Mirena is an intrauterine device (IUD), which is widely recognized as one of the most reliable forms of birth control.

Bayer introduced Mirena in 2000, aggressively promoting the IUD as a hassle-free form of birth control. However, a growing number of women and their doctors have reported problems with the device.

Some of Mirena IUD complications include the following:

• Migration of the device from its proper spot, sometimes out into the pelvis, which requires surgical removal
• Perforation of the uterus if the device migrates
• Ectopic pregnancy, a dangerous type of pregnancy outside of the uterus
• Pelvic inflammatory disease, a type of infection that can cause blockage of the fallopian tubes, ectopic pregnancy, infertility, or long-lasting pelvic pain if not treated promptly and properly

Additionally, if a user does become pregnant while using Mirena, she may experience sepsis, septic abortion, miscarriage, or premature delivery of the child.

Mirena Statute of Limitations

Since 2000, more than 70,000 adverse events have been filed with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) involving Mirena IUD side effects, including at least 5,000 cases involving women who indicated that the birth control device migrated out of place since 2008 and 1,322 reports where the Mirena IUD punctured the uterus.

The issue, however, has to do with the statute of limitations for Mirena lawsuits. Under federal law, many types of allegations have a built-in time limit on how long a person can wait to seek civil redress, which is typically two years after an injury occurs.

Bayer filed a letter on Jan. 15, alleging that about 70 Mirena lawsuits may have been filed beyond the statute of limitations. The letters also asks that these Mirena lawsuits be dismissed.

But a federal judge in Louisiana recently ruled that the statute of limitations on Mirena IUD lawsuits should be governed by when the plaintiff determines that her injuries were caused by the birth control implant.

The Mirena statute of limitations ruling was made after a woman and her husband filed a claim in May 2013, two years after she first received the IUD. The time of their Mirena lawsuit filing exceeded the two-year statute of limitations regulations.

According to Bayer, the Mirena IUD manufacturer, the Louisiana Product Liability Act has a one-year prescriptive period for product liability claims, which the plaintiff missed.

The Louisiana Supreme Court judge countered Bayer’s arguments, asserting that the woman was not aware that Mirena could be causing her side effects for some time after she began experiencing them.

“Prescription commences when a plaintiff obtains actual or constructive knowledge of facts indicating to a reasonable person that he or she is the victim of a tort,” the ruling states.

Mirena IUD Lawsuits

This Mirena lawsuit is one of thousands now filed in the United States on behalf of women who allegedly experienced Mirena IUD complications and other Mirena side effects of the birth control device.

Mirena claims have also been centralized in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, where 1,042 Mirena lawsuits had been filed as of October 15, 2014.

These Mirena lawsuits allege similar complications caused by the device, which plaintiffs claim to have been defectively designed.