New Mirena IUD Lawsuit Transferred to MDL

Mirena, the popular intrauterine device (IUD), has been the target of a quickly expanding multidistrict litigation (MDL) after numerous women have come forward to detail their experiences with the device. Touted as safe and effective, with the only warning being that puncture or migration might occur during insertion, many women are claiming the opposite in hundreds of lawsuits against Bayer.

A number of women have come forward to claim that the Mirena IUD migrated and/or perforated organs or tissue well after the date of insertion. In some cases, the Mirena IUD didn’t make a move until years later. The plastic device is intended for use up to five years, and when something goes wrong the patient doesn’t necessarily feel discomfort or pain. Other Mirena lawsuit plaintiffs have reported symptoms of severe pain caused by the IUD migrating and perforating organs.

New Lawsuit Joins Mirena MDL

Plaintiff Janie Neerings is one of the most recent women to file a Mirena IUD lawsuit, which was transferred to the Mirena MDL on Nov. 12, 2013.

“The embedments and perforations are caused by defective design of the IUD,” the lawsuit alleges.

Neerings alleges that Bayer, the manufacturer of the Mirena IUD, failed to adequately warn about the risks associated with the device. Previously, the IUD of choice was the “copper-T,” which was most popular in the 1970s. The Mirena IUD was supposed to be better and safer, releasing small amounts of hormones and in many cases relieving symptoms of premenstrual syndrome and in many women stopping their cycle completely—both welcome side effects. Additionally, Bayer marketed the device as a way to increase intimacy and improve complexions via the Simple Style Program, which government agencies said was misleading and exaggerated claims.

Neerings reportedly had her Mirena IUD implanted on Oct. 29, 2009 by her certified nurse midwife. Everything went well for years, until Neerings began experiencing abdominal pain in August 2011. Irregular bleeding also began about this time.

“She reported symptoms to Jeanne M. Falk, MD on September 27, 2011 and elected to have the Mirena IUD removed at that time. [Her doctor] was able to visualize the strings for the Mirena IUD but her attempts to comfortably remove the IUD during the office visit were not successful,” the Mirena lawsuit states.

Many women are taught to regularly check to see if they can feel their IUD strings, which is supposedly an indication that the device is in place—however, this isn’t always a guarantee.

Neerings “was scheduled for a dilatation and curettage on Oct. 4, 2011 to remove the Mirena IUD. Notwithstanding that the strings were present; the Mirena was located outside the uterus. The procedure was converted to a laparoscopy, and the Mirena IUD was removed dissected and removed from the peritoneum.”

Mirena IUD Complications

In some cases, Mirena perforates the body in such a way to cause permanent infertility or ectopic pregnancies. Other women report lifelong pain to such a degree that pleasurable sex isn’t possible.

Neerings says she was never told of the real risks of Mirena IUD migration. Had she known about the possibility of migration years after insertion, she could have chosen a different form of birth control, her lawsuit contends. By joining the Mirena MDL, she joins many other women who had similar experiences with the Mirena IUD.

“As a direct and proximate result of the failure of her defective IUD device and wrongful conduct of Bayer, Plaintiff sustained and continues to suffer economic damages (including lost wages, medical and hospital expenses), severe and possible permanent injuries, plus pain, suffering and emotional distress,” Neerings claims in the Mirena IUD lawsuit. She also hopes that her story will help inform others about the possible dangers of the Mirena IUD.

Neerings is suing Bayer for manufacturing defect, design defect, failure to warn, negligence, breach of warranties, fraud and misrepresentation, and punitive damages.

The Mirena MDL is In re: Mirena IUD Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2434, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Help for Victims of Mirena IUD Complications

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 Mirena IUD Injury Class Action Lawsuit Settlement Investigation.