Mirena IUD Migration and Perforation Leads to Lawsuit

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

The Mirena intrauterine device (IUD) seemed to be a dream come true for many women because it did not require remembering to take a daily pill. For some women, however, it also meant no more cramps, premenstrual syndrome (PMS) symptoms or even menstrual cycles.

The Mirena IUD is a plastic contraceptive device inserted into the uterus and effective for up to five years. While there were warnings about perforation during insertion, there was no mention that the device could migrate after it was placed. Erin Weed filed a Mirena IUD lawsuit on Nov. 20, 2013. According to the complaint, Weed had to have her device surgically removed on Feb. 27, 2009 “due to perforation and migration to the right side of the pelvis.”

Mirena has been available since 2000, but as noted in Weed’s Mirena lawsuit, “soon after the first sales and with increasing incidence up until the present, Bayer has received notices of complaints with the use of the IUD including embedment in the wall of the uterus and perforation of the wall, with need to do surgery to retrieve the device from the abdomen.”

An OBGYN often checks the device a few weeks after implantation, and women are then deemed “good to go” until the IUD needs to be replaced in a few years. If a woman doesn’t get regular checkups, she may not realize what’s happening.

Weed received her Mirena IUD on Nov. 17, 2005, and her follow-up appointment showed that the device was in place. A few years later, Weed was ready to have the IUD removed and requested the removal on Dec. 28, 2008. According to the Mirena IUD lawsuit, the device’s strings could not be found. Weed had been experiencing some abdominal pain, and it worsened over the winter holidays. Her pain “continued such that on or about January 2009, an abdominal x-ray was performed. This study located the Mirena IUD overlying the sacrum.” In a painful abdominal surgery on Feb. 27, 2009 the Mirena IUD was removed.

Weed says that “As a direct and proximate result of the failure of her defective IUD device and wrongful conduct of Bayer, (she) sustained and continues to suffer economic damages (including lost wages, medical and hospital expenses), severe and possibly permanent injuries, plus pain, suffering and emotional distress.” Even with good health insurance, the deductibles, co-pays and ongoing medical treatment for surgery can be debt-inducing. She says she believed, based on information provided both by her doctor and by Bayer, that if the Mirena IUD was in place during her follow-up appointment, there were no additional risks.

According to the Mirena IUD lawsuit, Bayer “failed to issue warnings of the risks associated with its IUD, which were commensurate with the risks of which it was aware, and Defendant concealed the knowledge which it had of the risks from Plaintiff, her prescriber, the medical professional generally and from government regulatory bodies including the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).” Had she known of the real Mirena IUD risks, Weed says she could have taken precautions. She’s suing Bayer for manufacturing defect, design defect, failure to warn, negligence, breach of warranties, fraud and misrepresentation, and consumer fraud.

The Mirena IUD lawsuit is Erin Weed v. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc., Case No. 2:13-cv-01041-EJF, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah.

Did You Experience Mirena IUD Migration or Perforation?

If you have a story similar to Weed’s, you might qualify for a Mirena legal claim and deserve compensation for your pain and suffering. Learn more by visiting the Mirena IUD Injury Class Action Lawsuit Settlement Investigation today. After you submit your story, a Mirena IUD attorney will be in touch if you qualify for a free claim review.