Mirena IUD Migration Allegation Lawyer Help: Resource4thePeople Encouraged by Key Recent Legal Developments involving Lawsuits

Share Article

Positive rulings come down for plaintiffs as judges in two states deny efforts by Bayer Pharmaceuticals to dismiss claims made by women about spontaneous migration and perforation. National network of attorneys continues to offer free legal consultations for consumers seeking compensation over IUD allegations.


Resource4thePeople announced today in its latest update for consumers who may be following litigation involving allegations that the Mirena IUD contraceptive may cause serious health problems that it is encouraged by two recent legal decisions.

The most recent news involves rulings by judges in Kentucky and Louisiana rejecting efforts by the contraceptive's manufacturer, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, to dismiss Mirena lawsuits containing these allegations.

"It is common for defendants to seek the dismissal of cases before they can be settled or presented to a jury and we are encouraged that judges in two different jurisdictions denied the efforts of the defendant's legal team to have these cases dismissed," said Resource4thePeople.

"As these legal developments continue to take place involving allegations over spontaneous migration, perforation of the uterus and other health problems made by women across the country we continue to receive an increased number of inquiries from women over what legal options they may have to seek compensation in their cases."

In order to adequately address these inquiries, Resource4thePeople is also announcing that its national network of attorneys will continue to offer free consultations to consumers who may have been affected by these allegations.

"There may be legal time limits involved -- which was a factor in one of the cases that Bayer sought to have dismissed -- so we are urging consumers to contact us as soon as possible to preserve all legal options that may be available to them," said Resource4thePeople.

One dismissal motion lost by Bayer involved a case in which U.S. District Judge Jay C. Zainey of the Eastern District of Louisiana refused to dismiss a Mirena IUD lawsuit brought under the Louisiana Products Liability Act against Bayer.*

The other case involved a denial of a Bayer motion to dismiss issued by U.S. District Judge Joseph H. McKinley Jr. of Kentucky involving a similar Mirena IUD lawsuit.** The judge also ruled that the plaintiff will be allowed to amend the complaint in the case.

There have been enough Mirena IUD lawsuits filed across over 20 states involving these allegations that the federal court system has ordered the consolidation of many of them before a U.S. District Court judge in the Southern District of New York.***

According to the latest statistics provided by the U.S. Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation, there are currently at least 211 federal Mirena IUD lawsuits involving these allegations being overseen by Judge Cathy Seibel, according to the latest figures filed Oct. 17, 2013.****

The federal multidistrict panel detailed the allegations that have been made against the contraceptive's manufacturer, Bayer Health Care Pharmaceuticals, in this summary:*****

"The cases in this litigation primarily involve injuries allegedly caused by the Mirena intrauterine contraceptive system. The cases listed on Schedule A allege that the product may migrate away from its original position, perforate the uterus, and/or cause related injuries. The cases listed on Schedule B alleges that the product causes autoimmune disorders."

Resource4thePeople is also reporting that there are over 200 other cases in a state multidistrict litigation****** involving similar allegations that have been consolidated before a New Jersey state judge according the state court file in those cases.

The court file in those cases shows that among the allegations are claims that the Mirena IUD migrated from its original positioning and subjected women to perforated uteruses and other serious side effects.

“Our team attorneys are continuing to review allegations that include claims of ectopic pregnancies, sepsis, perforations and ovarian cysts,” said Resource4thePeople.

The Mirena IUD received approval from the Food and Drug Administration in 2000 as a contraceptive and was approved to treat heavy menstrual bleeding in 2009.

The device is a t-shaped IUD, which, after being placed in the uterus, is supposed to serve as a method of preventing pregnancy for as many as five years. The method of contraception is the release into the uterus of the progestin levonorgestrel to prevent the release of eggs in a woman's ovaries.

"Among the allegations in these cases is that the use of the Mirena IUD led to medical conditions including ectopic pregnancy, infertility, perforation of the uterine wall, cervix and pelvic organs, embedment of the device in the uterine wall or other organs, migration of the IUD, infertility, pelvic inflammatory disease and serious infections that may have required surgical removal of the device,” said Resource4thePeople.

Resource4the People also notes that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration raised objections to the marketing of the device as a safe, convenient alternative to birth control pills and other contraceptives.

The FDA issued a warning letter******* to Bayer officials in 2010 in which FDA regulators objected to the marketing campaign, admonished Bayer and told the company that it was downplaying the health risks of the Mirena IUD while overstating its benefits.

"The program overstates the efficacy of Mirena, presents unsubstantiated claims, minimizes the risks of using Mirena, and includes false or misleading presentations regarding Mirena," the FDA said. "Thus, the program misbrands the drug in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act."


*Thompson, et al. v. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc., No. 13-3702, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana
** Bosch, et al. v. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc., No. 3:13-656, U.S. District Court, Western District of Kentucky
***MDL - 2434 IN RE: Mirena IUD Products Liability Litigation, Judge Cathy Seibel, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
******In Re: Mirena Multicounty Litigation, Bergen County Superior Court of New Jersey Case #297

Share article on social media or email:

View article via:

Pdf Print

Contact Author

Bill Callahan
+1 858 602-2749
Email >
Visit website