Overview
Mirena IUD lawsuits — MDL 2434, In re Mirena IUD Products Liability Litigation, S.D.N.Y. (White Plains), Judge Cathy Seibel (per JPML). Plaintiffs alleged Mirena (levonorgestrel IUD, Bayer) perforated the uterus or migrated, or caused other injuries (per complaints). Following expert exclusions and summary judgment for defendants (2016), ~1,300 perforation-related cases were dismissed; the Second Circuit affirmed (2017–2019, per court opinions), and the parallel New Jersey MDL terminated in April 2021 (per court records). New individual claims (e.g., breast-cancer-related complaint, N.D. Cal. 5:24-cv-03042) continue to be filed (per public dockets). The consolidated action is closed; we track the public record — we do not promise or predict outcomes.
Status of the science / claims: The consolidated MDL (perforation, migration, intrauterine-hole claims) was largely dismissed after expert exclusions and summary judgment for defendants, affirmed on appeal (per court opinions). New theories (e.g., breast cancer) appear in individual cases (per public dockets); causation is contested.
Companies involved
Settlement amounts
No global settlement is on the public record for the consolidated MDL; the consolidated cases were largely dismissed (per court orders and opinions). New individual cases are pending (per public dockets). No payout amount is available or can be promised.
Case count
| Month | Filed cases | Δ |
|---|---|---|
| Apr 1, 2021 | 0 | -450 |
| Jun 1, 2018 | 450 | +375 |
| Aug 1, 2016 | 75 | -1225 |
| Mar 1, 2016 | 1,300 | +700 |
| Jun 1, 2015 | 600 | — |
Key dates
- June 1, 2024New individual claims, e.g., breast-cancer-related complaint (N.D. Cal. 5:24-cv-03042, per public docket)
- April 1, 2021New Jersey MDL terminated (per court records)
- June 28, 2019Second Circuit affirms dismissal of IIH claims (per the court’s opinion)
- October 11, 2017Second Circuit affirms dismissal of 1,000+ claims (per the court’s opinion)
- May 4, 2016Summary judgment for defendants; ~1,225–1,300 cases dismissed (per court orders and reports)
- March 8, 2016Plaintiffs’ perforation experts excluded (per court orders and reports)
- June 1, 2015MDL 2434 established in S.D.N.Y. (per JPML)
Updates
- Updated Aug 1, 2026Seeded from research (Aug 31, 2026): MDL 2434 (S.D.N.Y., Judge Seibel) closed; new individual claims continue (per public dockets).
Notable filings
No notable filings recorded yet. Docket entries are added from public court records as they appear.
FAQ
What is the Mirena IUD lawsuit about?
Plaintiffs alleged Mirena (levonorgestrel IUD, Bayer) perforated the uterus or migrated, or caused other injuries (per complaints). The MDL was In re Mirena IUD Products Liability Litigation, MDL 2434, S.D.N.Y. (White Plains), Judge Cathy Seibel (per JPML).
What happened in the consolidated MDL?
Following expert exclusions and summary judgment for defendants in 2016, about 1,300 perforation-related cases were dismissed; the Second Circuit affirmed on appeal (2017–2019, per court opinions), and the parallel New Jersey MDL terminated in April 2021 (per court records).
Are new Mirena cases still being filed?
Yes — new individual claims continue to appear in the public dockets (for example, a breast-cancer-related complaint in N.D. Cal.) (per public dockets, 2025–2026).
Who is the defendant?
Bayer makes Mirena and is the principal defendant (per complaints and public reports).
How much will victims receive?
No global settlement is on the public record for the consolidated MDL; the consolidated cases were largely dismissed (per court orders and opinions). New individual cases are pending (per public dockets). No payout amount is available or can be promised.
Is there a statute of limitations?
Device-injury deadlines vary by state and by theory (including discovery rules). This is not legal advice — consult a licensed attorney about your deadline.
Think this matters to you?
This page is neutral reference material — not legal advice. If you were affected, the next step is a free case review with a licensed attorney working this matter.
Start free case review →