Bayer Motions to Dismiss 450 Mirena IUD Lawsuits

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals filed a motion last week to dismiss close to 450 Mirena IUD lawsuits on the grounds that the cases exceed the applicable statute of limitations. The request came as the U.S. District Judge overseeing the litigation in White Plains, N.Y., Judge Cathy Seibel, gave both sides until June 3 to select a dozen Mirena lawsuits each to serve as an “initial disposition pool” with the goal of going to trial. The next hearing is scheduled for May 14, 2014.

In its motion to dismiss the Mirena lawsuits, Bayer used as an example a case brought by plaintiff Amanda Truitt. Truitt, who lives in Indiana, filed her Mirena IUD lawsuit in Texas court, alleging that she suffered nausea and vomiting after the IUD punctured her uterus and traveled to other areas of her body. Truitt was forced to undergo IUD removal surgery in 2011 to address the Mirena complications, but did not sue Bayer until two years later. According to Bayer’s motion, claims for product liability and personal injury are barred in both Texas and Indiana after two years.

Bayer said this dismissal motion would serve as an “exemplar” (excellent model) for the issue of statute of limitations for Mirena lawsuits. However, the lead plaintiffs’ attorney disagreed that Bayer’s motion in a single case could determine the outcome of the others; each state has different statutes of limitations.

More than 700 additional Mirena lawsuits are pending in New Jersey state courts.

Nature of the Mirena IUD

The FDA approved the Mirena IUD in December 2000. More than 2 million women in the United States use Mirena, with 15 million women users worldwide. However, the Mirena IUD device, which a doctor implants into a woman during an office visit, can dislodge, tearing the uterine wall and requiring surgical removal. Mirena’s label does not warn about spontaneous migration of the IUD, but only states that migration may occur if the uterus is perforated during insertion.

On the packaging label, perforation is described as an “uncommon” event and that spontaneous migration of the IUD is possible, but only may occur if the uterus is perforated during insertion. This packaging label is inadequate to properly warn consumers, according to the Mirena lawsuits against Bayer.

File a Mirena Class Action Lawsuit Claim

The rise of Mirena lawsuits being filed by women affected by the Mirena IUD device has spurred attorneys to create a Mirena class action lawsuit. If the Mirena class action lawsuit settles in favor of the plaintiffs, then the settlement will pay out claimants on an equal basis, or as deemed most fair and equal by the judge.

If you or a loved one received a Mirena IUD and suffered side effects such as pelvic inflammatory disease, ectopic pregnancy, perforation of the uterus or cervix, intrauterine pregnancy, pelvic pain, infection or more, you may have a legal claim for injury compensation. See if you qualify now by submitting your information to a Mirena injury lawyer for a free and confidential case evaluation:

Oops! We could not locate your form.