A Mirena IUD lawsuit was filed last week that claimed Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals was responsible for creating a defective product that caused a 36-year-old California woman to suffer from uterine perforation and other Mirena side effects.

Plaintiff Gloria L. began using the Mirena IUD in 2008 and claims she suffered from Mirena IUD complications including pelvic pain, chills, fever, and other symptoms that required “hospitalization, surgical intervention, extensive medical therapy, continuing treatment, physical therapy, and medical monitoring.” In 2010, Gloria was forced to undergo invasive surgery in order to remove the Mirena IUD device because it had migrated and caused uterine perforation, according to the Mirena IUD lawsuit.

Gloria filed her Mirena IUD lawsuit within two years of suspecting that Bayer’s birth control device was responsible for her pain and suffering. She alleged that Bayer had “misrepresented,” and continues to misrepresent, the Mirena side effects and safety information. According the Mirena lawsuit, Gloria states that had she been aware of potential Mirena IUD complications, she would have discovered the cause of her uterine perforation and other Mirena side effects sooner.

What Is The Mirena IUD?

The Mirena IUD is a t-shaped device that is inserted in the uterus and acts as a form of birth control. Once inserted, it can remain for five years when the patient would have it replaced by their physician. This form of birth control provided an alternative to taking the daily pill, which some women struggle to use consistently. It is recommended that women should have a child before using the Mirena IUD. Millions of women use the Mirena IUD due to its convenience, but many, like Gloria have experienced adverse Mirena side effects such as uterine perforation.

Mirena IUD Lawsuits

Numerous Mirena IUD lawsuits have been filed against Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals for failing to warn against Mirena side effects and for creating a defective product. Yet Bayer continues to claim that Mirena IUD migration is uncommon, “despite the fact that there are numerous women who have suffered migration and perforation post-insertion, clearly demonstrating this assertion to be false,” according to the Mirena IUD lawsuit.

In this Mirena IUD lawsuit, Gloria accuses Bayer of manufacturing and design defect, negligence, failure to warn, strict liability, breach of warranty, negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation, and fraud by concealment. Her spouse, Damion B., also filed for loss of consortium (loss of intimacy with a spouse) in this Mirena IUD lawsuit and asked for appropriate damages.

Both plaintiffs have requested punitive damages as appropriate for Bayer’s negligence in downplaying severe Mirena side effects as well as compensation for damages, medical expenses (past and future), pain and suffering, legal costs, and several other expenses.

This Mirena IUD Lawsuit is Case No. 2:15-cv-00100, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division.