Eight more Mirena IUD lawsuits may be transferred from Illinois, Louisiana, Missouri and Mississippi courts to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. But if the defendant, Bayer, and the plaintiffs have anything to do with it, those cases will stay put.
The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation makes those decisions. The panel transfers cases that share certain factual questions to one multidistrict litigation court for pre-trial management. The judges already have placed 484 pending Mirena IUD lawsuits filed in federal court in the Southern District of New York.
The similarity among the centralized Mirena IUD lawsuits is each plaintiff’s claim that Mirena posed an unreasonably high and uninformed risk of uterine perforation and migration. Further, the warning with respect to those risks was inadequate.
A woman who has used Mirena and since has experienced any of the following conditions may be entitled to compensation:
•· Group-A streptococcal sepsis
•· Pelvic inflammatory disease (PID)
•· Embedment of the device in the uterine wall
•· Perforation of the uterine wall or cervix
Some believe that patients have expressed concern about Mirena in part because of the media coverage of Mirena IUD lawsuits. An article released in March and scheduled to be published in the medical journal Contraception said so. The authors called for physicians to acknowledge the influence of litigation and to provide “evidenced-based counseling” to potential Mirena patients.
The lawsuits are not about media coverage. The lawsuits surely are not about the reputation of the medical device. The lawsuits are about an unreasonable risk of patient injury about which physicians lacked the information to provide to patients. This is information which allegedly the manufacturer either knew or should have known.
A woman who experienced any of the aforementioned injuries after using Mirena can get a free consultation from one of the skilled product liability attorneys at Reich & Binstock.