Kentucky plaintiff Whitney J. is suing Bayer Pharmaceuticals for the injuries she allegedly incurred from using the Mirena IUD. Whitney claims that in direct result of using the birth control device, she suffered painful Mirena side effects, and had to remove the device prematurely.

The Mirena IUD (intrauterine device) is one of the most popular birth control choices in the United States, catering to over 2 million women. The plaintiff was one of these women who wished to have a long-term contraceptive plan.

After hearing of the device’s convenience and hassle-free style, Whitney chose the Mirena IUD and had it implanted on Jan. 19, 2010. According to the medical report, the plaintiff initially responded normally to the device and tolerated the insertion procedure. For approximately a little over a year, Whitney experienced no Mirena complications from the device until she allegedly started feeling severe cramping after the new year had started.

On May 2, 2011, medical imaging testing found that the device was no longer in her uterus, leading to her physician to conclude that the device had perforated and migrated away from her uterus. Several days later, the plaintiff underwent removal surgery with surgeons reportedly discovering the device embedded into her abdominal cavity. As of now, it is currently unknown if the plaintiff’s reproductive system is damaged or if there are any long-lasting side effects.

The plaintiff’s immediate concerns include medical bills and lost wages from the need of the removal surgery she had undergone, which contributed to her decision to take legal action against Bayer for her alleged Mirena IUD migration.

Whitney states that at no point before or after she was prescribed the Mirena IUD was she warned about the possibility of uterine perforation or migration. Additionally, there were no special warnings for physicians before it was inserted, with the defendant failing to adequately explain the risks associated with the Mirena IUD. Whitney insists that she never would have chosen to use the Mirena IUD if she had known about the possible adverse effects she could suffer.

Whitney is suing Bayer Pharmaceuticals 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.

Overview of Mirena IUD Complications

Approved in 2000, the Mirena IUD has become the most popular intrauterine birth control device in the United States, with 15 million prescribers worldwide. It is manufactured by Bayer Pharmaceuticals, which capitalized on Mirena’s convenience and longevity that ultimately attracted busy women. This device is designed to last up to five years, and prevents ovulation and sperm-to-egg fertilization by releasing a synthesized hormone called levonorgestrel. Despite all the positive attributes of the device’s convenience, physicians recommend, due to unknown side effects the hormone attached to the Mirena’s endpoints (levonorgestrel) may have on unborn children, that the Mirena IUD only be prescribed to women who have already had children.

It is currently unknown what complications levonorgestrel could cause to an unborn fetus, with the company admitting that they are unsure of the hormone’s entirety of complications as well. Alarmingly enough, FDA injury reports indicate that women who suffered device perforation and migration had suffered either unwanted pregnancies, or ectopic pregnancies (this occurs when the baby develops outside the mother’s uterus). Despite the severity of these complications, Bayer allegedly failed to mention this information on Mirena’s label.

Currently, women who have used the Mirena IUD and suffered side effects are taking legal action against Bayer Pharmaceuticals for allegedly failing to protect them against their product. Specialized Mirena IUD attorneys state that Bayer had the responsibility of warning their consumers of all the complications associated with their products, because the consumers rely on the accuracy of the given information.

This Mirena IUD lawsuit is Case No. 7:15-cv-01779-CS, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky.