San Diego, CA (PRWEB) January 13, 2014
Resource4thePeople today announced today that its national network of attorneys will continue to offer no-cost consultations in 2014 to consumers who are seeking compensation over allegations that the Mirena IUD contraceptive may cause serious health problems.
“We are proud to announce that our policy of providing these consultations to consumers inquiring about allegations of Mirena IUD failures contained in hundreds of federal lawsuits* and the legal options that may be available to them will be resumed in 2014,” said Resource4thePeople.
The announcement was made after numerous inquiries were received from consumers about whether Resource4thePeople's national network of attorneys would, after 2013, continue to offer these consultations involving Mirena IUD allegations, said Resource4thePeople.
“The continued increase in the number of consumers inquiring about allegations of defects in Mirena IUDs has paralleled the increase in numbers in a large multidistrict litigation* and demonstrates that there are a great number of affected consumers seeking experienced, aggressive legal help,” said Resource4thePeople.
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.
Resource4thePeople also announced today that it will continue to provide consumers with updates about the allegations involved in Mirena IUD lawsuits from across the country that have been consolidated before a federal judge in New York.
Recent figures** provided by the U.S. Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation show that there are currently at least 267 federal Mirena IUD lawsuits involving these allegations being overseen by U.S. District Court Judge Cathy Seibel.
“These new figures show that more consumers are coming forth with Mirena IUD lawsuits containing allegations similar to those that have been filed previously in this litigation,” said Resource4thePeople.
The federal multidistrict panel that assigned the cases to Judge Seibel detailed the allegations that have been made against the contraceptive's manufacturer, Bayer Health Care Pharmaceuticals, in this summary:***
"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 cases listed on Schedule B allege that the product causes autoimmune disorders."
“We anticipate many more such cases being filed over these allegations and are advising consumers in their inquiries that it is not too late to file their own claims and seek compensation,” said Resource4thePeople.
"However, there may be legal time limits involved -- which were a factor in one of the cases that Bayer sought to have dismissed -- so we are urging consumers to contact us as soon as possible to preserve all legal options that may be available to them," said Resource4thePeople.
One dismissal motion lost by Bayer involved a case in which U.S. District Judge Jay C. Zainey of the Eastern District of Louisiana refused to dismiss a Mirena IUD lawsuit brought under the Louisiana Products Liability Act against Bayer.****
Another case involved a denial of a Bayer motion to dismiss issued by U.S. District Judge Joseph H. McKinley Jr. of Kentucky involving a similar Mirena IUD lawsuit.***** The judge also ruled that the plaintiff will be allowed to amend the complaint in the case.
Resource4thePeople is also reporting that there are over 300 other cases in a state multidistrict litigation****** involving similar allegations that have been consolidated before a New Jersey state judge according the state court file in those cases.
The court file in those 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.
Resource4thePeople's national network of attorneys will continue to review allegations that include claims of ectopic pregnancies, sepsis, perforations and ovarian cysts.
"Among the allegations in these cases is that the use of the Mirena IUD 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 also notes that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration raised objections to the marketing of the device as a safe, convenient alternative to birth control pills and other contraceptives.
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."
*MDL - 2434 IN RE: Mirena IUD Products Liability Litigation, Judge Cathy Seibel, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
****Thompson, et al. v. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc., No. 13-3702, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana
*****Bosch, et al. v. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc., No. 3:13-656, U.S. District Court, Western District of Kentucky
******In Re: Mirena Multicounty Litigation, Bergen County Superior Court of New Jersey Case #297