Mirena IUD Complications Lead to Perforation, Infection for Lawsuit Plaintiff

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

Rhode Island plaintiff Melissa Harding is suing Bayer Pharmaceuticals for the injuries she allegedly sustained from the contraceptive Mirena IUD. Harding alleges that in direct result of using the device, she suffered severe personal injuries, which included infection and device embedment.

Harding had the Mirena IUD initially implemented into her on Oct. 18, 2007. The procedure had been conducted by a physician, and she suffered no complications during the insertion,her lawsuit claims. There had been no complications when the device was first implanted, until the patient started suffering from abdominal pain. During an MRI, it was discovered that the IUD had perforated her uterus and embedded itself on her uterine wall, additionally causing infection.

On May 13, 2011, the Mirena IUD was surgically removed, with Harding requiring regular medical checkups, and possibly permanent injuries. To this day, the full extent of her injuries is yet to be discovered. Harding sued Bayer Pharmaceuticals once she learned that Mirena IUD perforation and migration was not an uncommon occurrence, and that Bayer had been cited for severe false advertisement violations.

At no point in time was Harding or her physicians made aware of these possible side effects; there were no warnings or indications on the product’s label, nor had the defendant company make any effort to notify them. Harding states that the company had the responsibility to notify her of these possible occurrences, because she had been relying on the information given to her. Harding states that if she had known about these side effects, she never would have used the product.

So for being directly responsible for manufacturing, selling, distributing, and marketing a dangerous product, Harding is suing Bayer Pharmaceuticals. The charges include: negligence, false advertising, concealing information, and misrepresenting a product.

Overview of Mirena IUD Complications

Bayer Pharmaceuticals is a pharmaceutical giant primarily known for its vast majority of birth control options to the consumer market. One of their most popular contraceptives is the Mirena IUD, which was approved in 2000. As of now there are over 10 million users in the United States, and is the only intrauterine contraceptive available in the country. It is currently one of the most popular contraceptives in the world, but has become the subject to one of Bayer’s most controversial advertising campaigns. Bayer’s advertisement, the ‘Simple Style Program’, was focused on mothers with at least one child; the commercial promised them that the Mirena IUD would improve the quality of their life, and increase the intimacy between them and their partners. Both of these statements proved to be false.

The Mirena IUD is a t-shaped device that is inserted directly into the woman’s uterus; the device’s endpoints are coated with progestin and copper, which prevents egg-to-sperm fertilization. This device is meant to last up to five years, which has attributed to its mas popularity. Additionally from its convenience, Bayer advertised the device to be a safer and more efficient method than birth control pills. In each of their marketing campaigns, Bayer had failed to mention the side effects associated with this device.

FDA records indicate that there have been more than 50,000 injury reports associated with the Mirena IUD. The most common side effects reported include: device perforation, migration, embedment, and infection.

Mirena IUD Litigation Movement

Due to the nature of this case, Harding’s lawsuit will be transferred to MDL No. 2434 in Eastern Pennsylvania, where she will be joining other plaintiffs, alleging similar injuries.

This case is labeled as: Melissa Harding vs. Bayer Pharmaceuticals, Case 7:13-cv-07353-CS, in the United States District Court of Eastern Pennsylvania.

Help for Victims of Mirena IUD Complications

If you or a loved one had a Mirena IUD inserted after January 1, 2000 or later and had to have surgery – or will be required to have surgery – to have it remove because it migrated, you may be eligible to take legal action against the manufacturer. Filing a Mirena IUD lawsuit may help you recover compensation for medical bills, pain and suffering and other damages. See if you qualify by filling out the short form at the Mirena IUD Injury Class Action Lawsuit Settlement Investigation.