Plaintiff Tiffany Dawn Eaton of Kansas filed a Mirena lawsuit against Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc. for damages she suffered allegedly caused by the intrauterine device (IUD).
According to the Mirena IUD lawsuit, Eaton’s “medical provider inserted the Mirena IUD on or about May 2007. Plaintiff tolerated the procedure well and neither plaintiff nor her medical provider had any reason to suspect that the Mirena IUD perforated her uterus.”
On May 6, 2012, Eaton was informed by her medical providers that the Mirena IUD “perforated through the fundus of the uterus.” The Kansas woman underwent removal of the Mirena IUD device in the fundus on May 6, 2012.
According to the Mirena IUD lawsuit, Eaton “suffered severe and permanent physical injuries, and has endured substantial pain and suffering. She has incurred significant expenses for medical care and treatment, and will continue to incur such expenses in the future.”
The Mirena lawsuit claims that the label does not warn about spontaneous migration of the IUD, but only states that migration may occur if the uterus is perforated during insertion.
The Mirena IUD lawsuit also alleges that the “defendant concealed its knowledge of Mirena’s defects, from Plaintiff, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the public in general and/or medical community specifically.”
In or around March 2009, the Department of Health and Human Services’ Division of Drug Marketing, Advertising, and Communications issued a warning regarding Defendant’s advertising materials for Mirena that constituted misbranding of the IUD in violation of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and FDA implementing regulations.
“As a result of the defective nature of Mirena, those persons who use and/or used and relied on Mirena have suffered and/or at a greatly increased risk of serious and dangerous side effects including inter alia, perforation, migration, embedment, ectopic pregnancy, intrauterine pregnancy, cancer, adhesions, cysts, fetal injury, fetal death, early/premature menopause as well as other severe and personal injuries which are permanent and lasting in nature, physical pain and mental anguish, including diminished enjoyment of life and a future of high risk pregnancies and infertility, as well as the need for lifelong medical treatment, monitoring and/or medications, and fear of developing any of the above named health consequences,” the Mirena IUD lawsuit states.
Eaton allegedly has sustained certain of the above health consequences due to her use of Mirena, and is seeking compensatory and punitive damages, together with interest, costs of lawsuit, attorneys’ fees and all such other relief as the court deems proper, according to her Mirena IUD lawsuit.
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.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING
Top Class Actions is a Proud Member of the American Bar Association
LEGAL INFORMATION IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE
Top Class Actions Legal Statement
©2008 – 2026 Top Class Actions® LLC
Various Trademarks held by their respective owners
This website is not intended for viewing or usage by European Union citizens.
FACTA lawsuit investigation: Check your paper receipts for credit card privacy violations
November 6, 2026 | Legal News
One thought on Woman Files Mirena IUD Lawsuit Over Uterine Perforation
Please do Call!
1) received the mirena 6-8 weeks post C-section of may 2009 through medicade Kansas insurance at Samuel U. Rodgers Health Center of Kansas City, Mo
First complaint was it was very uncomfortable and painful I spent years unable to have very much sexual interaction with my husband which ultimately devastated our marriage and continued perpetuation of severe issues in the marriage due to lack of sexual performance of painful and of course no help was done followed up with Colby medical surgical center Colby Kansas and nothing was done from 2009 to 2011 replaced the marina again at St Francis Kansas clinic at St Francis Kansas after it expired replaced with the new Marina that one I complained about it feeling too deep and like something was poking nothing was done again for several months I had the Marina removed after it had been expired for several months in oberlin Kansas at the Decatur health clinic where it took several doctors to be able to remove the mirena from the vagina area and a pond to their notice they noticed I had severe permanent uterus and vagina wall numbing even when personally applied poking to the uterus walling etc I have severe damages to my vagina where I do not have any sensation no nerve sensation no feeling and the doctor concluded that they weren’t sure and nothing was done about it to this day even a year+ later after the mirena has been removed I have not regained sensation.
I had arena two times from 2009 to 2020/21
I am now suffering early menopause for an example my menstrual cycles only last a day and a half for the last year and a half since Marina has been removed and now I am missing months of menstruation cycles as well as early hot flashes and other symptoms of pre-menopausal syndrome according to the doctors at Decatur health clinic of oberlin Kansas.
Which has been completely devastating as I am newlywed to my second husband who is only 30 years old and I am about to turn 37 and we have been desperately trying for a baby for a year to know success and frustration of limited income and able to do what we can has been strenuous and we do believe in part it is because of Marina and would like to follow up especially now that I’m going through the machine changes of the inside of my body feeling like it’s 50 while I’m only 36.
Thank you
Tahnee