Not Accepting Cases

Mirena Lawsuits

Mirena lawsuits accuse Bayer Pharmaceuticals of hiding side effects and making a defective intrauterine uterine device (IUD). Women blame the birth control device for organ perforation and ectopic pregnancy. Mirena lawsuits also say the device moved around in the body (migration) and caused pressure buildup in the skull (pseudotumor cerebri).

Mirena Insertion
Mirena Lawsuits Facts
  1. Injuries Organ perforation, device migration, ectopic pregnancy, pseudotumor cerebri
  2. Defendant Bayer
  3. Top Settlement $12.2 million
Fact-Checked

Editors carefully fact-check all Drugwatch content for accuracy and quality.

Drugwatch has a stringent fact-checking process. It starts with our strict sourcing guidelines.

We only gather information from credible sources. This includes peer-reviewed medical journals, reputable media outlets, government reports, court records and interviews with qualified experts.

*UPDATE: In July 2018, there were about 2,400 active Mirena lawsuits in New York and New Jersey. In April 2018, Bayer reported it reached a settlement in about 4,100 Mirena organ perforation lawsuits.

Thousands of women nationwide sued Bayer Pharmaceuticals over Mirena. The first Mirena lawsuits claimed the birth control device perforated organs, caused ectopic pregnancy and migrated out of the uterus.

More recent lawsuits blame Mirena for pressure buildup in the skull called pseudotumor cerebri or intracranial hypertension.

The lawsuits accuse the company of selling a dangerous product. They also claim the company used deceptive advertising. They say Bayer hid the risk of complications.

Women reported problems with the device to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Still, there has not been a Mirena recall.

Mirena IUD Lawsuit Status

Mirena lawsuits are grouped into two federal multidistrict litigations (MDLs). Both are in the Southern District of New York and are still ongoing. There is also an active multicounty litigation in New Jersey.

mirena IUD resting on a hand
The Mirena IUD is small enough to fit in the palm of a hand.

New York MDL 2434: Mirena Migration and Organ Perforation

The first New York MDL is 2434. These lawsuits claimed Mirena migration and organ perforation. The judge dismissed 1,230 of these cases in 2016. Lawyers for the plaintiffs appealed the dismissal. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal in October 2017. Only three lawsuits remained pending as of June 2018.

New York MDL 2767: Pseudotumor Cerebri or Intracranial Hypertension

The second New York MDL is 2767. There were 593 lawsuits were pending in this MDL as of July 2018. These lawsuits blame Mirena for pressure buildup in the skull. The medical community calls the injury pseudotumor cerebri or intracranial hypertension.

New Jersey MCL 297: IUD Injuries

Mirena lawsuits in New Jersey say the device moved out of place and caused injuries. The court consolidated these cases in multicounty litigation in New Jersey Superior Court Bergen County. As of July 2018, there were more than 1,800 active cases.

Mirena Injuries: Organ Perforation, Pseudotumor Cerebri Lawsuits

The main Mirena side effects claimed in lawsuits are organ perforation, ectopic pregnancy, device migration and psuedotumor cerebri.

Early Mirena lawsuits claimed the IUD perforated their organs. This is when the device pokes a hole through an organ, such as the uterus. Organ damage can occur during Mirena insertion or any time after.

Other women filed lawsuits after the device migrated outside the uterus. In cases where the IUD migrates, women likely need to have Mirena removed.

Still, other women blamed Mirena for ectopic pregnancy. This is when there’s a fertilized egg outside the uterus. It can threaten the mother’s life.

The newest group of Mirena lawsuits claims Mirena caused pseudotumor cerebri. This term means “false brain tumor.” This condition is also known as intracranial hypertension. Symptoms of intracranial hypertension mimic a brain tumor.

Accusations Against Bayer

Women who filed Mirena lawsuits accuse Bayer of knowingly harming them. They say Mirena’s label didn’t warn the them about serious complications. They want compensation for medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering.

Mirena lawsuits say Bayer
  • Misrepresented Mirena benefits
  • Failed to provide adequate warnings and instructions
  • Understated the product’s complications as “uncommon”
  • Used deceptive marketing
  • Concealed harmful side effects
  • Produced, sold and distributed defective products

How to File a Mirena Lawsuit

The first thing women who want to file a Mirena lawsuit should do is contact an attorney. Lawyers can help determine if there is a case depending on the injuries suffered.

For these types of cases, there is no fee for a consultation. If the attorney determines he or she will take the case, the client can choose to hire the attorney and sign a retainer agreement.

Then, the attorney files a complaint with the proper court.

Mirena Lawsuit Examples

Johnson v. Bayer

Desaree Nicole Lee Johnson filed a suit against Bayer after her device moved and cut into her uterus. She had surgery to remove it. Later, she became pregnant, but it ended in a miscarriage.

Johnson may now be infertile. She accused Bayer of knowingly releasing a defective and unsafe product.

Williams v. Bayer

Melody Williams accused Bayer of negligence and fraud. She also claimed the company failed to warn consumers of dangerous Mirena side effects. Williams experienced abdominal cramping and pain less than a year after receiving Mirena.

The first attempt to remove the device was unsuccessful. During a second surgery, doctors found that the device had “migrated through the opening of the plaintiff’s right fallopian tube.” Williams suffered from pain, infection and had to undergo many procedures.

She accused Bayer of “[willful] and reckless disregard for the public safety.”

Everett-Carey v. Bayer

Katrina Everett-Carey filed suit against Bayer after doctors diagnosed her with pseudotumor cerebri. Shortly after receiving Mirena, she experienced blurred vision and intense headaches. Her diagnosis came about a year after she began using Mirena.

“Defendants failed to adequately and properly test the Mirena both before and after placing it on the market,” the lawsuit said.

Is There a Time Limit to File?

A personal injury or product liability attorney can determine the time limit for each individual case. This is called statute of limitations. The time limit varies by state.

In some cases, the clock starts ticking from the moment the plaintiff knew Mirena injured them.

On average, the time limit to file a lawsuit is two to three years. But, some states like California or Tennessee may only give plaintiffs one year to file a lawsuit.

Mirena Lawsuit Settlement Amounts

As of July 2018, Bayer had only offered one publicly disclosed settlement.

In August 2017, the drug giant offered $12.2 million to settle 4,100 organ perforation cases.

The Master Settlement Agreement was drafted in April 2018. About 98 percent of plaintiffs must opt into the settlement in order for Bayer to pay out the money.

Mirena Class Action Lawsuits

There are currently no Mirena class actions pending in the U.S.

Instead, judges grouped federal Mirena lawsuits into two consolidated cases in New York. The courts call these multidistrict litigations (MDLs).

In January 2018, Bayer reported that five Canadian lawsuits applied for class action status.

Please seek the advice of a medical professional before making health care decisions.

Did you find Drugwatch helpful?

15 Cited Research Articles

  1. Bayer. (2018, April). Bayer Interim Report First Quarter of 2018. Retrieved from http://www.quarterly-report-2018-q1.bayer.com/
  2. New Jersey Courts. (2018, June 4). Mirena Caselist. Retrieved from  https://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/attorneys/assets/mcl/mirena/caselist.pdf
  3. U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. (2018, June 15). MDL Statistics Report - Distribution of Pending MDL Dockets by District. Retrieved from  http://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/Pending_MDL_Dockets_By_District-June-15-2018.pdf
  4. Lexis Legal News. (2017, August 14). Bayer, Plaintiffs Say They’ve Agreed to Settle Mirena IUD Perforation Claims. Retrieved from https://www.lexislegalnews.com/articles/19634/bayer-plaintiffs-say-they-ve-agreed-to-settle-mirena-iud-perforation-claims
  5. In Re: Mirena IUD Products Liability Litigation. (2016, July 28). Opinion & Order, United States District Court Southern District of New York, MDL No. 2434. Case 7:13-mc-02434-CS-LMS. Retrieved from  http://www.chamberlitigation.com/sites/default/files/cases/files/17171717/Opinion%20%26%20Order%20--%20In%20re%20Mirena%20IUD%20Products%20Liability%20Litigation%20%28USDC%20-%20Southern%20District%20of%20New%20York%29.pdf
  6. United States District Court District of New Jersey Newark Division. (2017, February 10). Everett-Carey v. Bayer et al.; Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial; Case 2:17-cv-00891. Retrieved from  https://jc6kx1c9izw3wansr3nmip8k-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2017-2-10-mirena-everett-carey-complaint.pdf
  7. Sieniuc, K. (2016, August 19). Wipeout of Mirena MDL to Be Challenged at 2nd Circ. Retrieved from  https://www.law360.com/articles/830589/wipeout-of-mirena-mdl-to-be-challenged-at-2nd-circ
  8. Grant, G.A. (2012, August 12). Notice to the Bar; Mass Torts – Application for Centralized Management (Multicounty Litigation) of New Jersey State-Court Litigation Involving Mirena Contraceptive Device. Retrieved from  http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/notices/2012/n120814b.pdf
  9. Barnett et. al v. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals. (2012, November 7). Retrieved from  http://www.pacer.gov
  10. Williams v. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc. (2012, November 2). Retrieved from  http://www.pacer.gov
  11. U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. (2017, April 6). In Re: Mirena IUS Levonorgestrel-Related Products Liability Litigation (No. II); Transfer Order. Retrieved from  http://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-2767-Initial_Transfer-03-17.pdf
  12. United States District Court Southern District of New York. (2016, November 14). In Re: Mirena IUD Products Liability Litigation; Case Management Order Re: Cases Transferred To MDL During Appeal. Retrieved from  http://nysd.uscourts.gov/file/mdl/865
  13. Lexis Legal News. (2016, November 15). Judicial Panel Reopens Mirena IUD MDL; Plaintiffs Cite Patent Hormone Disclosure. LexisNexis. Retrieved from  https://www.lexislegalnews.com/articles/12636/judicial-panel-reopens-mirena-iud-mdl-plaintiffs-cite-patent-hormone-disclosure
  14. United States Court of Appeals For The Second Circuit. (2017, November 16). In Re: Mirena IUD Products Liability Litigation; Summary Order. Retrieved from  http://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/16-2890_so.pdf
  15. U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. (2018, July 16). MDL Statistics Report - Distribution of Pending MDL Dockets by District. Retrieved from http://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/Pending_MDL_Dockets_By_District-July-16-2018.pdf
View All Sources
Who Am I Calling?

Calling this number connects you with Wilson and Peterson, LLP or one of its trusted legal partners. A law firm representative will review your case for free.

Wilson and Peterson, LLP funds Drugwatch because it supports the organization’s mission to keep people safe from dangerous drugs and medical devices.

(888) 645-1617

To contact Drugwatch Managing Editor Kevin Connolly, call (855) 839-9780.