New Lawsuit Alleges Mirena Manufacturer Downplayed Risk

Another woman has filed a lawsuit against Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc., the manufacturer of the Mirena IUD, alleging the device caused serious health problems.

Mirena is an IUD, or intra-uterine device, a form of birth control designed to be implanted into a woman’s uterus by a physician. Once in place, the implant is designed to remain in the body for up to five years, blocking pregnancy through several mechanisms. However, it has been alleged that the device can cause a variety of serious complications.

Plaintiff Faustine Newbury received a Mirena IUD from her physician in 2012. A follow-up appointment six months later indicated the device was still in place. However, two months after the follow-up, Newbury reportedly experienced pain and abnormal bleeding. According to her Mirena IUD lawsuit, it required medical care to fix the problem, and Newbury requires ongoing medical care.

Thousands of individual Mirena IUD lawsuits have been filed against Bayer. These Mirena lawsuits allege that the device could perforate the uterus — puncturing the wall of the organ and moving around in the abdomen. This complication can cause a host of serious problems, including damage to internal organs, causing infection, sterility, and increasing the chance of high-risk pregnancies. Many women have needed laparoscopic surgery to remove the implant once it worked its way into the abdomen, according to Mirena lawsuits.

The Mirena lawsuit has also made the allegation that the device’s manufacturer continued to aggressively promote Mirena IUD despite the risks. To support this allegation, lawsuits like Newbury’s have cited a 2009 letter sent to Bayer by the Department of Health and Human Services’ Division of Drug Marketing, Advertising, and Communications (DDMAC). This letter states that a direct-to-consumer marketing plan from Bayer, called the “Mirena Simple Style Program,” overplayed the device’s benefits while downplaying the risks associated with the Mirena IUD. For example, the DDMAC letter states that the Simple Style program omitted risk information about the device.

The litigation against Bayer over the Mirena IUD has taken the form of a multidistrict litigation, or MDL. MDLs are a sort of group lawsuit, similar to the more familiar class action lawsuit. Both MDLs and class action lawsuits allow a group of people to seek legal remedy against the same defendant, alleging that they have all suffered similar harm. The main difference is that class action lawsuits start out as group lawsuits, while MDLs start out as individual lawsuits, like Newbury’s, which are later coordinated into a single massive legal proceeding. Both class action lawsuits and MDLs are designed to streamline the legal process when dozens, hundreds, or even thousands, of individual plaintiffs have similar complaints.

The Mirena IUD lawsuit is formally titled Faustine Newbury v. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-00075-DRH-DGW, filed within the MDL In Re: Mirena Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2434, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Join a Free Mirena Class Action Lawsuit Investigation

If you or a loved one had the Mirena IUD inserted after January 1, 2000 and had to have surgery – or will be required to have surgery – to remove the IUD because it migrated, you may be eligible to take legal action against the manufacturer. Joining a Mirena class action lawsuit or filing an individual Mirena IUD lawsuit may help you recover compensation for medical bills, pain and suffering and other damages. Obtain a free case evaluation now:

Oops! We could not locate your form.