The Clark Firm is No Longer Taking These Cases
If you feel that you may have a potential case, we urge you to contact another law firm adequately suited to handle your case.


November 25, 2013 — The Pennsylvania Record reports that a lawsuit has been filed by a woman from who suffered a uterine perforation caused by a Mirena IUD in spring 2011. The plaintiff, Sherry Broadwater of Uniontown, Pennsylvania, filed her Mirena lawsuit in the Western District of Pennsylvania against Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals.

According to her complaint, Broadwater was implanted with the Mirena Intra-Uterine Device (IUD) in early 2010, when she was 29 years old. Afterward, she began experiencing severe abdominal discomfort, diarrhea, nausea, severe mood swings, general feelings of fever and sickness.

When she received a positive pregnancy test, she went to her doctor to have the Mirena IUD removed. When doctors were unable to locate Mirena, they assumed it had been “expulsed.” Instead, an abdominal X-ray in late 2011 showed that Mirena perforated her uterus and migrated into her abdominal cavity. She required surgery to remove the Mirena IUD.

Although the Mirena lawsuit was filed in Pittsburgh, Ms. Broadwater’s attorneys believe her case could be transferred to a federal litigation in the Southern District of New York. The Multi-District Litigation (MDL), which is like a Mirena class action lawsuit, was created in June 2013. As of October, at least 211 cases are pending: In Re: Mirena IUD Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2434.

Plaintiffs in the litigation accuse Bayer of failing to warn about spontaneous migration of Mirena. The label only warns about uterine perforations during implantation of the device, which is described as an “uncommon” event, despite the fact that hundreds of people have experienced the side effect.