Numerous plaintiffs are suing Bayer Pharmaceuticals for the injuries they allegedly suffered from the design defects of the Mirena IUD. Each of them claims that they suffered avoidable injuries, which were directly caused by the device’s inability to stay inside the uterus and may have caused severe damage to their reproductive organs.

Over a dozen women from different states have joined this Mirena IUD lawsuit against Bayer due to the similar nature of the injuries they allegedly suffered:

• Kentucky plaintiff Hailee P. had the Mirena IUD implanted on Feb. 17, 2004, but had it removed several years later on Nov. 16, 2009. The device allegedly perforated and migrated away from her uterus, and she still suffers great discomfort from the lasting side effects.

• Virginia plaintiff Penny R. had the Mirena IUD implanted on Dec. 17, 2009, but soon had it removed in December 2010. The plaintiff reportedly suffered great pain and discomfort due to the device perforating and migrating away from her uterus.

• California plaintiff Sanna S. first had the Mirena IUD inserted on Dec. 30, 2009, but later had it removed on May 18, 2010. In this case, the device allegedly perforated and migrated away from the plaintiff’s uterus, and caused continuous discomfort.

• Florida plaintiff Casey S. had the Mirena IUD implanted on April 2, 2010, but had it promptly removed a month later on May 27, 2010. She suffered severe pain and discomfort, allegedly due to the device perforating and migrating away from her uterus.

• Ohio plaintiff Shannon S. had the Mirena IUD implanted on Jan. 2, 2009, but had it removed later that year for pain and discomfort. In this case, the Mirena IUD had also perforated and migrated away from the plaintiff’s uterus.

• Florida plaintiff Melissa S. had the Mirena IUD implanted on Nov. 7, 2006, but later had it removed on Aug. 1, 2008 due to an unusual device defect. According to the Mirena lawsuit, the device’s string had coiled into her endocervical canal. While the device has been removed, the plaintiff allegedly still continues to suffer extreme pain and discomfort.

There are over a dozen women involved in this Mirena IUD lawsuit alleging the injuries mentioned above. These women had each chosen this device as their method of birth control due to its longevity and convenience. However, the plaintiffs report they have suffered severe medical side effects and had to arrange for the devices to be removed.

Each of the plaintiffs complain that none of these risks or side effects were discussed with them by the defendant or their physician, and were not mentioned on the device’s label. The plaintiffs’ lawyers state that Bayer had the responsibility to warn them and other patients of all Mirena side effects, because they are relying on the accuracy of the given information.

This group of women is suing Bayer for being allegedly responsible for manufacturing, selling, distributing, and marketing a dangerous product. The charges include: negligence, false advertising, concealing information, and misrepresenting a product.

This Mirena IUD Lawsuit is Case No. CV-13-08104, in the U.S. District Court of Central California.

Overview of Mirena IUD Design Defects

The entirety of the side effects these women suffered have not been revealed, but medical experts warn that one of these injuries could affect their fertility. Due to how little is known about the side effects of the hormone the device releases, doctors recommend that women who have already had one child use this device.

Currently, over 2,000 women have filed similar Mirena lawsuits alleging similar or more extreme injuries that were allegedly caused by the device. Each of these women accuses Bayer of failing to protect them against the dangers this device presented. These women also insist that they never would have used the Mirena IUD if they had known about the possibilities of perforation, migration, and other side effects.