The Wandering Mirena IUD Spawns Yet Another Lawsuit

New York, NYOne of the latest entries in a parade of lawsuits alleging Mirena birth control side effects was transferred earlier this fall into multidistrict litigation (MDL 2434) following its initial filing in US District Court, Western District of New York, on September 4, 2014.

The Mirena side effects allegedly suffered by the plaintiff are similar to events that have befallen a number of women lured to the intrauterine device with promises of convenience.

Unlike oral contraceptives, dermal patches or other contraceptive devices such as sponges, the Mirena birth control device is inserted by a doctor or other health care professional. Once inserted, the Mirena is designed to work quietly in the background for a period of up to five years before it becomes discharged. The product has been embraced by busy women who are looking for a foolproof method of birth control that does not rely on remembering to take an oral contraceptive, change a dermal patch or manage a contraceptive sponge.

The manufacturer, Bayer AG, has been reportedly marketing Mirena to teens, and their parents have been supportive of a product that can effectively prevent unwanted pregnancies without the need for day-to-day supervision. Parents and teens hoping to avoid teen pregnancies at all costs have been embracing Mirena in kind.

Bayer, for its part, has always maintained that Mirena is safe and effective. However, a growing chorus of plaintiffs suggest otherwise.

One of the latest lawsuits alleging grievous Mirena side effects was filed by plaintiffs Lisa and Joseph Estes. According to court documents, Lisa Estes’ physician inserted the intrauterine device in January 2012. It was expected the device, as designed, would remain at the original insertion point for the duration of its five-year life span.

However, in similar fashion to what others have experienced, Estes alleges that the Mirena device migrated away from its initial insertion point a little more than a year following insertion, causing spontaneous Mirena uterine perforation. Estes had to have the problematic device removed. She and her partner allege that Bayer Mirena warnings were insufficient, and that Bayer concealed the risk of spontaneous perforation and migration.

The Mirena birth control side effects lawsuit includes strict products liability claims for failure to warn, defective design and manufacturing design, and claims for negligence and loss of consortium on behalf of Estes’ husband. Defendants are Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc., Bayer Oy, and Bayer Pharma AG.

The case is Estes et al v. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al, Case No. 7:14-cv-07662.