Lawsuit Seeks Damages for Mirena IUD Complications

Lawsuit Seeks Damages for Mirena IUD Complications

By Robert J. Boumis

On July 12, 2013, Lourdes Gonzales filed a personal injury lawsuit against Bayer over alleged complications caused by her Mirena intrauterine device, which she says spontaneously migrated and caused serious injuries.

Gonzales claims in the Mirena injury lawsuit that she had the IUD implanted into her uterus in January of 2009 as a measure of birth control. An intrauterine device (or IUD) is designed to prevent pregnancy by slowly releasing levonorgestrel, a synthetic hormone that prevents the body from releasing an egg.

By late 2011, however, the Mirena IUD had “migrated.” This means the device punctured through the uterine wall and moved around within her body. This Mirena IUD complication causes serious pain and, in some cases, organ damage. This required surgical intervention to remove the IUD to prevent further pain and damage. Per the Mirena lawsuit, Gonzales was never informed about the risk of this Mirena IUD complication once the implant was installed.

According to the Mirena injury lawsuit, “[Bayer and codefendants] have a history of overstating the efficacy of Mirena, while understating potential safety concerns.” In a presentation given by partners of Bayer, Gonzales was informed that Mirena increased libido and allowed users to “look and feel great.” However, these claims turned out to be unsubstantiated, and even contrary to clinical results, the Mirena injury lawsuit claims.

When Gonzales was informed about the alleged benefits of Mirena, she was not informed about the risks, including susceptibility to infections, the risk of miscarriage if she did conceive, and the risk of spontaneous IUD migration – the complication she eventually experienced. According to the Mirena injury lawsuit, Gonzales was only informed that perforation and migration could occur when the device was first implanted — not spontaneously at a later time. The complaint asserts that Gonzales would not have selected Mirena as her birth control had she been aware of these serious risks.

The personal injury lawsuit alleges that Bayer’s actions constituted both fraud and negligence, and asserts that the Mirena IUD is inherently defective due to the serious risks associated with the device.

The Mirena lawsuit further alleges that continuing to market the device, despite reports of serious problems and serious Mirena IUD complications observed during clinical testing, amounted to both fraud and continued negligence on Bayer’s part. As such, the Mirena personal injury lawsuit seeks a number of damages, including compensatory and punitive damages. These terms refer to damages designed to compensate the victim and punish the offender respectively. The case also seeks attorney fees.

The Mirena Personal Injury Lawsuit is Lourdes Gonzalez v. Bayer Pharmaceutical Corp., et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-04082-JP, United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania.