Mirena Lawsuit Says Bayer Downplayed Uterine Perforation Risk

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.

Yet another lawsuit has been filed against the makers of the Mirena IUD, highlighting many of the issues allegedly linked to this birth control device.

Mirena is an intrauterine device (IUD), a medical device designed to be inserted into the uterus by a physician. It is designed to remain in place for up to five years, blocking pregnancy. However, it has been alleged that the device can cause life-threatening complications.

Plaintiff Desoree Madkins of Texas received her Mirena IUD from her physician on Feb. 15, 2010. In April 2013, she allegedly experienced bleeding, cramping, and pain. Upon investigation by her physicians, it was discovered that the device had perforated her uterus. It reportedly required surgical intervention to remove the device, exposing Madkins to the potential risks associated with surgery like anesthesia and infection, according to her Mirena IUD lawsuit.

Madkin’s lawsuit mirrors similar accusations found in other Mirena lawsuits. These Mirena IUD lawsuits have alleged that Bayer, the device’s manufacturer, was aware of the risk of perforation, and continued to produce and market the device anyway. On top of this, the Mirena lawsuits have accused Bayer of exaggerating the IUD’s benefits while downplaying the risks. To support this allegation, Madkin’s Mireuna IUD lawsuit cites government regulators’ criticism the company’s direct-to-consumer marketing plan. Bayer received a warning letter from the Department of Health and Human Services over the Mirena “Simple Style” Program. This letter warned Bayer that the program omitted required safety information and over-stated the benefits associated with the device.

Because of the number of Mirena IUD lawsuits, Bayer is facing multidistrict litigation, or MDL. An MDL is a type of group lawsuit, similar to a class action lawsuit. Both class action lawsuits and MDLs allow a group of plaintiffs to take legal action against the same defendant over similar alleged harm. Group lawsuits like MDLs and class action lawsuits are designed to help streamline the legal process. Class action lawsuits start out as group lawsuits, while MDLs start out as individual cases which are later combined into a single group litigation.

The Mirena IUD lawsuit is Desoree Madkins v. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-00371-SS, filed within the In re Mirena IUD Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2434, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Join a Free Mirena Class Action Lawsuit Investigation

If you or a loved one had the Mirena IUD inserted after January 1, 2000 and had to have surgery – or will be required to have surgery – to remove the IUD because it migrated, you may be eligible to take legal action against the manufacturer. Joining a Mirena class action lawsuit or filing an individual Mirena IUD lawsuit may help you recover compensation for medical bills, pain and suffering and other damages. Obtain a free case evaluation now:

Oops! We could not locate your form.