A Mirena IUD lawsuit was filed by an Indiana woman, alleging that the Bayer device caused her serious medical complications and required surgical removal.

The Mirena IUD is a type of birth control implant, designed to be inserted into the uterus by a physician. Once in place, the Mirena IUD can remain in the uterus for up to five years, blocking pregnancy.

More than 2 million women in the United States and 15 million worldwide use the Mirena IUD for their birth control. However, Mirena lawsuits have alleged that the device may have serious complications like perforation and migration of the IUD.

Perforation is a medical term meaning that the Mirena IUD has punched through the walls of the uterus, which can lead to migration, or the device moving around within the body.

The informational insert associated with the Mirena IUD says this is a very uncommon side effect, but Mirena lawsuits like this one contend it is more common and serious than Bayer has let on.

According to her Mirena lawsuit, Plaintiff Katrina G. had a Mirena IUD implanted in 2009 when she was 28. In 2012, a CT scan revealed that the device had perforated her uterus and was now pressing against her bladder.

This caused her pain and required surgical removal. Her Mirena lawsuit seeks to recoup the cost of her medical care, compensation or pain and suffering, and legal fees associated with the case.

A major allegation in her Mirena lawsuit is that Bayer aggressively over-promoted the Mirena IUD, overstating the Mirena IUD’s benefits while downplaying the risk of the implant. To support this allegation, this Mirena lawsuit cites the fact that in 2009, the Department of Health and Human Services’ Division of Drug Marketing, Advertising, and Communications (DDMAC) sent Bayer a warning letter over its marketing for the Mirena IUD.

Bayer had a direct-to-consumer marketing campaign called the “Mirena Simple Style Program.” According to the DDMAC, this program omitted critical safety information and exaggerated the benefits of the Mirena IUD, including perforation and migration, as well as the risk of miscarriage if pregnancy occurs with device.

Katrina’s lawsuit is not the only one of its kind. Thousands of Mirena IUD lawsuits have been filed against Bayer, arguing that the Mirena IUD is dangerous, illegally over-promoted, and the cause of thousands of dollars in medical bills and other costs.

The court system has arranged the thousands of Mirena lawsuits into a coordinated legal process called an MDL. In MDLs, the court system organizes similar lawsuits together to cut down on duplication of efforts and save resources for everyone involved. The various Mirena lawsuits make similar allegations and hinge on similar evidence, making them ideal for inclusion in a single Mirena MDL.

The Mirena Lawsuit is Case No. 1746, within the larger MDL In Re: Mirena IUD Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2434, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.