New Mirena Perforated Uterus Lawsuit Filed

The newest Mirena perforated uterus lawsuit against the makers of the intrauterine contraceptive device was filed in federal court this week and will be heard by the judge presiding over the centralized products liability litigation of similar Mirena cases.

The plaintiff, a Kentucky woman, received the IUD in April 2011, but suffered complications related to the hormonal birth control device and underwent painful abdominal Mirena surgical removal in October, 2012 due to perforation of her uterus, according to the complaint. As a result, she is seeking compensation from Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the makers of Mirena, whose popular product hit the U.S. market in 2000 but has faced numerous reports of complications in the years since.

Allegations in Mirena perforated uterus lawsuit

The case claims that Bayer is liable for the plaintiff’s injuries because the company failed to issue warnings of the risks associated with its product. Many of the Mirena IUD lawsuits centralized as multidistrict litigation claim that Bayer knew and concealed its knowledge of the risks associated with Mirena from doctors and patients – and, in violation of federal requirements, the Food and Drug Administration. These complications include device migration, expulsion and dislodgment, Mirena uterine perforation, pelvic inflammatory disease, organ damage, vaginal hemorrhage, life-threatening ectopic pregnancies, miscarriage, infertility and the need for Mirena surgical removal.

Specifically, the plaintiff alleges that Bayer is liable under several theories, including strict, or automatic, liabilities for a defective product design, defective manufacturing, a failure-to-adequately-warn defect, as well as breach of implied and express warranties, negligence, fraud and misrepresentation, and violation of consumer fraud statutes.

The lawsuit seeks compensation for the economic damages the plaintiff suffered, including lost wages, medical and hospital expenses, and the costs of living with severe and possibly permanent injuries, as well as compensation for the non-economic injuries stemming from her pain, suffering and emotional distress. The plaintiff also alleges that Bayer’s continued marketing and distribution of the product when it knew or should have known of the serious health risks, including the chance of needing to undergo Mirena surgical removal is “evidences a flagrant disregard of human life so as to warrant the imposition of punitive damages.”

Mirena multidistrict litigation

The recent Mirena perforated uterus lawsuit joins the multidistrict litigation centralized in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, before the Honorable Judge Cathy Seibel. More than 100 similar Mirena IUD lawsuits filed in federal court around the country have been transferred to Judge Seibel in an effort to consolidate claims of similar allegations, avoid duplicative discovery requests, and prevent dozens of different courts from issuing conflicting pretrial rulings in related cases.

Mirena IUD lawsuits have also been filed in state court in New Jersey, where Bayer maintains its U.S. headquarters. Judge Brian R. Martinotti of the Superior Court for Bergen County is presiding over more than 173 cases centralized through the state system multi-county litigation (MCL), which mirrors the federal multidistrict litigation procedure.