Because Depo-Provera was first approved by the FDA in 1992 and is administered every three months, women who last received an injection more than the relevant repose period before filing suit face a hard substantive bar in repose states unless one of the standard exceptions applies. The most useful exceptions for Depo-Provera plaintiffs are the latent-disease exception, the fraudulent-concealment exception, the useful-safe-life rebuttal, and the failure-to-warn carve-out recognized in Georgia. 

The Texas latent-disease carve-out at § 16.012(d) is particularly important for Depo-Provera plaintiffs because Texas is HMF’s home jurisdiction and many of the firm’s clients are Texas residents. The provision specifies that the 15-year repose period does not bar an action against a manufacturer for a disease that, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, was not capable of ascertainment within the 15-year period after exposure. Meningiomas that develop and are diagnosed decades after the last Depo-Provera injection fit precisely within the latent-disease framework. 

Tennessee, Connecticut, Indiana, North Carolina, and Oregon are the jurisdictions with the most “clean” repose provisions and the least flexibility. Tennessee in particular has been described in the prescription-drug bar as a “no exceptions” repose state, with the Sixth Circuit holding in Montgomery v. Wyeth, 580 F.3d 455 (6th Cir. 2009), that Tennessee’s repose strictly bars prescription-drug claims regardless of the plaintiff’s knowledge of the injury or its cause. 

Fraudulent Concealment and Equitable Tolling

Every state recognizes some form of fraudulent-concealment doctrine, under which the limitations period is tolled when the defendant has actively concealed facts that would have allowed the plaintiff to discover the cause of action.  

This doctrine is central to the Depo-Provera multidistrict litigation, where plaintiffs allege that Pfizer and its predecessor Pharmacia & Upjohn had access to international pharmacovigilance data, animal studies, and case reports linking medroxyprogesterone to meningioma growth, but warned Canadian women about this risk via the Canadian product monograph for years before warning U.S. women. 

The most powerful fraudulent-concealment evidence in MDL 3140 includes Pfizer’s communications with Canadian and European regulators, internal corporate documents reflecting awareness of the meningioma association, and the timing gap between the FDA’s December 2025 label update and the international warnings that preceded it by several years. 

Fraudulent concealment typically tolls statutes of limitations but, in many states, does not toll statutes of repose. Iowa, Kansas, and Washington are notable exceptions, with statutory fraudulent-concealment exceptions built into their product-liability repose statutes. In Tennessee, the products-liability statute of repose at Tenn. Code § 29-28-103 is treated as a substantive bar that is not subject to common-law fraudulent-concealment tolling outside the narrow statutory exceptions in § 29-28-103(b) through (d). See Montgomery v. Wyeth, 580 F.3d 455, 463-67 (6th Cir. 2009). 

Tolling for Minors and Incapacitated Persons

Almost every state tolls limitations during minority, typically until the 18th birthday, and during legal incapacity. However, statutes of repose are generally not tolled by minority or incapacity in many states. Texas case law applying Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.001 holds that minority does not toll the 15-year products repose. Tennessee similarly applies its repose without tolling for incompetency. 

A minor who received Depo-Provera before age 18 is the rare scenario where this distinction matters. Most Depo-Provera plaintiffs were adults at the time of injection, but a meaningful subset of plaintiffs received the shot in their late teens, and tolling analysis can be relevant for those plaintiffs in non-repose states. 

The Nationwide Depo-Provera MDL and Choice of Law

In February 2025, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation centralized federal Depo-Provera cases as MDL No. 3140, In re: Depo-Provera (Depot Medroxyprogesterone Acetate) Products Liability Litigation, before Judge M. Casey Rodgers in the Northern District of Florida in Pensacola. As of April 2026, more than 3,400 cases are pending, with the first bellwether trial (Toney v. Pfizer) scheduled for December 7, 2026. 

The MDL court has issued a series of pretrial orders that shape the procedural posture of every case in the litigation. Pretrial Order No. 22 sets the deficiency procedure for the Plaintiff Proof of Use and Injury Questionnaire that all plaintiffs must submit through the BrownGreer MDL Centrality system.  

This pretrial order creates an alternative declaration-and-supporting-documentation pathway for women who stopped using Depo-Provera before June 2005 and cannot obtain medical records through normal channels. The order sets minimum complaint contents and identifies the specific meningioma diagnoses that qualify for inclusion in the MDL, including:  

• Intracranial meningiomas 
• Convexity meningiomas 
• Falcine and parasagittal meningiomas 
• Intraventricular meningiomas 
• Skull-base meningiomas (sphenoid wing, olfactory groove, posterior fossa, petrous, suprasellar, foramen magnum), and 
• Recurrent meningiomas. 

The MDL court does not apply Florida law to all cases. Under the Erie doctrine and Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co., a federal court sitting in diversity must apply the substantive law of the state in which it sits, including its choice-of-law rules. The U.S. Supreme Court held in Guaranty Trust Co. v. York that statutes of limitations are substantive for Erie purposes, and in Van Dusen v. Barrack and Ferens v. John Deere Co. the Court held that when a case is transferred under § 1404(a) or § 1407, the transferee court applies the choice-of-law rules of the transferor court. 

In practical terms, this means a Depo-Provera plaintiff who originally filed in the Western District of Texas has her case governed by Texas substantive law, including Texas’s 2-year statute of limitations and 15-year statute of repose, even though the case is litigated in Florida. A plaintiff whose case was direct-filed into MDL 3140 under Pretrial Order No. 10’s direct-filing procedures is treated under the law of the state designated as her home forum in the short-form complaint.  

Pfizer’s federal preemption defense is a question of federal law and is addressed uniformly across the MDL, but state-law statute-of-limitations and statute-of-repose defenses must be analyzed plaintiff-by-plaintiff on a state-by-state basis. 

This is why a state-by-state statute-of-limitations and statute-of-repose analysis remains essential for Depo-Provera plaintiffs. The MDL is a procedural consolidation, not a substantive merger of state laws. 

Studies Linking Depo-Provera to Meningioma Prompt FDA Label Update

Three distinct events shape the discovery-rule analysis for nearly all current Depo-Provera meningioma plaintiffs and are likely to determine when the limitations period began running for most U.S. claimants. 

The first event is the publication of Roland and colleagues’ study in The BMJ in March 2024, which was the first major case-control study to link injectable medroxyprogesterone acetate to meningioma in a way that received broad media coverage. Plaintiffs’ counsel may argue that the BMJ publication date is the earliest defensible discovery-rule trigger date. 

The second event is the publication of the Cleveland Clinic and Case Western Reserve cohort study in JAMA Neurology in September 2025, which confirmed the meningioma association in a U.S. population and identified specific risk-elevation factors including more than four years of exposure and use beginning after age 31. The JAMA Neurology study is significant because it converted the BMJ findings from a French case-control analysis into a U.S.-specific cohort study with strong external validity. 

The third and most defensible discovery-rule trigger date is the FDA’s December 2025 approval of Pfizer’s Supplement 74 to the Depo-Provera CI label, formally adding meningioma to the warning section. Before that date, U.S. patients had no FDA-approved warning that the drug could cause brain tumors. After that date, the warning was on the label and reasonably accessible to patients and prescribing physicians. 

For most Depo-Provera meningioma plaintiffs, the December 2025 FDA action is the most plaintiff-favorable defensible trigger date for the discovery rule because it is the first event in which a U.S. governmental authority formally communicated the risk to U.S. patients in a way that satisfies the constructive-notice element of the discovery rule. 

Latency Periods and the Long Tail of Depo-Provera Use

Meningiomas are typically slow-growing tumors. The Roland 2024 study found that risk increased substantially with use exceeding one year and continued to accrue with prolonged exposure. The 2025 JAMA Neurology study found the strongest signal in women with more than four years of exposure or who started Depo-Provera after age 31.  

Many MDL 3140 plaintiffs allegedly used Depo-Provera for five to twenty years before diagnosis, and the typical case profile involves a woman who used the shot in the 1990s, 2000s, or early 2010s and was diagnosed with meningioma in 2015 to 2025. 

These long latency periods are the reason that the discovery rule, latent-disease exceptions to repose statutes, and fraudulent-concealment doctrine are central to the viability of most Depo-Provera claims.  

Women who would on a strict reading of the limitations or repose statutes have lost their claims years ago may, under the discovery rule and applicable exceptions, still be eligible to file. The analysis is fact-specific and state-specific, which is why early consultation with an experienced birth control litigation attorney is essential. 

Why Time Matters and What to Do Now

The interplay between statutes of limitations, statutes of repose, the discovery rule, fraudulent-concealment doctrine, and tolling provisions makes Depo-Provera meningioma claims uniquely time-sensitive.  

A woman in a 1-year statute-of-limitations state like Tennessee or Kentucky has dramatically less time than a woman in a 6-year state like Maine, North Dakota, or Minnesota. A woman in a 15-year repose state like Texas may face a hard substantive bar that requires invoking the latent-disease carve-out to preserve her claim. A woman who used Depo-Provera in the 1990s and was diagnosed in 2024 may have a claim that is timely under the discovery rule but barred by repose, or vice versa, depending on the state. 

Because the analysis depends on the date of last injection, the date of diagnosis, the date the woman became aware of the link between Depo-Provera and her meningioma, the state in which she resides or in which her cause of action arose, and the specific tolling and discovery doctrines applicable in that state, a generic response to “how long do I have to file” is impossible. The only way to know with confidence whether a Depo-Provera meningioma claim is timely is to consult with an attorney familiar with both the state law that applies and the procedural posture of MDL 3140. 

The Depo-Provera multidistrict litigation is moving forward rapidly. The first bellwether trial is set for December 7, 2026, and Pretrial Orders No. 22, 22A, and 23 have set deadlines for proof-of-use and proof-of-injury submissions and have defined the qualifying meningioma diagnoses.  

As the litigation progresses, the practical importance of filing on time will only increase, because late-filed claims may be subject to tighter case-management deadlines and reduced participation in any eventual settlement structure. 

Contact a Depo-Provera Meningioma Attorney for a Free Case Evaluation

The deadlines for filing a Depo-Provera meningioma lawsuit vary widely from state to state, and the discovery rule, statutes of repose, fraudulent-concealment doctrine, and tolling provisions can dramatically affect whether a particular claim is timely.  

Women who used Depo-Provera or an authorized generic and were later diagnosed with a meningioma, regardless of how long ago the injections occurred, may still have legal options worth exploring. 

Our law firm, Hissey Mulderig & Friend, is currently evaluating claims involving women diagnosed with meningioma brain tumors after using the Depo-Provera shot. 

To speak with an attorney about your case, find out whether you qualify to take legal action, or start the process of filing your claim today, contact the lawyers at Hissey Mulderig & Friend by calling our office toll-free at 1-866-806-8117, or send us a message using the free claims submission form at the top of this page. 

Disclaimer: This article is general legal information, not legal advice. State-by-state statute of limitations and statute of repose analysis is fact-specific and depends on the date of the plaintiff’s last Depo-Provera injection, the date of meningioma diagnosis, the state where the cause of action arose, and the discovery rule and tolling principles in effect in that state. The deadlines and statute citations referenced above are general references to the most relevant product-liability or personal-injury statutes in each state. Statute citations are linked to the official state government statute portals where the full statutory text can be reviewed. Anyone considering filing a Depo-Provera meningioma claim may wish to consult with an attorney without delay, because many state filing deadlines are short and even a brief delay can permanently foreclose recovery.