Texas Woman Sues Bayer after Mirena IUD Became Embedded in Abdominal Wall

0
84

Texas Woman Sues Bayer after Mirena IUD Became Embedded in Abdominal WallOverview: A Texas woman is suing Bayer over the Mirena IUD alleging that the contraceptive device is defective and became embedded in her abdominal wall. The lawsuit was filed by the national law firm of Parker Waichman LLP on February 15th in the Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division, Morris County.

  • Parker Waichman LLP has filed a lawsuit on behalf of Texas woman alleging that the device is defective and became embedded in her abdominal wall, leading to surgery
  • The lawsuit was filed on February 15th in the Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division, Morris County
  • Bayer is facing a number of lawsuits alleging that the Mirena IUD caused uterine perforation, ectopic pregnancy and other complications

Product: Mirena® intrauterine device (IUD)

Manufacturer: Bayer, Inc.

Side Effects & Complications

  • Miscarriage
  • Infertility
  • Intrauterine pregnancy
  • Streptococcal sepsis
  • Pelvic inflammatory disease
  • Perforation of cervix or uterine wall

Mirena IUD Perforated Uterus, Became Embedded

The Plaintiff received Mirena in December 2008, according to a press release by Parker Waichman LLP. The lawsuit alleges that the device is defective and caused complications, including uterine perforation and device embedment. According to the lawsuit, Bayer failed to warn about the risk of spontaneous migration; the current label only mentions uterine perforation when the device is first inserted. The Plaintiff, however, appeared fine after the initial procedure and neither she nor her doctor had any reason to believe that the IUD had perforated her uterus until much later. In June 2011, she underwent laparoscopic surgery in order remove Mirena which was seen embedding in the anterior abdominal wall. The Plaintiff is suing for severe and permanent physical injuries, substantial pain and suffering and economic loss due to medical expenses and lost earnings. She alleges that the Defendants failed to warn about the risks of using the Mirena® IUD, and attributes her damages to their negligent and wrongful conduct.

Mirena IUD Litigation

A petition has been filed to consolidate Mirena® IUD lawsuits into a multidistrict litigation (MDL) in federal court. The Plaintiffs’ attorneys have requested that the cases be centralized in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, before the Honorable Patricia A. Gaughan (In Re: Mirena IUD Product Liability Litigation, Case No. 1:12-CV-2780). The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has scheduled a hearing for March 23rd in San Diego, California to discuss the potential MDL.

A number of lawsuits, including this one, mention the fact that Bayer has had a history of misrepresenting Mirena. In 2009, the company was  contacted by the Department of Health and Human Services’ Division of Drug Marketing, Advertising, and Communications (DDMAC) for making unsubstantiated claims about the Mirena® IUD device while failing to mention its risks in its “Simple Style” program.