Bayer Wants to Dismiss Mirena Lawsuits Due to Statute of Limitations

There are currently about 1,200 product liability lawsuits filed against Bayer Pharmaceuticals by women who allege they suffered “severe and debilitating complications” from their Mirena IUD, where the device perforated their uterus and migrated to other areas of the body.

On April 9, Bayer filed a motion to dismiss a federal lawsuit filed by plaintiff Amanda Truitt. She is one of dozens of women who filed a Mirena IUD lawsuit several years after their injury, claiming that they “were unaware that their problems were caused by design defects with the Mirena IUD that allegedly made it prone to spontaneously migrate.”

In January, the drug maker commented that about 20 percent of all pending claims in the Mirena MDL at that time may have been brought forward outside of the applicable statute of limitations. A statute of limitations requires that any legal action be filed within a certain amount of time after a plaintiff knew, or reasonably could have discovered, the existence of their cause of action. Each state has a different statute of limitations. As such, Bayer proposed that the MDL presiding judge rule on a motion to dismiss Truitt’s Mirena IUD lawsuit, as it was filed beyond the two year statute that stands in Texas and Indiana. Bayer’s hope is that the dismissal may serve as an “exemplar” for Mirena statute of limitations arguments in other cases.

Bayer argues that “since the injuries allegedly caused by IUD birth control implants are immediately obvious, the Mirena statute of limitations should start running upon the diagnosis of the injury.” Truitt suffered nausea and vomiting after the IUD migrated out of her uterus, allegedly causing ovarian cysts. She underwent surgery to remove it in 2011, but didn’t sue until more than two years later.

Following a conference before Judge Seibel on February 26, Truitt’s claim was identified as a test case for the statute of limitations argument. Plaintiffs’ response to the dismissal motion is due on April 24, with any reply from Bayer due by May 8.

Mirena IUD Complaints

The U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) approved the Mirena IUD in December 2000. More than 2 million women in the United States use Mirena, with 15 million users worldwide. However, since 2000, more than 70,000 adverse events have been filed with the FDA involving Mirena IUD problems, including at least 5,000 cases involving women who indicated that Mirena migrated out of place since 2008, and 1,322 reports where the Mirena IUD punctured the uterus.

Mirena’s label does not warn about spontaneous migration of the IUD, but only states that migration may occur if the uterus is perforated during insertion. On the packaging label, perforation is described as an “uncommon” event and that spontaneous migration of the IUD is possible, but only may occur if the uterus is perforated during insertion. According to many Mirena IUD lawsuits, this packaging label is inadequate to properly warn consumers.

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.