Mirena Lawsuit Says IUD Punctured Uterus

A Louisiana woman has filed a Mirena IUD lawsuit against Bayer Pharmaceuticals, alleging that the birth control device punctured her uterus.

Kimberlee Ross was admitted to a hospital on Jan. 12, 2013 in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, “where she was diagnosed with uterine perforation due to a migrating Mirena,” the lawsuit claims.

Ross alleges that the injury was caused by the Mirena IUD that had been placed in her uterus, and that she suffered severe abdominal pain, cramps, back pain, nausea problems urinating, fatigue and emotional distress.

Ross is one of the latest women to file a Mirena lawsuit. Her Mirena complaint was filed on Jan. 10, 2014. She says that her Mirena complications were totally preventable had Bayer been forthcoming with the potential risks associated with the intrauterine device.

“Despite the fact that [Bayer] knew or should have known of the serious health risks and complications caused by the use of Mirena, [Bayer] failed to adequately and sufficiently warn consumers, including [Ross], or the medical community, of such risks,” the complaint states.

“Had [Ross] and/or her health care providers known of the increased risk and dangers associated with Mirena, she would not have used the product and would not have suffered the migration of the device and perforation of her uterine wall.”

Bayer allegedly knew about the true migration and perforation risks of Mirena, but decided to keep them hidden in order to turn a higher profit.

The Mirena lawsuit also claims that some of Ross’ injuries are permanent, and there are some instances in which women become infertile after a Mirena complication, since the scarring which can occur is impossible to fully treat as it’s in such a sensitive area.

Some women claim they can’t have enjoyable sex ever again following a Mirena injury, and divorces have been filed with both parties citing Mirena as the cause.

“Plaintiff’s injuries may have caused permanent effects and may continue in the future to cause her physical effect and damages, which will affect her throughout her lifetime.”

In addition to the physical pain, Ross also points to her “mental anguish and emotional distress in connection with her injuries and the knowledge that [Ross] will have life-long complications as a result of her use of Mirena and resulting injuries.”

In December 2000, the Mirena intrauterine device (IUD) became available as an alternative for the copper IUD which has been on the market for decades.

Mirena was marketed heavily to women who were looking for the most effective birth control that required zero upkeep. Made of plastic and releasing small amounts of hormones, the Mirena is lasts for five years after being implanted in the uterus.

Bayer, the makers of the device, have always warned that there’s a risk of migrating and/or puncturing during implantation, but only if the uterus is punctured during implantation, which is why doctors typically perform an ultrasound to be sure this is not the case at the time the IUD is inserted.

Some women claim that the device can actually perforate organs and tissues, we well as migrate post-implantation. This has led to hundreds of Mirena injury lawsuits that have been consolidated into multidistrict litigation.

Mirena MDL v. Mirena Class Action Lawsuit

Hundreds of Mirena IUD lawsuits have been consolidated into multidistrict litigation, where they will share in pretrial discovery. By joining the Mirena MDL, victims like Ross can take advantage of a faster resolution without giving up their individual trial by jury. This can provide some comfort after such an ordeal.

The Mirena MDL is different than a Mirena class action lawsuit, which is a single legal action representing multiple plaintiffs. In a Mirena class action lawsuit, all Class Members share in any award or class action settlement offered. In the Mirena MDL, each plaintiff files their own individual lawsuit and is awarded compensation based on their specific individual injuries.

According to Ross, “[Bayer] knew or should have known that the use of this product created an unreasonable increased risk of migration and perforation of organs, and that taken as directed, such use of this product was unreasonably dangerous to consumers.”

However, they did nothing to protect consumers, she claims.

Due to her claims and injuries, Ross is suing Bayer for violating the Louisiana Products Liability Act and violation of warranty redhibition.

The Mirena IUD lawsuit is Kimberlee Ross v. Bayer Healthcare LLC et al, Case No.: 7:14-cv-01245-CS, in the U.S. District Court Western District of Louisiana.

File a Mirena Class Action Lawsuit Claim

If you or a loved one had a Mirena IUD inserted after January 1, 2000 or later and had to have surgery – or will be required to have surgery – to have it remove because it migrated, you may be eligible to take legal action against the manufacturer. Filing a Mirena IUD lawsuit or joining a Mirena class action lawsuit may help you recover compensation for medical bills, pain and suffering and other damages. See if you qualify by filling out the short form at the Birth Control Lawsuits: Mirena IUD Injury Class Action Lawsuit Settlement Investigation.