Mirena Lawsuit: Migrated IUD Failed to Prevent Pregnancy

A Pennsylvania woman claims in a new Mirena lawsuit that defects in the birth control device caused her IUD to migrate, leading to an unintended pregnancy. Her case is one of nearly 1,000 Mirena birth control lawsuits pending against Bayer over claims the IUD migrated out of place and caused significant harm.

The plaintiff in this most recent Mirena IUD lawsuit had the intrauterine device inserted in April of 2011. At a follow-up appointment a few months later, her gynecologist found no problems with the device. However, almost a year later, her gynecologist confirmed the unexpected: she was pregnant. R.S. alleges in the Mirena lawsuit that the pregnancy occurred because the IUD is defective and prone to spontaneous migration outside the uterus.

The Mirena lawsuit claims that concerns for the fetus made it too risky to remove the IUD while the plaintiff was pregnant. Over the course of several months, the IUD allegedly migrated from the vescio-uterine wall to the vescio-uterine fold.  On Jan. 4, 2013, at the time of the plaintiff’s cesarean delivery, the IUD had traveled through to her bladder.

Spontaneous migration is not the only complication associated with the Mirena IUD. Although the plaintiff dealt with the trauma of spontaneous IUD migration, she was lucky — for both her and her baby’s sake – that she did not suffer from uterine perforation, another potential side effect of Mirena IUD. According to the lawsuit, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals does not warn about either side effect, other than that “migration may occur if the uterus is perforated during insertion.”

The plaintiff alleges that based on the number of adverse event reports submitted to the FDA’s MedWatch system, there is a significant possibility of uterine perforation and spontaneous migration occurring with Mirena users. The lawsuit further claims that Bayer was forced to modify its advertising because it failed to adequately warn of potential Mirena IUD side effects and made unsubstantiated claims in its advertising for the birth control device, including the device’s ability to “increase the level of intimacy” between a woman and her partner.

The Mirena IUD side effects lawsuit is Case No. 14-cv-00844 in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

If you or a loved one had a Mirena IUD inserted after January 1, 2000 or later and had to have surgery – or will be required to have surgery – to have it remove because it migrated, you may be eligible to take legal action against the manufacturer. Filing a Mirena IUD lawsuit may help you recover compensation for medical bills, pain and suffering and other damages. See if you qualify by filling out the short form at the Birth Control Lawsuits: Mirena IUD Injury Class Action Lawsuit Settlement Investigation.