Mirena IUDMirena IUD

Mirena – Update – Late 2016

The group of lawyers representing the plaintiffs in the various class actions commenced across Canada continue prosecution of this proposed Mirena class action.

Initially, the intention was to seek certification on a national basis in Alberta.  In 2015, the decision was made to seek certification in Ontario.  The defendants have taken exception to this decision and are seeking a stay (a permanent halt) of the Ontario action, presumably to force plaintiffs’ counsel to return to Alberta to seek certification there.  Plaintiffs’ counsel is resisting the defendants’ efforts in this regard.  It is anticipated that the defendants’ stay motion will be heard later this year or in early 2017.  There may be an appeal from that decision by either side. This will have the effect of further delaying the hearing of the motion to certify the case as a class action.  Accordingly, it is anticipated that the certification motion will be heard in late 2017 or early 2018.

We will post further updates as material events occur.

 In the meantime, class members are encouraged to take steps to obtain or at least preserve their medical records, both in respect to  insertion of the Mirena device and any injuries suffered after migration of the device.  Those suffering serious injury following migration are encouraged to contact Bryan McPhadden at: bmcphadden@mcst.ca.

***********************************************************************************

McPhadden Samac Tuovi LLP has commenced a proposed national class action against Bayer Inc. and other Bayer companies relating to the intrauterine contraceptive device known as Mirena. The lawsuit is on behalf of all persons throughout Canada who used the Mirena IUD.

Mirena is a T-shaped contraceptive device that is inserted inside a woman’s uterus.  There have been reports that Mirena causes uterine perforation, uterine embedment and spontaneous migration, which can lead to serious complications. If any of these take place, Mirena must be removed by a healthcare professional, sometimes by means of surgery.

In the lawsuit, it is the plaintiff’s position that patients should have been adequately warned about the risk of uterine perforation post insertion, uterine embedment and spontaneous migration.

We are interested in hearing from anyone who has used the Mirena IUD and may have experienced uterine perforation post insertion, migration of the device or other serious side effects.  

If you would like further information about this potential class action, you are invited to contact us for a free assessment of your case.  Please complete our online registration and we will begin assessing your ability to participate in this class action. 

 

 

  CLICK HERE TO REGISTER

Mirena® is a registered trademark of Bayer, Inc. and is used here only to identify the product in question.