Another Woman Severely Injured by Mirena IUD Migration

Another Woman Severely Injured by Mirena IUD Migration

By Jessica Tyner

Intrauterine devices (IUDs) have been around for decades and are considered to be the most effective form of birth control excepting abstinence — they’re even more effective than oral contraception that’s used perfectly. When the Mirena IUD came on the market in the early 2000s, it seemed to usher in a new era of the IUD. Instead of the original copper-T design, which is made of copper and has zero hormones, the Mirena is made of plastic and releases minute amounts of hormones. 

Unfortunately, the new Mirena IUD has been known to migrate, perforating tissue and nearby organs. This can cause lifelong problems including infertility and the inability to have enjoyable sex. 

Stephanie Hall is yet another recent Mirena IUD migration victim, and she filed her lawsuit on August 6, 2013. Her Mirena lawsuit  states that “When warning of safety and risks of Mirena, Defendant negligently and/or fraudulently represented to the medical and healthcare community, the Food and Drug Administration (hereinafter referred to as “FDA”), to Plaintiff and the public in general, that Mirena had been tested and was found to be safe and/or effective for its indicated use. Defendant concealed its knowledge of Mirena’s defects, from Plaintiff, the FDA, the public in general and/or the medical community specifically.”

Hall also says that the makers of Mirena had “the intent of defrauding and deceiving her, the public in general, and the medical and healthcare community in particular, and were made with the intent of inducing the public in general, and the medical community in particular, to recommend, implant and/or purchase Mirena for use as a contraceptive, all of which evinced a callous, reckless, willful, depraved indifference to health, safety and welfare.” 

Some of the Mirena issues include “serious and dangerous side effects including, including, inter alia, perforation, migration, embedment, ectopic pregnancy, intrauterine pregnancy, cancer, adhesions, cysts, fetal injury, fetal death, early/premature menopause as well as other severe and personal injuries which are permanent and lasting in nature, physical pain and mental anguish, including diminished enjoyment of life and a future of high risk pregnancies and infertility, as well as the need for lifelong medical treatment, monitoring and/or medications, and fear of developing any of the above named health consequences,” the lawsuit states.

Hall was in her late 20s when she opted for her Mirena, and is now 30 years old. “She had a Mirena IUD inserted, tolerated the procedure well, and neither her nor her medical provider had any reason to suspect that the Mirena perforated her uterus,” the lawsuit says. “Her Mirena later perforated her uterus, migrated, and/or embedded outside of her uterus. As a result of said perforation, migration, and/or embedment, she was required to undergo surgery to remove the Mirena from her body.” 

This resulted not only in pain and suffering from Mirena, but also high medical bills as well as loss of income and the inability to earn, according to the lawsuit.

Hall’s Painful Mirena Story

Hall claims that Bayer “failed to exercise ordinary care in the designing, researching, manufacturing, marketing, supplying, promoting, packaging, sale, testing, quality assurance, quality control, and/or distribution of Mirena.” She’s suing for negligence, defective design, manufacturing defect, failure to warn, breach of warranty, fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment, and punitive damages.

She’s seeking a trial by jury for all compensatory damages. Her Mirena lawsuit states that “Defendant willfully and intentionally failed to disclose the truth, failed to disclose material facts and made false representations with the purpose and design of deceiving and lulling the Plaintiff, as well as her healthcare professionals into a sense of security so that Plaintiff would rely on the representations and purchase, use and rely on Mirena and/or that her healthcare providers would implant, prescribe, and/or recommend the same.”

Hall’s story isn’t that uncommon, and many women have sued Bayer for failing to warn about Mirena side effects.

The case is Stephanie Hall v. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc., Case No. 13-cv-02599-MHS, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

Were You Injured by Mirena Side Effects?

Were you implanted with a Mirena IUD and suffered injuries from spontaneous migration? If you had Mirena complications, you may qualify for a Mirena legal claim. Find out more by visiting the Mirena IUD Injury Class Action Lawsuit Settlement Investigation. After submitting your information, a Mirena injury lawyer will contact you for a free legal review if you have a case.