The Mirena IUD, a contraceptive device that has grown in popularity in recent years, has been named in hundreds of Mirena lawsuit filings that allege serious injuries due to spontaneous migration of the IUD. As of January 2014, more than 800 such lawsuits had been filed on behalf of women who claim to have suffered such complications. However, considering that the device is used by roughly 2 million women in the U.S., many legal experts believe that the number of Mirena IUD lawsuit claims will grow in the future.
The Mirena IUD is a long-acting contraceptive device that is inserted into the uterus, where it prevents pregnancy for up to five years. Introduced in the U.S. in 2000, Mirena is now used by millions of women, and its approved uses have been expanded to include the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding in women who wish to use an IUD as their primary form of birth control. Since coming on the market, more than 70,000 adverse event reports made to the U.S. Food & Drug Administration have involved Mirena, including 5,000 cases of device migration, and 1,322 reports of uterine perforation.
Women who have filed a Mirena IUD lawsuit are alleged to have suffered serious injuries as a result of spontaneous migration of the device. According to these complaints, this type of migration or dislocation can occur weeks, months, or possibly even years after the IUD was correctly placed in the uterus by a healthcare professional. Mirena birth control lawsuit plaintiffs further allege that this occurrence can result in a variety of serious complications that may permanently impact a woman’s reproductive health, including:
Mirena lawsuit allegations also include claims that Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals failed to warn about the possibility of spontaneous migration. In fact, plaintiffs point out that the IUD’s label only warns that migration might occur if the uterus is perforated at the time the device is inserted by a doctor or other healthcare professional.
Women in Mirena lawsuits further allege that Bayer has a history of overstating the benefits purportedly associated with the IUD and downplaying its potential side effects. Among other things, they point to a 2009 Warning Letter the company received from the FDA, which made some of the same assertions about a social media campaign Bayer used to market Mirena.
Because a great number of Mirena IUD lawsuit filings are expected, cases in several venues have been consolidated for pretrial purposes. These proceedings include a multidistrict litigation underway in U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York. A multicounty litigation has also been established on the state level in New Jersey’s Bergen County Superior Court. All of the Mirena birth control lawsuits filed in these proceedings make similar allegations regarding the IUD’s propensity to migrate following correct insertion, and cause injury.
Women who have filed a Mirena lawsuit seek compensation for their injury-related damages, including medical bills, lost wages, pain and suffering, and emotional distress. Court documents filed in the various litigations indicate that Mirena birth control lawsuit trials could begin as early as 2015.