First Mirena Case Trial, Baugh v. Bayer, Scheduled To Start May 6, 2013 In South Carolina Federal District Court
UPDATE: "Plaintiffs granted consolidation in Bayer IUD lawsuits" (Reuters, 4/24/13)
Over opposition from Bayer AG, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has consolidated more than 40 personal injury lawsuits stemming from the drugmaker's Mirena intrauterine contraceptive.
The judicial panel in Washington on April 8 ruled that overarching commonalities in the cases, which had been filed in federal courts across the country, supported granting consolidation....
The Mirena lawsuit Kelli Baugh v. Bayer Corporation (USDC, District of South Carolina, 4:11-cv-00525) is scheduled for a May 6, 2013 trial date. If this Mirena trial goes forward as currently set, it will be the first Mirena trial in the U.S. for this relatively new and still growing drug / device injury litigation.
In simple terms, the Baugh lawsuit alleges that the design of the Mirena intrauterine device (IUD) allows for the migration of the device through the uterine lining because the way that the Mirena works, essentially, is by thinning the uterine lining.
As a result of this "side effect" happening to Kelli Baugh in South Carolina, this woman in her twenties had to have a total hysterectomy, is now in surgically-induced menopause, and has to take estrogen daily.
Some of the Mirena lawsuits against Defendant Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., have been filed in the federal court Mirena MDL -- In Re: Mirena IUD Products Liability Litigation, Multidistrict Litigation No. 2434, United States District Court, Southern District of New York, with Judge Cathy Seibel presiding -- which was commenced by means of an April 8, 2013 Transfer Order.
Most of the other Bayer Mirena drug / device cases have been filed in the New Jersey state court system, as Bayer has a corporate headquarters in New Jersey.
Strictly Confidential, No Obligation.
As background, the Mirena IUD is a plastic device containing a hormone, the drug levonogestrel, which is released slowly over time. With the Mirena, both the drug and the device work to prevent pregnancy. The Mirena IUD was first marketed in the United States in 2000. Since then, however, Bayer has received notices of complications or side effects with the use of the Mirena including embedment in the wall of the uterus and perforation of the wall, then the subsequent need to do surgery in order to retrieve the Mirena IUD device from the abdomen.
In the Mirena lawsuits filed to date it is alleged that the device embedments and IUD-related perforations are caused by the defective design of this Bayer IUD. Further, these Mirena legal cases allege that Defendant Bayer failed to issue sufficient warnings of the risks associated with its Mirena IUD as regards the risks of device migration and perforation.
In some instances a Mirena IUD perforation incident can be discovered with the sudden onset of pain. With other incidents there is no such acute pain and the Mirena migration might be identified by: (1) an ultrasound or x-ray; (2) at the time of 5-year routing removal; or, (3) unexpected pregnancy due to device migration.
We have extensive experience working on legal compensation cases involving unsafe birth control methods such as YAZ / Yasmin / Ocella, the NuvaRing, and Ortho Evra. This past legal and practical experience with these types of cases will serve the interests of our Mirena clients in this relatively new drug injury / device litigation.