Bayer Seeks to Remove Mirena Lawsuit to Federal Court

Amid the plethora of Mirena IUD lawsuits against medical device and pharma giant Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc. for injuries, pain, surgical removal procedures and hysterectomies allegedly caused by use of the intrauterine contraceptive device Mirena, Bayer has asked that one of the Mirena lawsuits be moved from the court in Cleveland County, North Carolina to federal district court.

“This case is a product-liability case concerning the alleged risks associated with the Mirena intra-uterine device, as well as the adequacy of the FDA-approved product warnings for Mirena,” wrote Bayer in its request. “Many similar lawsuits have been filed in federal court with the same allegations.”

Plaintiff Jennifer Petty alleges that her use of a Mirena IUD “led to pain, migration of the device and imbedding of the device requiring surgical removal with related injuries and ultimately leading to a hysterectomy,” according to her Mirena IUD lawsuit.

Bayer is asking to move the Mirena IUD lawsuit to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina because the amount in controversy is at least $75,000, the statutory limit for federal court.

According to Bayer’s request for removal, “Courts nationwide routinely hold that cases that allege serious physical injuries, such as the serious physical injuries alleged here by Ms. Petty, satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement.” One of the factors Bayer uses to support its valuation is the statement by Petty that she suffered “serious, permanent injuries,” a common factor in many other past cases that were removed to federal court.

More than 1,200 women are suing Bayer, claiming its contraceptive device caused serious Mirena IUD complications that, in a vast number of cases, required surgical removal of the device. Some cases, like Petty’s, led to hysterectomies or other serious, permanent injuries.

Many of the Mirena lawsuits point out that, on Mirena’s packaging, there was no mention of the possibility of penetration and migration of the device after insertion, or of the recent reports of Mirena IUD complications and investigations into the intrauterine device by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Division of Drug Marketing, Advertisement and Communications (DDMAC).

Since Mirena was approved by the FDA as a long-term contraceptive device in 2000, 15 million women around the world have been implanted with the IUD. As Bayer’s packaging states, the t-shaped, plastic device releases a synthetic progestin called levonorgestrel into the blood stream meant to “thicken cervical mucus, thin the uterine lining, inhibit sperm movement and reduce sperm survival to prevent pregnancy.”

The Mirena IUD is intended to be inserted into a woman’s uterus within seven days of menstruation and to remain in the uterus for up to five years. Compared to other contraceptive options, Mirena is low-maintenance, so it is appealing, but of late the side effects and risks have been making waves.

The Mirena IUD lawsuit is Jennifer Petty v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc., Case No. 7:14-cv-03472-CS, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina.

Join a Free Mirena Class Action Lawsuit Investigation

If you or a loved one had the Mirena IUD inserted after January 1, 2000 and had to have surgery – or will be required to have surgery – to remove the IUD because it migrated, you may be eligible to take legal action against the manufacturer. Joining a Mirena class action lawsuit or filing an individual Mirena IUD lawsuit may help you recover compensation for medical bills, pain and suffering and other damages. Obtain a free case evaluation now:

Oops! We could not locate your form.