A Defendant in more than 1,000 Mirena lawsuit filings has moved to dismiss a claim over the IUD from a federal litigation established in the Southern District of New York, the National Law Journal reports.

According to a motion filed on April 8, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals said that claims filed by an Indiana woman are barred by the statute of limitations in Texas, where her case was brought more than two years after she underwent revision surgery to remove the birth control implant. This Mirena lawsuit should be dismissed on the grounds that statute of limitations regulations in both states require product liability claimants to file their case within two years, Bayer asserts. Included in claims brought by the plaintiff in this case are allegations that she allegedly suffered nausea and vomiting after the device spontaneously migrated away from her uterus and caused ovarian cysts.  She underwent a Mirena removal operation in 2011, according to the lawsuit.

15% of Mirena Lawsuit Claims in New York Could Be Barred, Bayer Says

Barring this Mirena claim would serve as an “exemplar” on statute of limitations rules, according to Bayer’s motion, which followed a Jan. 2 letter from a company attorney that estimated 15 percent of lawsuits over the IUD would also be dismissed on these grounds. “An early statute of limitations ruling would streamline discovery in many of those cases and would likely lead to voluntary dismissal by many plaintiffs and deter future filing of similarly time-barred cases,” the document states.

In response to Bayer’s motion in April, the federal litigation’s lead plaintiffs’ attorney said that dismissing one case may not necessarily impact the outcome of others. Each state has a different statute of limitations, his letter on Jan. 8 pointed out.

According to court documents from March 2014, a total of 428 lawsuits alleging spontaneous IUD migration, uterine perforations, infection, vaginal scarring and other complications had been filed in the New York federal court litigation. These cases similarly allege that Bayer failed to adequately warn about these side effects in its marketing of the IUD, which may have been designed defectively. As lawsuits against the company continue to move forward, however, Bayer has maintained that its warning about Mirena’s potential to perforate the uterus is adequate, the National Law Journal report indicates.

Filing a Mirena Lawsuit

Contact a lawyer at our Firm today to learn more about Mirena lawsuits, and whether you may be eligible to file a claim against Bayer. Call our Firm today at (877) 779-1414.

Published April 11, 2014 by