A Florida couple is suing Bayer Pharmaceuticals for the injuries the wife allegedly suffered from its Mirena IUD product.

Samantha C. and her husband Joseph claim in their Mirena IUD lawsuit that as a direct result of using this product, Samantha experienced significant pain and suffering from the design defects of the IUD.

Like millions of women in America, Samantha had chosen the Mirena IUD as her method of birth control and had it inserted in her uterus in April 2011. Even at the initial insertion she experienced pain. Slight discomfort can be expected at the time of insertion, but Samantha claims she suffered extreme discomfort throughout this experience.

After having the Mirena IUD inserted, Samantha felt severe pain during intercourse and other complications, soon after.

According to the Mirena lawsuit, on July 21, 2012, Samantha was hospitalized due to the severe pain in her lower right abdomen, where it was discovered that the IUD had perforated and migrated away from her uterus. Soon after, Samantha had the device removed from her vaginal canal but still remained in pain.

Several weeks after the removal, diagnostic testing revealed that when the Mirena IUD migrated away from the plaintiff’s uterus, it had damaged her lower abdomen. Medical records indicate that she experienced bowel adhesions to the uterus and bladder, which required surgical intervention to treat. On Aug. 27, 2012, Samantha underwent a laparoscopic procedure to treat the adhesions and had finally resolved her pain.

While the internal Mirena damage has been fixed, it is unknown if Samantha will ever be able to get pregnant again due to the sensitive nature of the surgical area.

The Mirena IUD lawsuit states that Bayer Pharmaceuticals had the responsibility to warn its patient and other women of the potential Mirena IUD side effects they could suffer from the Mirena IUD, because they are relying on the accuracy of the given information. Samantha insists that she never would have used the Mirena IUD if she knew about the potential Mirena complications.

Samantha and her husband are suing Bayer for negligence, false advertising, concealing information, and misrepresenting a product.

This Mirena IUD Lawsuit is Case No. 2:14-cv-14226-DMM, in the U.S. District for the Southern District of Florida.

Overview of Mirena IUD Complications

The Mirena IUD is currently the most popular intrauterine device available in the United States and is one of the most widely-prescribed birth control methods in the world.

According to medical experts, Mirena’s popularity stems from its convenience and longevity in its use. Unlike oral contraceptives which require a yearly prescription renewal and a strict daily regimen, the Mirena IUD is simply inserted into the woman’s uterus and can last for five years.

Bayer advertised this product to make life simpler for busy mothers, and even stated that the device would increase romance and excitement in their relationships. This was proven to be untrue, as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ordered Bayer to cancel the marketing campaign called “Simple Style,” in which Bayer admitted to exaggerating the benefits of the Mirena IUD.

Nowhere in the “Simple Style” advertisement did it mention the possibility of device perforating and migrating out of the uterus. Additionally, Bayer argued that these events were rare and only occurred under unusual circumstances, despite the number of injury reports indicating otherwise.

The Mirena IUD works by releasing a hormone called levonorgestrel, which prevents sperm-to-egg fertilization and prevents ovulation. While this method has proven to work, medical experts warn potential patients that the full side effects of this hormone are not yet known, and should not be recommended to women who have not been pregnant.

In addition to organ scarring and embedment being mentioned as consequences to this device migrating from the uterus, women have also reported ectopic pregnancies. These Mirena IUD complications have led to Mirena lawsuits that have been filed against Bayer.