Stacey G. a resident of Indiana, recently filed a Mirena lawsuit against Bayer Pharmaceuticals Inc. Her Mirena IUD lawsuit claims that the birth control device was defective and unreasonably dangerous, and Stacey is suing for statutory, compensatory, and punitive damages.

According to the Mirena lawsuit, Stacy began using Mirena in May 2004, when the device was inserted into her uterus by a medical professional. The device was successfully implanted and Stacey had no reason to suspect any complications had occurred, according to her Mirena IUD lawsuit. However, in August 2005, Stacey spoke with her healthcare provider to discuss removing the Mirena intrauterine device. Stacey was surprised to discover that the intrauterine device was no longer present in her uterus and needed to be surgically removed because it had migrated from the original implantation site. Stacey is suing Bayer Pharmaceuticals to be compensated for her physical pain and suffering, as well as the mental anguish she suffered due to her alleged Mirena IUD complications.

About Mirena

Mirena is a intrauterine form of birth control. A medical professional inserts the Mirena IUD within 7 days of a woman’s first day of menstruation and the device generally does not need to be replaced for five years. It works by releasing levonorgestrel, a synthetic progestogen, into a woman’s uterus. Although medical developers do not know exactly how the birth control works, it is believed that the hormone may thicken the cervical mucus, thin the uterine lining, inhibit sperm movement, and reduce sperm’s chances of survival, thus ultimately preventing pregnancy.

Mirena was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in December 2000. Since then, Mirena has been used by over 2 million women in the United States and over 15 million women worldwide.

Overview of Mirena Lawsuits

Women filing Mirena lawsuits allege that the Mirena labels did not provide warnings that the IUD could migrate within and outside the uterus. Instead the Mirena product labels state that in rare cases migration may occur if the uterus is perforated during insertion. Bayer has also been reprimanded for overstating the efficacy of Mirena. In 2009, the Department of Health and Human Services Division of Drug Marketing, Advertising, and Communications contacted Bayer about unsubstantiated claims used to market the contraceptive device.

According to one Mirena advertisement, using the intrauterine device would increase the level of emotional satisfaction, intimacy, and romance between partners, even though at least 5 percent of clinical trial patients reported a decreased libido after using the IUD. That same advertisement also stated that using Mirena would make women “look and feel great,” but according to clinical trials, Mirena can cause a number of side effects including weight gain and acne.

Some of the many serious Mirena IUD side effects include pelvic pain, perforation of the uterus, perforation of the cervix, infection, infertility, pelvic inflammatory disease, ectopic pregnancy, and intrauterine pregnancy.

Nearly 2000 women have filed Mirena lawsuits. Plaintiffs suing Bayer generally allege that the pharmaceutical company violated consumer protection laws. They are bringing claims for deceptive manufacturing, design defect, negligence, failure to warn, strict liability, negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation, and breach of warranty against Bayer.

This Mirena Lawsuit is Case No. 4:15-cv-00006, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana.