Mirena IUD Lawsuit Assistance: Resource4thePeople Reports Number of Cases Filed Continues to Increase in both State and Federal Courts

Share Article

Some cases have been consolidated because of similarity of allegations of spontaneous migrations and other serious side effects. Resource4thePeople's national network of attorneys will continue to offer free legal consultations for consumers seeking compensation for alleged IUD problems.

http://www.resource4thepeople.com/defectivemedicaldevices/mirena-IUD-lawsuits.html

Resource4thePeople announced today its latest consumer update involving lawsuits alleging that women suffered serious side effects as a result of their use of the Mirena Intrauterine Device.
The common allegations against the contraceptive's manufacturer, Bayer Health Care Pharmaceuticals, were outlined* by the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict litigation in assigning dozens of federal cases to a New York judge:

"The cases in this litigation primarily involve injuries allegedly caused by the Mirena intrauterine contraceptive system. The cases listed on Schedule A allege that the product may migrate away from its original position, perforate the uterus, and/or cause related injuries. The case listed on Schedule B alleges that the product causes autoimmune disorders."

The latest update involves the increased number of cases that have been filed by women who are seeking compensation over these Mirena IUD allegations.

For instance, in the federal court system, the number of cases in the multidistrict Mirena IUD litigation has now climbed to 159, as of the latest reporting date, Sept. 11, 2013**

The number of state court cases in a similar consolidation in New Jersey has now increased to at least 219 cases, according to the court file*** there.

"These multidistrict litigations on the state and federal level are both in the early stages and we anticipate significant increases in the number of consumer inquiries about their legal rights in connection with these allegations," said Resource4thePeople.

"Therefore, we will continue our policy of offering free consultations to consumers who may be alleging spontaneous migrations and other serious side effects as a result of their use of the Mirena IUD."

The federal cases** from across the country that have been consolidated are now being overseen by U.S. District Court Judge Cathy Seibel in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The 159 cases alleging that the Mirena IUD caused serious health problems before Judge Seibel reflect an increase of 36 over the last reported figures.

Judge Seibel has maintained a schedule of status hearings in which attorneys for the women seeking compensation over Mirena IUD allegations and defense lawyers brief her on the progress of the litigation.

Resource4thePeople will continue to update consumers interested in this litigation with regular updates of the proceedings as they advance.

"Judge Seibel has also outlined a plan for bellwether, or test cases, to be tried from lawsuits within this litigation although final dates have not been set," Said Resource4thePeople.

The court file in these cases shows that among the allegations are claims that the Mirena IUD migrated from its original positioning and subjected women to perforated uteruses and other serious side effects.

“As a result of these allegations, our team of attorneys will continue to review allegations that include claims of ectopic pregnancies, sepsis, perforations and ovarian cysts,” said Resource4thePeople.

Resource4thePeople also reports that among the most recent Mirena IUD lawsuits alleging serious side effects is one filed by an Ohio woman in a Pennsylvania federal court.****

That woman claims that a Mirena IUD migrated, punctured her cervix and has caused her serious health problems for which she has incurred medical and other expenses, according to the court file in the case.

The woman also claims that officials at Bayer Pharmaceuticals, the contraceptive's manufacturer, knew that the product posed such risks and put it on the marketplace without adequate warnings to consumers, according to the file.

The Mirena IUD received approval from the Food and Drug Administration in 2000 as a contraceptive and was approved to treat heavy menstrual bleeding in 2009.

The device is a t-shaped IUD, which, after being placed in the uterus, is supposed to serve as a method of preventing pregnancy for as many as five years. The method of contraception is the release into the uterus of the progestin levonorgestrel to prevent the release of eggs in a woman's ovaries.

"Our lawyers are now reviewing claims that the use of the Mirena IUD allegedly led to medical conditions including ectopic pregnancy, infertility, perforation of the uterine wall, cervix and pelvic organs, embedment of the device in the uterine wall or other organs, migration of the IUD, infertility, pelvic inflammatory disease and serious infections that may have required surgical removal of the device,” said Resource4thePeople.

Resource4the People notes that although the device's manufacturer, Bayer Pharmaceuticals, has marketed the device as a safe, convenient alternative to birth control pills and other contraceptives the FDA raised objections to that marketing plan and reacted against the campaign.

The FDA issued a warning letter***** to Bayer officials in 2010 in which FDA regulators objected to the marketing campaign, admonished Bayer and told the company that it was downplaying the health risks of the Mirena IUD while overstating its benefits.

"The program overstates the efficacy of Mirena, presents unsubstantiated claims, minimizes the risks of using Mirena, and includes false or misleading presentations regarding Mirena," the FDA said. "Thus, the program misbrands the drug in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act."

Sources:
*http://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-2434-Initial_Transfer-03-13.pdf
**http://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/Pending_MDL_Dockets_By_District-September-11-2013.pdf
***In Re: Mirena Multicounty Litigation, Bergen County Superior Court of New Jersey Case #297
**** Gonzalez v. Bayer Pharmaceuticals Corp. et al., Case # 2:13-cv-04082-JP, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
******http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/EnforcementActivitiesbyFDA/WarningLettersandNoticeofViolationLetterstoPharmaceuticalCompanies/UCM197229.pdf

Share article on social media or email:

View article via:

Pdf Print

Contact Author

Bill Callahan
iLawSuit
+1 (858) 602-2749
Email >
Visit website