Mirena Statute of Limitations Good News for Plaintiffs

Alexandria, LAOne main concern when filing a Mirena IUD claim is whether it is within the statute of limitations. But a federal judge in Louisiana recently ruled that the clock starts ticking when the plaintiff understands that she is the victim of a tort - much to Bayer’s dismay.

A number of Mirena victims may not be immediately aware that their pain and complications are due to Mirena side effects. Like plaintiff Latoya Barnes Thompson, who had the IUD implanted in 2011 but didn’t file a Mirena lawsuit until May of 2013, they could be living with such complications beyond the supposed two-year statute of limitations.

Latoya Barnes Thompson and her husband Jerry Thompson, Jr. filed a Mirena lawsuit against Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals asserting claims under Louisiana’s Products Liability Act. Bayer sought to dismiss the suit on the grounds that the Act sets forth a one-year prescriptive period for products liability claims. But U.S. District Judge Jay C. Zainey and the Louisiana Supreme Court held that “prescription commences when a plaintiff obtains actual or constructive knowledge of facts indicating to a reasonable person that he or she is the victim of a tort.”

Thompson claimed that she wasn’t aware that the Mirena birth control device could be the cause of her alleged Mirena side effects until she saw an advertisement on television in May 2013 that associated the IUD with her symptoms. (Thompson, et al. v. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc., No. 13-3702.)

However, the case is complicated. In her complaint, Thompson said that this is the second Mirena she had implanted: the first IUD was without complications for five years (the expiration date) when she had it removed and the second device implanted. She claims that the second IUD caused pain upon insertion and it fell out in June 2011. Thompson was hospitalized almost one year later, allegedly due to Mirena complications. Almost another year went by until she linked the Mirena to these complications. Still, the judge has allowed the case to proceed.

Deanna is following the Thompson v. Bayer case with great interest. The 25-year-old had the Mirena inserted in October 2011 and had it surgically removed in May of this year. “I didn’t know that this IUD was causing all my problems until I had it removed,” Deanna says. “I complained about pain and infections to my doctor for the past few years but he kept telling me that it was a bladder infection.”

But treatment for a bladder infection couldn’t help the damage Mirena caused. Frustrated and suffering even more pain, Deanna finally saw her Ob/Gyn. “She suggested that I have the IUD removed but the string couldn’t be found,” says Deanna.

“I had an ultrasound, which determined that the Mirena had to be surgically removed. I was sedated during the procedure and it was removed but it didn’t take away the infection, which I am still suffering from.”

Worse, Deanna found out a few months later that she was pregnant. “Sadly I miscarried at 10 weeks,” she says, crying. “I had two normal pregnancies and two healthy children before this IUD was implanted so I blame the Mirena. I can’t stop worrying whether or not I will ever be able to have another baby. And I want Bayer to know this: I’m so relieved that the drugmaker’s motion to dismiss the Thompson case was not granted. Perhaps there is hope for me and other Mirena victims.”