A Kentucky woman suing Bayer Healthcare over injuries allegedly caused by the company’s Mirena IUD is asking the New York federal judge overseeing the multidistrict litigation (MDL) not to throw out her lawsuit based exceeding the one-year statute of limitations for personal injuries in her state until the New Jersey Supreme Court rules on the same issue in an Accutane case.
The New Jersey high court is currently weighing whether New Jersey law on statute of limitations or the law of a consumer’s state of residence should determine if a claim was filed on time.
Amanda Vanhook’s attorneys argued that New Jersey has the most significant relationship to their plaintiff’s claims since the Mirena IUD was marketed there and “virtually all” of the company’s regulatory decisions about the IUD have occurred in New Jersey. Her attorneys also claimed that while she was inserted with the device in Kentucky, all the actions that led to her injury happened in New Jersey.
Vanhook claims that she was implanted with the contraceptive device in 2011 and went to her doctor in January 2012 to have the device removed. However, her IUD had become embedded in her uterine lining and couldn’t be removed without her first undergoing a D&C, hysteroscopy and laparoscopy to be sure the device had not migrated into her abdomen, her complaint states. She filed her lawsuit against Bayer in December 2013.
In December 2015, U.S. District Judge Cathy Seibel tossed out 10 lawsuits in the multidistrict litigation, including three she found to have violated the statute of limitations. Bayer has asked the judge to dismiss about 30 more cases from the lawsuit for the same reason.