Product Liability Lawsuit Filed Over Mirena IUD Migration

May 24, 2014
by Adler Markoff & Associates

Request A Free Consultation

(405) 607-8757

    Product Liability Lawsuit Filed Over Mirena IUD Migration

    A New York woman has filed a product liability lawsuit against Bayer, claiming that she became pregnant while using the company’s Mirena IUD and suffered numerous complications requiring surgery, because the device perforated her uterus and migrated into her abdomen. The Mirena IUD complaint was filed by Kristie B. Donovan on February 11, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York. Serious concerns have been raised about the safety of Bayer’s Mirena birth control device, after a number of complaints have highlighted the potential for the IUD to perforate the uterus and move into other parts of the body, sometimes requiring surgery to remove. If you used Bayer’s Mirena IUD device and you have since experienced a serious complication, contact our skilled attorneys at AMA Law today.


    According to Donovan’s lawsuit, her doctor inserted the Mirena intrauterine device (IUD), a small, T-shaped piece of plastic designed to remain in the uterus and prevent pregnancy for up to five years, in October 2006. In April 2011, Donovan discovered that she was pregnant, and testing revealed that the Mirena IUD was no longer located in her uterine cavity. After Donovan’s child was delivered in December 2011, radiographic testing found that the birth control device had migrated from the uterus and was located in Donovan’s upper abdomen. As a result, the plaintiff required multiple surgeries to remove the device, which Donovan says left her with severe and permanent injuries.


    Bayer faces mounting litigation over its Mirena IUD, and plaintiffs claim that the medical device maker failed to adequately warn consumers about the risk of side effects potentially occurring long after the birth control device is inserted. Although the Mirena warning label does include information about the potential risk of the IUD perforating the uterus, it suggests that the risk only exists at the time the doctor inserts the device. Instead, women across the country allege that they suffered “spontaneous” perforations and migrations caused by the Mirena IUD, which may occur after the device has been in place for some time.


    According to allegations raised in Donovan’s lawsuit, her doctor checked the implant roughly 45 days after it was inserted and confirmed that the device was in the proper place. The complaint accuses Bayer of manufacturing a device with a defective design, failure to warn, negligence, breach of warranty, strict liability, fraud and negligent misrepresentation, and Donovan is seeking compensatory and punitive damages in the suit. A motion is currently pending to consolidate and centralize all federal Mirena litigation as part of an MDL, or multidistrict litigation. If you have experienced a serious complication that you believe to have been caused by Bayer’s Mirena IUD, consult our knowledgeable lawyers at AMA Law to discuss the possibility of filing a product liability claim against Bayer for compensation

    Request a free consultation

    (405) 607-8757