Mirena IUD Lawsuit

Birth control is a business with a lot of money at stake and has drug companies vying for the profits from birth control pills and other methods of contraception. Even given the age of the birth control pill (over 60 years), the drug companies are continuing to make new pharmaceutical and contraceptive devices at an unprecedented rate.

The Mirena IUD, on the United States market since 2001, comes from a long history of intrauterine devices, and its path appears to be just as troubled. A Mirena IUD can, among other things, perforate the uterus, causing a dangerous medical condition that needs to be addressed immediately.

The IUDs have long caused problems. In 2024, we are seeing Paragard IUD lawsuits because of similar problems.  Our firm is also handling cases for victims bringing a Depo-Provera brain tumor lawsuit.  We are not handling Mirena IUD claims.

What is an Intrauterine Device (IUD)?

An intrauterine device is a type of long-lasting birth control that is designed to be implanted directly into the uterus. There are only three hormonal IUDs currently available on the U.S. market: Skyla, Liletta, and Mirena.

Mirena is a little larger than a quarter. It is a t-shaped and is made of flexible plastic. It is designed to provide continuous birth control for up to five years. The device’s manufacturer, Bayer, is not entirely clear about how Mirena works. They know that it releases a steady dose of the hormone levonorgestrel to prevent pregnancy. They also suspect that it inhibits pregnancy by thickening cervical mucus (limiting the movement of sperm) and possibly by thinning the uterine lining. The Mirena must be implanted and removed by a doctor though surgery is not required unless there are problems. A Mirena IUD is said to last five years; the copper Paragard IUD lasts ten years, and the Nexplanon implant is expected to last three years. (Paragard is an intense focus of litigation still in 2020.)

There is no question that IUDs like Mirena are effective forms of birth control. They are said to be 99.7% effective, and there is no risk of user error on forgetting to take the pill or insert a diaphragm. So in spite of the cost (over $700) and the procedure required (again, it is inserted into the uterus through the cervix, not an appealing idea for many women), the convenience of IUDs led to widespread usage.

But IUDs in this country have a pretty horrific history. In the 1970s, one particular IUD, the Dalkon Shield, had an awful design that left a woman at grave risk for infection. As a result, ten women died, and the FDA had to pull the product from the market. The infections also left thousands more infertile and led to over $400 million in settlements before its’ manufacturer went out of business.

IUDs mostly vanished from the United States. Now, led by Bayer and other companies drawn to the potential gold mine that is successful birth control medication, they have reemerged. The question is, are they safe? While some disagree, the message we are increasingly getting from victims is no.

Mirena IUD Injuries

Serious complications have emerged with Mirena. Many patients have problems because the Mirena becomes embedded in the wall of the uterus. Getting it out of the uterus can be a challenge.

Even more concerning is a perforation. This occurs when the IUD migrates into the abdominal cavity. This can lead Mirena to become embedded not in the uterus but in the bowel, bladder or another adjacent organ. This can require abdominal surgery. Adhesions are also a concern. In some cases, future pregnancies can be impacted.

Other injuries include:

• pseudotumor cerebri/idiopathic intracranial hypertension.
• puncture of the uterus
• infection, sometimes causing death
• Pelvic Inflammatory Disease (PID) (a type of infection of the reproductive organs)
• bleeding
• inflammation
• infertility
• abscesses
• permanent pelvic pain

In severe cases, the IUD must be removed surgically. Sometimes surgical repairs are required, and removal of the uterus (hysterectomy) may be necessary.

Mirena IUD Lawsuits

There are many Mirena pseudotumor cerebri/idiopathic intracranial hypertension cases. They were combined into a type of class action known as a “mass tort.” The cases shared common discovery, which is an efficient way to conduct cases where there are many injuries arising from the same defective medical device.

These cases have not gone far. Today, the Mirena IUD migration lawsuits in the MDL are not moving forward. Our lawyers are not taking Mirena cases in 2024 and we do not know any attorneys who are. Were there some IUD settlements? Yes. But the payouts in these cases were extremely low. This Mirena IUD litigation was ultimately unsuccessful for victims and their lawyers.

But you are seeing a lot of lawyers online trying to get these cases, right? If you are reading online that there are lawyers that want these cases, is is most likely because they have not updated their websites. These cases were dismissed in 2016 and that dismissal was affirmed by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in 2017. The second round of cases were dismissed in 2019. Take a look at the timeline below.

Could these cases one day make a comeback after plaintiffs accumulate more evidence? Absolutely. But right now, it is fair to see these Mirena lawsuits are not going anywhere.

We are sorry if you are just getting this news now from us. Many women are still calling us with migration and IIH cases. They are angry and they have every right to be. But right now, there does not seem to be a path to compensation for these victims.

Will My Mirena IUD Lawsuit Reach a Settlement or Will I Need to Go to Trial?

Of course, we once had a different answer to this question. This is a new answer after deleting a lot of positive talk about these cases (that clearly did not age well). The settlement prospects for the Mirena cases are bleak, to put it mildly.

• May 2024 Update: A new class action lawsuit, Travette Copeland and Lila Chu, et al. v. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc., Case No. 5:24-cv-03042, was filed in the Northern District of California. The lawsuit alleges that Bayer failed to warn doctors and patients about a statistically significant increased risk of breast cancer linked to the use of the Mirena IUD. According to the plaintiffs, studies show a 20-30% excess risk of breast cancer among Mirena users compared to non-users of hormonal contraceptives. Despite knowledge of these studies, Bayer did not update the product warnings or notify the FDA, the suit claims.
• August 2022 Update: The FDA approved an extension of the Mirena IUD’s use for up to 8 years, a development that raised further scrutiny of the device’s safety amid ongoing litigation.
• March 2022 Update: Class action lawsuit filed in California alleging Mirena causes breast cancer.
• April 2021 Update: New Jersey MDL is terminated.
• June 2019 Update:  The Second Circuit upheld the dismissal of a multidistrict litigation (MDL) against Bayer over claims that its Mirena IUD caused idiopathic intracranial hypertension, a disorder mimicking brain tumor symptoms. The panel affirmed the district court’s exclusion of the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses, agreeing that the court had properly conducted a “rigorous examination” of their methodologies. The district judge had ruled earlier in 2019 that the plaintiffs failed to prove causation, leading to the closure of all cases in the MDL.
• April 2018 Update: Judge will hold “Science Day” to educate the judge on the medical and scientific issues associated with the Mirena intrauterine device.
• March 2018 Update: There are now over 400 intracranial hypertension lawsuits pending in federal court in New York.
• April 2017 Update: The MDL Panel ruled to centralize all of the intracranial hypertension lawsuits in New York.
• July 2016 Update: Judge dismisses all 1,300 perforation cases pending in the MDL because she rejected the testimony of the plaintiffs’ experts, finding that their testimony was unreliable. In October 2017, the Second Circuit affirmed the courts ruling, effectively ending the migration/perforation cases.
• February 2016 Update: Pseudotumor Cerebri lawsuit is filed in New Jersey.
• September 2015 Update:  Separate MDL established in New Jersey for claims regarding pseudotumor cerebri.
• August 2015 Update: American College of Obstetrics & Gynecology reports that out of 5,000 women who used Mirena, 10 percent had the devices expelled within three years
• May 2015 Update: Judge Cathy Seibel told the parties that another group of five Mirena cases will advance toward the trial in late 2016 or early 2017.
• September 2014 Update: These cases are getting ready for trial. Well, sort of. The twelve Mirena IUD lawsuits that are going to go first in federal court have been selected.
• 2013 Update: The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) establishes a federal multidistrict litigation (MDL) for Mirena IUD lawsuits to consolidate pretrial proceedings and streamline the litigation process. The MDL is established in the Southern District of New York.

So settlement value of Mirena cases is now approaching zero. These are longer viable claims in our opinion. We are not taking these claims and, regrettably, we do not know any lawyers that are. The pseudotumor and cerebri idiopathic intracranial hypertension cases — which we were once very high on — are free falling after a federal judge struck all of the plaintiffs’ causation witnesses in June 2019.

For More Information

• Summary of court ruling dismissing the cases (most defense lawyer gloating type thing)
• 2767 IN RE: Mirena IUS Levonorgestrel-Related Products Liability Litigation (No. II) was disbanded on July 13, 2021
• 2nd Circuit opinion affirming dismissal of Mirena lawsuits
• An article that largely defends the Mirena IUD and calls the side effects rare. Okay. But read the comments to the article. It does not seem so unusual, does it?