(PRWEB) March 29, 2013
According to a March 4, 2013 study authored by David Peleg, MD and Richard Latta, MD of the Bradford Regional Medical Center in Bradford, PA, when the Mirena IUD migrates, it often causes tears through the wall of the uterus or becomes embedded within, requiring surgical removal. The title of the study, Removal of an intraabdominal Levonorgestrel-Releasing intrauterine Device, is available from the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology.
In December, 2009, the FDA issued a warning letter to Bayer, criticizing the company for overstating the benefits of the Mirena IUD while downplaying its risks. According to the warning letter, many adverse side effects have been alleged in connection with the use of the Mirena IUD. Some listed side effects are somewhat minor, such as adhesions, infections, abscesses, and inflammation of the pelvis. Some complications, however, are more serious and can lead to various other problems. These include perforations of the uterus, cervix and intestines. Sometimes surgery is required to remove the IUD because it has migrated to other regions of the body.
“We hear from hundreds of women each week who had to have the Mirena IUD surgically removed after the device migrated outside the uterus. And, considering the number of women who use the device, it’s appears that the lawsuits may continue well into into the future,” says Adam Pulaski, a founding partner at Pulaski & Middleman, LLC, a nationwide law firm that represents victims of dangerous drugs and medical devices.
According to Pulaski, the firm will accept representation for those cases where the Mirena IUD migrated outside of the uterus, or perforated the uterine wall, intestines, or surrounding organs, or if the patient required surgery (with or without hospitalization), to remove the defective device.
Bayer, the manufacturer of the Mirena IUD, has requested all Mirena IUD lawsuits filed in federal courts not be consolidated into a single mass action suit. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, the mammoth company who has manufactured the Mirena IUD since 1990, claimed through court documents filed in February that consolidating the cases would limit Bayer’s ability to defend the Mirena lawsuits individually. Further, Bayer argued in their Feb. 7 filing (In re: Mirena IUD Products Liability Litigation, MDL-2434 (Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation)) that in at least one of the lawsuits, the discovery process has already begun, and transferring the case to a consolidated class could result in a duplicate recovery for some plaintiffs. The cases before the multidistrict panel are: Stephanie Barnett and Chris Crawford v. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 1:12-CV-2780
(Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division); Melody and Ronail Williams v. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 3:12-cv-02269 (Southern District of California); and Kara Sweet v. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Case No. 3:12-cv-839 (Western District of Kentucky).
Each of the lawsuits contends that Bayer has shown a consistent history of overselling the efficacy of the Mirena IUD while minimizing its dangerous side effects. The lawsuits also allege that the Plaintiffs suffered serious, debilitating injuries that usually resulted in surgery to remove the wayward device. According to Pulaski, hundreds more lawsuits are likely to be filed in the future.
Women who were given the Mirena IUD and suffered such injuries can receive free case evaluations by contacting Pulaski & Middleman LLC by calling 1-800-BAD-DRUG, or by visiting the firm at their website.