Petition Filed for Mirena MDL. National law firm, Parker Waichman LLP, reports that a petition has been filed for a Mirena® IUD 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.
The most serious adverse events associated with the device
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)
Mirena® IUD Litigation
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.