Woman Implanted with Mirena® IUD Sues Bayer, Alleging that the Device Perforated Her Uterus and Required Surgery for Removal

Share Article

Parker Waichman LLP has filed a lawsuit alleging that Mirena® IUD caused substantial injuries in a Florida woman. According to the Complaint, the Plaintiff’s Mirena® IUD birth control migrated from its intended position and perforated the uterus, forcing her to undergo surgery in order to remove the contraceptive device.

News Image
According to the lawsuit, the Defendants admit that they are unsure exactly how Mirena works to prevent pregnancy. The suit also alleges that Bayer has not warned about the spontaneous migration of the IUD.

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 Florida woman who alleges that the Mirena IUD caused physical and emotional damages. The suit was filed on November 5, 2012 in the Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division, Morris County (Civil Action No. MRSL-2723-12). The lawsuit names Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, the manufacturer of Mirena, as Defendants.

According to the Complaint, the Plaintiff received the Mirena IUD in 2008. By July 2010, she suffered from pelvic pain. The strings attached to the device were unable to be located, and the IUD itself could not be found though an ultrasound. The Plaintiff underwent a laparoscopic surgery in December 2010 in order to remove the IUD. The lawsuit is alleging a number of damages on behalf of the Plaintiff, including severe and permanent physical injuries, pain and suffering, and economic losses in the form of medical expenses and lost wages.

Mirena IUD is a long-term form of birth control. It is a plastic device attached to two strings, and is inserted into the uterus for up to five years. While implanted, the IUD releases the synthetic hormone levonorgestrel. According to the lawsuit, the Defendants admit that they are unsure exactly how Mirena works to prevent pregnancy. The suit also alleges that Bayer has not warned about the spontaneous migration of the IUD. The label only warns that the device may migrate if the uterus is perforated during insertion. The Plaintiff’s experience contradicts this notion, given that she had no symptoms of migration until two years after the device was implanted. According to the Complaint, she had tolerated the initial procedure well and neither she nor her doctor had any reason to suspect that her uterus was perforated until she began experiencing pelvic pain.

Bayer has been scrutinized in the past over the way it has marketed Mirena. In 2009, the Department of Health and Human Services’ Division of Drug Marketing, Advertising, and Communications (DDMAC) determined that certain claims made by the company’s “Simple Style Program," which marketed Mirena to “busy moms,” were unsubstantiated. The agency said that, among other things, the program failed to mention side effects such as weight gain, acne and breast tenderness. The DDMAC also disregarded the notion that Mirena IUD does not require any type of regular routine.

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 Effect s page at yourlawyer.com. Free case evaluations are also available by calling 1 800 LAW INFO (1-800-529-4636).

Contact:    
Parker Waichman LLP
Gary P. Falkowitz, Managing Attorney
(800) LAW-INFO
(800) 529-4636
http://www.yourlawyer.com

Share article on social media or email:

View article via:

Pdf Print

Contact Author

Gary Falkowitz
Parker & Waichman LLP
1-800-529-4636
Email >
Follow us on
Visit website