Mirena® IUD Birth Control Perforated and Migrated Outside of Uterus, According to Personal Injury Lawsuit Filed by Parker Waichman LLP

Share Article

Parker Waichman LLP has filed lawsuit alleging that the Mirena® IUD caused a Pennsylvania woman substantial pain and suffering. According to the lawsuit, Mirena® perforated her uterus and migrated to the area of the sacrum, located at the base of the spine; the IUD was then found behind the Plaintiff’s left ovary when she underwent laparoscopic surgery to have the device removed.

News Image
An x-ray revealed that the Mirena® IUD had migrated to the area of the sacrum, the large triangular bone at the base of the spine.

Parker Waichman LLP, a national law firm dedicated to protecting the rights of victims injured by defective drugs and medical devices, has filed a lawsuit on behalf of a Pennsylvania woman who suffered injuries as an alleged result of using the Mirena® IUD. The suit was filed on November 30th in the Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division, Morris County. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals have been named as the Defendants. (Docket No. MRS-L-2927-12)

According to the Complaint, the Plaintiff received the Mirena® IUD in July 2009. The suit states that the Plaintiff appeared to tolerate the initial procedure well, and neither she nor her doctor had reason to believe that the device perforated her uterus. During a follow-up visit in 2010, her doctor was not able to see the strings attached to the IUD, nor was she able to locate the device by ultrasound or hysteroscopy. An x-ray revealed that the Mirena® IUD had migrated to the area of the sacrum, the large triangular bone at the base of the spine. The Plaintiff underwent laparoscopic surgery in January 2011 to retrieve the Mirena® IUD which was found behind her left ovary. During the procedure, omentum adhesions and an ovarian cyst were found.

The lawsuit alleges that the Defendants failed to adequately warn about the risks of using Mirena® IUD. According to the Complaint, Bayer only warns about the risks of uterine perforation when the device is first placed inside the uterus. The safety information does not warn about the risk of spontaneous migration, which is what allegedly occurred in the Plaintiff. The suit alleges that the Defendants’ negligent and wrongful actions have caused the Plaintiff to suffer severe and permanent physical injuries, substantial pain and suffering, and economic loss in the form of medical expenses and lost wages.

In 2009, the Department of Health and Human Services’ Division of Drug Marketing, Advertising, and Communications (DDMAC) warned Bayer about misleading statements made with regards to marketing Mirena®. The DDMAC found that claims made during the company’s “Simple Style” program overstated the benefits of Mirena® while failing to mention the risks. The program’s script claimed that Mirena® would help women increase libido as well as help them “look and feel great.” Presenters also claimed that Mirena® did not require any type of compliance to a monthly routine. The DDMAC deemed all of these claims as false and reprimanded Bayer for failing to mention side effects such as weight gain, acne and breast pain or tenderness.

Parker Waichman LLP continues to offer free lawsuit consultations to victims of Mirena® IUD birth control. If you or a loved one experienced complications following the use of this device, please visit the firm's Mirena IUD Side Effects page at yourlawyer.com. Free case evaluations are also available by calling 1 800 LAW INFO (1-800-529-4636).

Parker Waichman LLP
Gary P. Falkowitz, Managing Attorney
(800) LAW-INFO
(800) 529-4636

Share article on social media or email:

View article via:

Pdf Print

Contact Author

Gary Falkowitz
Parker Waichman LLP
Email >
Follow us on
Visit website