Mirena IUD Lawsuit Joins MDL

Mirena IUD Lawsuit Joins MDL

By Jessica Tyner

Sally McAdam has joined forces with others like her, opting to have her Mirena IUD lawsuit transferred to multidistrict litigation (MDL) on August 29, 2013. By joining the Mirena IUD MDL, McAdam will enjoy a faster resolution, but will still be eligible for an individual trial by jury. 

Like others who have joined the MDL, McAdam thought she’d found somewhat of a “wonder contraception,” since not only is Mirena IUD inserted into the uterus and is effective for up to five years, but many women also experience great side effects like lighter or vanished cycles and no premenstrual syndrome (PMS). However, the Mirena IUD has been associated with serious side effects.

McAdam had a Mirena IUD that “had to be surgically removed June 17, 2011, due to perforation of her uterus and migration.” These two nasty Mirena IUD complications are warned about, but only during insertion. According to reports from McAdam and other Mirena IUD sufferers, women were never told that the IUD could migrate post-insertion because their doctors weren’t informed about these risks. The language on the warning inserts and packaging simply isn’t adequate, McAdam says. However, Bayer, the maker of the Mirena IUD, did include warnings of an increased risk of pelvic inflammatory disease (PID), ovarian cysts, irregular bleeding and anemia.

According to the warning labels, it’s also suggested that women have their Mirena IUD checked by a professional 4 to 12 weeks after insertion. However, it’s clear given the numerous women who have filed Mirena IUD lawsuits that perforation and migration can occur well after that 12-week window. “The burden of determining if the product has dislodged and is floating somewhere in the patient’s body is on the patient herself,” McAdam’s Mirena IUD lawsuit reads. She says that Bayer “unreasonably assumes that the patient herself can and will accomplish the difficult task of periodically locating the tiny strings attached to Mirena that would be present at the base of her cervix on self-exam if the Mirena had not migrated.” However, many women are unable to locate the strings even if the Mirena IUD is in place. By the time a woman discovers the strings really are gone, the damage might already be done.

“These instructions about examinations simply lulled doctors and their patients into a false sense of security and misled them about the real and increasing risks,” McAdam says in her Mirena IUD lawsuit. “The warnings also misleadingly imply that complications and injury may occur when Mirena is placed, not years afterward if properly placed.” Sometimes the symptoms of migration or penetration are severe abdominal cramping, which many women may think are PMS. In 2009, the Department of Health and Human Services Division of Drug Marketing, Advertising and Communication (DDMAC) “warned Bayer that its sponsored internet links are misleading because they make representations and/or suggestions about the efficacy of Mirena but fail to communicate any risk information associated with the use of the drug.” 

A Host of Problems

McAdam had her Mirena IUD inserted on September 12, 2007 in Greenville, North Carolina by Dr. Jennifer Ferguson at the Carolina Women’s Physicians center. Subsequently, she experienced pelvic pain. “It was determined that the IUD had migrated to the abdominal cavity. Additionally, it was determined that the IUD had scarred, extruded and perforated the anterior uterus.” Due to these Mirena IUD complications, McAdam “sustained and continues to suffer economic damages (including lost wages, medical and hospital expenses), severe and possibly permanent injuries, plus pain, suffering and emotional distress.” It’s too soon to tell if the Mirena IUD migration caused infertility, as it sometimes does in women. Other women report divorces or relationship failures since they can no longer have sex without pain. The side effects of Mirena IUD don’t necessarily stop when it’s removed.

McAdam is suing Bayer for manufacturing defect, design defect, failure to warn, negligence, breach of warranty, fraud and misrepresentation. She “demands judgment against Bayer for compensatory and punitive damages, together with interest, costs of suits, attorney’s fees and all other relief the court deems appropriate.” She’s in good company, and by joining this Mirena IUD MDL she’ll likely see a much quicker, yet still fair, resolution.

The case is Sally McAdam v. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, et al., Case No. 7:13-cv-06591-CS, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. It has been added to the ongoing MDL, In Re: Mirena IUD Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2434, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Did Your Mirena IUD Migrate or Perforate?