For more information or confidential assistance
se habla español

Mirena IUD Migration Lawsuit Filed in Illinois District Court

Mirena patient with doctor

The Mirena IUD (intrauterine device) has proven exceptionally problematic for women across the United States. As such, its manufacturer Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is facing hundreds of lawsuits – worth millions of dollars – in courtrooms in several jurisdictions, all of which allege that the manufacturer knew or should have known that the device was prone to migration and suffered design defects.

Many of Mirena’s victims allege severe pain, bleeding, and abdominal damage as a result of the device migrating from the implantation site to various other areas of the body. This migration can cause a host of problems, and often requires unexpected and immediate surgery to remove the device and repair the area.

In a recently filed case, a 47-year old plaintiff alleges severe side effects from her Mirena IUD. Her lawsuit, which was filed on September 17, 2014, contains several causes of action against Bayer, and was filed in United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. 

Mirena IUD migration topic of complaint

The plaintiff’s complaint begins with a detailed review of the precarious marketing campaign associated with the Mirena IUD. In 2009, Bayer was contacted by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services regarding its “Simple Style Program” – which was targeted at “busy moms” looking for an “increase[d] level of intimacy, romance, and sexual satisfaction between partners.” In its complaint to Bayer, the Department of Health and Human Services noted that these claims were unsubstantiated and actually controverted by the data suggesting that the Mirena IUD could cause a 5 percent decrease in libido.  In addition, the Simple Style Program – which was offered in potential customers’ homes by a nurse practitioner – failed to mention that major difficulties possibly associated with the Mirena, including unexpected migration.

In May, 2004, the plaintiff was inserted with the Mirena device at her gynecologist’s office in the City of Chicago. The procedure was without complication at the time, and the plaintiff monthly checked the placement of the Mirena device to ensure it was properly positioned.

In 2006, despite the presence of the Mirena device, the plaintiff became pregnant and delivered a child via Caesarian section. During the procedure, her bladder was perforated and damaged. From 2007 onward, plaintiff experienced nothing but trouble with her Mirena IUD, including:

  • March 2007: Mirena IUD migration to the right side of the pelvis
  • October 2007: Migration outside of the uterus to the right adnexal region adjacent to the right ovary
  • November 2007: Laparoscopic surgery in order to remove the Mirena device and associated adhesions

Plaintiff’s causes of action

Based on the above experience with the Mirena device, the plaintiff alleged several causes of action against Bayer Pharmaceuticals, including:

  • Defective Manufacturing: The Mirena product was not manufactured properly and in such a way to render it usable for its intended purpose
  • Design Defect: The Mirena IUD was negligently designed, and is defective when compared with other contraceptives on the market with equal efficacy – and must lower risk
  • Negligence: Bayer Pharmaceuticals owed a duty of care to the plaintiff and breached that duty by selling a dangerous product and concealing possible dangers
  • Failure to Warn: Bayer knew of the problems with Mirena IUD migration and failed to warn patients nonetheless
  • Strict Liability: Bayer is in the business of manufacturing consumer goods, and is therefore under a strict duty to ensure all products are safe
  • Implied and Express Warranties: Bayer warranted that its products were safe for general use, and those products were actually unsafe
  • Negligent Misrepresentation: Bayer misrepresented the safety and efficacy of its products to consumers and healthcare providers, thereby placing patients at an unnecessary risk of harm and injury.

In her Mirena IUD lawsuit, the plaintiff seeks general and specific damages, as well as attorneys’ fees, court costs and compensation for future pain and discomfort. The plaintiff is also seeking punitive damages to redress any intentional misconduct by Bayer Pharmaceuticals.