Mirena Lawsuit Alleges Unsettling Harm

Cedar Rapids, IAMirena side effects lawsuits tend to allege migration of Mirena birth control resulting in uterine perforation. But a recent lawsuit reportedly alleges that the Mirena device actually migrated from the plaintiff’s uterus to her rectum.

According to Courthouse News Service (9/22/14), Jennifer Martin alleges that she had an IUD inserted in July 2012, but in September had a positive pregnancy test. When she had an ultrasound, the IUD was not seen in her uterus or pelvis. A month after Martin miscarried she had surgery to locate the IUD. That surgery reportedly did not find the IUD in her liver, spleen or stomach. The IUD was eventually found after a rectal exam.

Martin’s lawsuit seeks punitive damages and alleges the device was defectively designed and manufactured and that Bayer Healthcare failed to adequately warn about the risks associated with Mirena.

Lawsuits have been filed against Bayer alleging women were harmed by the use of Mirena, an IUD birth control. The plaintiffs claim the device migrated after it was implanted, causing pain, vaginal hemorrhage and embedding of the device in the uterine wall.

There are also nine lawsuits alleging Mirena is linked to an increased risk of neurological conditions. Plaintiffs recently attempted to have the lawsuits centralized into one action. The US Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation refused to do so, however.

The panel found that because of the low number of suits, and because they are all filed by the same plaintiffs’ counsel against the same defendant, there is no need for centralization. The plaintiffs allege Mirena is linked to an increased risk of pseudotumor cerbri (also known as idiopathic intracranial hypertension), a condition that has been linked to vision loss and headaches.

The judges noted that the possibility of the number of lawsuits growing does not mean centralization is needed, even though the panel did find that they shared many factual issues. One issue that was not common, according to the panel, was the nonspecific nature of the neurological symptoms, which the panel felt could require an inquiry into each plaintiff’s diagnosis.

It is possible that if more lawsuits are filed the panel will reconsider a motion to consolidate the lawsuits. For now, however, the majority of claims involve Mirena migration and perforation.