A large number of Mirena lawsuits filed against Bayer claim serious injuries, including Mirena uterus perforation, associated with the IUD migration. The product labeling only informs of the minuscule risk of potential “uterine perforation at the time of insertion.” However, post-marketing surveys and product liability litigations confirm that the problem is much more common and Mirena uterus perforation takes place months or even years after the IUD implanted. Design defect in the T-shaped plastic intrauterine birth control device facilitates its displacement from the inserted site and migration, a subject of rampant complaint, resulting in complete or partial uterus damage, surgeries, adhesion, scarring, infertility, and harm to internal organs.
Mirena Uterus Perforation claims
Of about 1,200 Mirena lawsuits consolidated under the federal MDL rules at a New York southern district court and over 2,000 under the New Jersey state MCL centralization, the highest number of claims are linked to IUD migration and perforation. Women injured by the device migration highlight that the IUD spontaneously dislodge, moves through uterine organs, and gets embedded in the pelvic cavity leading to pain, injuries, and surgical removal. Reproductive organs, such uterus and fallopian tube, due to their proximity, are injured, sometimes beyond repair, as the IUD gets struck in or perforate them. At least 2,000 women were forced to remove the damaged uterus as the device perforated them beyond the repair while more than double of that number were advised against pregnancy, as the uterus is injured significantly by the migrating Mirena.
More than two-dozen Californian women filed a lawsuit in 2014 claiming that they had uterus removal surgery following Mirena perforation. Lawsuits seek manufacturer’s liability for manufacturing defect and “marketing the IUD without sufficiently warning of potential risks and complications.”
Mirena perforation forced hundreds of women to opt for surgical removal of the IUD and undergo additional surgeries, including hysterectomy, appendectomy, and pelvic surgery. There are instances where women have been surgically induced menopause following vaginal hemorrhage caused by Mirena perforation. The Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons has acknowledged the problem and informed its members about the effects.
Second Mirena MDL Bellwether Trial
Mirena MDL Judge Cathy Seibel has selected five lawsuits in July to have a second round of bellwether trial. The submission of case specific reports this set of claims is expected to over by February 2016. Judge Siebel may decide on the trial date within a month. The MDL was established in April 2013 to cater to the surge in Mirena injury litigations. In August 2014, the Initial Disposition Pool was created with 12 litigations. The first Mirena bellwether trial involving six lawsuits is set for March 7, 2016. Court Judge Brian Matinotti heading the New Jersey Mirena MCL has also in the disposition pool and set in place the motion selection for the second bellwether trial.
Bellwether trials are expected to guide lawyers and claimants on potential evidence, defendant disposition, and juror response to accusations in the Mirena mass litigation. Potential decisions against Bayer may trigger settlement negotiations with plaintiffs.
Kentucky Court Accepts Strict Liability, Misrepresentation Claim
An August 7 order issued by a Kentucky federal court allowed the strict liability and negligent misrepresentation claim of a woman injured by Mirena IUD. The plaintiff had severe headaches and vision loss within six months of using the contraceptive device. She also had permanent injuries associated with the IUD side effects.
The court ruled that “an injured party can advance both a strict-liability claim and a negligence claim against the manufacturer of a product for injury suffered by that product because the strict liability claim focuses on the condition of the product, while the negligence action addresses the manufacturer’s duties to end-users.”
If you have or any of your relatives has experienced IUD injuries, including uterus perforation, contact our Mirena injury lawyer or call on 1-800-632-1404 to explore options to get financial compensation for physical suffering, trauma, economic losses, and non-economic damages.
One Reply to “Mirena Uterus Perforation Claims Dominate MDL Proceeding”