ALERT: Your health is top priority. We’re committed to providing reliable COVID-19 resources to keep you informed and safe.

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, dislodging from the uterus and causing pressure buildup in the skull. Bayer offered to settle some perforation lawsuits for $12.2 million.

Thousands of women nationwide sued Bayer Pharmaceuticals over Mirena birth control after they say it perforated the uterus, damaged organs and caused pseudotumor cerebri — an abnormal fluid buildup in the skull. These women say Mirena complications led to diminished quality of life and they live in fear of future complications.

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

Currently, there are no Mirena class action lawsuits in the U.S., but there are three main groups of individual lawsuits, two in New York and one in New Jersey. So far, Bayer has only offered to settle perforation lawsuits.

Federal, Multicounty Suits Allege Injuries

Mirena litigation is ongoing, and Bayer has offered one publicly disclosed settlement. In August 2017, the drug giant offered $12.2 million to settle organ perforation cases. Lawyers drafted the master settlement agreement in April 2018.

As of Aug. 17, 2018, Bayer estimated the settlement would include 4,600 claims. About 98 percent of plaintiffs must opt into the settlement in order for Bayer to pay out the money.

There are two large groups of Mirena cases in federal multidistrict litigations (MDLs). Both are in the Southern District of New York. One is for organ perforation lawsuits, and the other is for pseudotumor cerebri lawsuits. There is also an active multicounty litigation in New Jersey for perforation and migration.

Migration, Organ Perforation

Women in MDL 2434 claim the IUD perforated their organs. This is when the device pokes a hole through an organ, such as the uterus. Perforation can occur during insertion or any time after. Lawsuits say that Bayer never properly warned women that the device could cut through organs.

Mirena IUD in hand
Mirena IUD can fit in the palm of a hand.

Similar to perforation lawsuits, migration lawsuits allege the device migrated outside the uterus. Migration leads to injuries such as perforation and organ damage. In cases where the IUD migrates, women likely need to have Mirena surgically removed. Some women who filed lawsuits had to have multiple surgeries to correct complications.

The judge dismissed 1,230 of these cases in 2016. Lawyers for the plaintiffs appealed the dismissal, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal in October 2017.

The last of these lawsuits were resolved by mid-September 2018, and Bayer offered $12.2 million to settle these cases and perforation claims in other courts. As of April 2019, only one case was still pending in the MDL.

Pseudotumor Cerebri Injuries

In the newest group of Mirena lawsuits, women in MDL 2767 claim Mirena caused pseudotumor cerebri. This term means “false brain tumor.” Unlike perforation or migration claims that deal with physical damage related to the IUD moving from the uterus, these claims say the hormone inside Mirena, levonorgestrel, is to blame.

The hormone can cause an abnormal elevation of cerebrospinal fluid in the skull, resulting in pseudotumor cerebri (also known as idiopathic intracranial hypertension).

According to these lawsuits, Bayer misled plaintiffs about the implant’s safety by not properly explaining how the hormone works. Because this hormone is more active than other similar birth control hormones, it is more likely to cause side effects, lawsuits say. Specifically, women who used Mirena or other levonorgestrel products more commonly develop pseudotumor cerebri.

There were 917 lawsuits pending in this MDL as of April 2019. In April 2018, plaintiffs and defendants gathered to go over the medical and scientific issues surrounding Mirena, according to the court docket. Discovery is ongoing.

New Jersey Lawsuits Consolidated

Like the New York MDL, Mirena lawsuits in New Jersey say the IUD migrated and caused injuries. The court consolidated these cases into a multicounty litigation (No. 297) in New Jersey Superior Court Bergen County. In July 2018, there were more than 1,800 active cases.

But on May 9, 2018, Bergen County Superior Court Judge Rachelle L. Harz dismissed a large group of cases because they had passed the statute of limitations. Shortly after, Bayer and the remaining plaintiffs entered into a confidential master settlement with a deadline to respond by June 29, 2018. However, attorneys for plaintiffs said many of their clients didn’t respond.

In a case management order dated Aug. 31, 2018, Judge Harz ruled that plaintiffs who do not appear before the court or respond with their intent to join the settlement by Oct. 9, 2018 will have their cases dismissed. The outcome of that hearing wasn’t immediately available.

Women Want Bayer to Pay

Women who filed Mirena lawsuits accuse Bayer of knowingly harming them, and they want compensation for medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering.

Lawsuits say plaintiffs suffer “diminished enjoyment of life and a future of high risk pregnancies and infertility, as well as the need for lifelong medical treatment, monitoring and/or medications, and fear of developing any of the above named health consequences.”

“When placed in the stream of commerce, Mirena contained unreasonably dangerous design defects and was not reasonably safe as intended to be used, subjecting the Plaintiff to risks that exceeded the benefits.”

In addition, Bayer misrepresented Mirena’s risks as “uncommon” and hid the harmful side effects from women and their doctors, lawsuits allege. They also are accused of using deceptive marketing that targeted mothers and portrayed Mirena as safe and convenient.

Examples of Mirena Cases
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.
Illustration of Mirena Insertion
Mirena Lawsuits Facts
  1. Injuries Organ perforation, device migration, ectopic pregnancy, pseudotumor cerebri
  2. Defendant Bayer
  3. Top Settlement $12.2 million

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

Michelle Llamas, Senior Content Writer
Written By Michelle Llamas Senior Writer

Michelle Llamas has been writing articles and producing podcasts about drugs, medical devices and the FDA for nearly a decade. She focuses on various medical conditions, health policy, COVID-19, LGBTQ health, mental health and women’s health issues. Michelle collaborates with experts, including board-certified doctors, patients and advocates, to provide trusted health information to the public. Some of her qualifications include:

  • Member of American Medical Writers Association (AMWA) and former Engage Committee and Membership Committee member
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Health Literacy certificates
  • Original works published or cited in The Lancet, British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology and the Journal for Palliative Medicine
Edited By
Medically Reviewed By
Dr. John A. Daller
Dr. John A. Daller American Board of Surgery

18 Cited Research Articles writers follow rigorous sourcing guidelines and cite only trustworthy sources of information, including peer-reviewed journals, court records, academic organizations, highly regarded nonprofit organizations, government reports and interviews with qualified experts. Review our editorial policy to learn more about our process for producing accurate, current and balanced content.

  1. Bayer. (2018, April). Bayer Interim Report Second Quarter of 2018. Retrieved from
  2. In Re: Mirena IUD Products Liability Litigation. (2018, May 9). Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division: Bergen County. Order of Dismissal. Case No. 297. Retrieved from
  3. In Re: Mirena IUD Products Liability Litigation. (2018, August 31). Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division: Bergen County. Case Management Order No. 56. Case No. 297. Retrieved from
  4. In Re: Mirena IUS Levonorgestrel-Related Products Liability Litigation (NO. II). (2017, October 23). United States District Court Southern District Of New York. Complaint and Jury Demand. MDL No. 2767. Case 1:17-cv-08163. Retrieved from
  5. New Jersey Courts. (2018, June 4). Mirena Caselist. Retrieved from
  6. U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. (2018, June 15). MDL Statistics Report - Distribution of Pending MDL Dockets by District. Retrieved from
  7. Lexis Legal News. (2017, August 14). Bayer, Plaintiffs Say They’ve Agreed to Settle Mirena IUD Perforation Claims. Retrieved from
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. Sieniuc, K. (2016, August 19). Wipeout of Mirena MDL to Be Challenged at 2nd Circ. Retrieved from
  11. 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
  12. Barnett et. al v. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals. (2012, November 7). Retrieved from
  13. Williams v. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc. (2012, November 2). Retrieved from
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. Lexis Legal News. (2016, November 15). Judicial Panel Reopens Mirena IUD MDL; Plaintiffs Cite Patent Hormone Disclosure. LexisNexis. Retrieved from
  17. United States Court of Appeals For The Second Circuit. (2017, November 16). In Re: Mirena IUD Products Liability Litigation; Summary Order. Retrieved from
  18. U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. (2019, April 15). MDL Statistics Report - Distribution of Pending MDL Dockets by District. Retrieved from
View All Sources
Who Am I Calling?

Calling this number connects you with a Drugwatch representative. We will direct you to one of our trusted legal partners for a free case review.

Drugwatch's trusted legal partners support the organization's mission to keep people safe from dangerous drugs and medical devices. For more information, visit our partners page.

(888) 645-1617