Parker Waichman LLP Reports On Petition Filed for Mirena MDLJan 17, 2013
National law firm, Parker Waichman LLP, reports that a petition has been filed for a Mirena® multidistrict litigation (MDL). The plaintiff’s attorneys have filed a motion to transfer the cases to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, before the Honorable Patricia A. Gaughan.
A multidistrict litigation is created when complex litigation has common questions of fact; in this case, Mirena® IUD lawsuits allege that the IUD is defective and can spontaneously migrate outside of the uterus, causing injuries. By centralizing the lawsuits in one court before one judge, pre-trial proceedings will be more efficient and duplicate findings will be avoided.
Bayer’s Mirena®, an intrauterine device (IUD), received U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) approval in 2000. A hormonal IUD that is placed inside the uterus by a healthcare professional, Mirena® can remain in the body for up to five years. Mirena® slowly releases the hormone levonorgestrel while implanted.
According to the FDA, the most serious adverse events associated with the device since its time on the market include:
- Perforation of the uterine wall
- Embedment of the device in the uterine wall
- Ectopic pregnancy
- Intrauterine pregnancy
- Group A streptococcal sepsis
- Pelvic inflammatory disease (PID)
According to the American Association for Justice (AAJ) - Mirena® IUD Litigation Group, the surgery required to remove the Mirena® IUD when it perforates and migrates outside the uterus can lead to a number of injuries, including organ damage, adhesions, and infections. Matthew J. McCauley, Senior Litigation Counsel at Parker Waichman LLP, co-chairs the Group.
The Department of Health and Human Services’ Division of Drug Marketing, Advertising, and Communications (DDMAC) reprimanded Bayer in 2009 for having overstated the benefits of Mirena® and failing to mention the device’s risks in the company’s “Simple Style” program.
The case is In Re: Mirena IUD Product Liability Litigation, Case No. 1:12-CV-2780.