For more information or confidential assistance
Call 800-306-3180

Woman Sues Bayer After Enduring Painful Mirena Removal

Bayer PharmaceuticalSonja Zimmerman, a resident of Pennsylvania, is one of the latest plaintiffs to file a Mirena lawsuit against Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals. She filed her complaint earlier in September 2015 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. However, it is possible that the lawsuit will be transferred to the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York, where numerous federal cases have been consolidated.

The centralization of these lawsuits occurred in January 2013, when the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) determined that it was appropriate to establish a multidistrict litigation (MDL) for these product liability lawsuits. An MDL may be established when multiple plaintiffs file complaints against the same defendants with similar statements of facts and allegations.

Plaintiff alleges severe pain, physical injuries

Sonja Zimmerman was just one of many women who decided to have Mirena inserted for the purpose of long-term birth control. Mirena is an intrauterine device (IUD) that is placed in the uterus. It releases levonorgestrel slowly for up to five years to prevent pregnancy by thickening the cervical mucus, thinning the uterine lining, and partially suppressing ovulation. IUDs have become an increasingly popular method of birth control in the U.S. because they are perceived to be a convenient alternative to daily pills. However, Zimmerman and other plaintiffs who have filed Mirena lawsuits allege that the device is unreasonably dangerous and that Bayer did not inform them of these serious risks.

Specifically, Zimmerman claims that the device spontaneously migrated from her uterus. The 26-year-old woman had her healthcare provider insert Mirena in early 2011. Zimmerman reported that the insertion was well tolerated. She claims not to have experienced any unusual side effects, such as severe pain, that may have indicated uterine perforation at the time of the insertion.

However, Zimmerman underwent an ultrasound exam late in 2013, the results of which revealed that the Mirena device had migrated out of its proper position. Her doctor later took an x-ray and found that the Mirena device had migrated to the right pelvis area. Not long afterward, Zimmerman endured a Mirena removal surgery. Mirena was designed to be inserted and removed non-surgically during a simple office visit.

However, many women have had to undergo surgical removal after suffering uterine perforation, which allows the IUD to travel elsewhere in the lower body. Zimmerman demands compensation from Bayer Healthcare for her medical expenses, including her hospitalization, the surgical removal, and related costs such as medical therapy, medical monitoring, and continuing treatment. She also demands that the defendants be held liable for non-economic damages, including her physical injuries and severe abdominal pain.

Allegations in Mirena litigation

Zimmerman lists multiple allegations against Bayer in her Mirena removal lawsuit. She contends that the defendants should be held liable for defective manufacturing, claiming that Mirena is “unreasonably dangerous” and that the company “placed Mirena into the stream of commerce with wanton and reckless disregard for the public safety.” The complainant also charges Bayer Healthcare with design defect, negligence, and failure to warn.

  1. U.S. District Court, Mirena IUD Products Liability Litigation,

  2., Mirena,