Mirena IUD Migration Caused Severe Injuries, Lawsuit Says

According to the Mirena IUD lawsuit, the Louisiana plaintiff received the Mirena IUD in 2009. From there the lawsuit alleges that the woman tolerated the initial implant procedure without issue and that the plaintiff or the physician did not have any reason to think that the IUD implant device had caused any adverse side effects – namely perforating her uterus. However, in November of 2011, the Mirena lawsuit plaintiff had to go to the emergency room. They performed an x-ray and discovered that the birth control implant was overlying the pelvis. From there, the Mirena lawsuit plaintiff states that she had to undergo laparoscopic surgery to remove the Mirena implant device in February of 2012.

The Mirena lawsuit goes on to allege that Bayer has a history of overstating benefits of the Mirena birth control implant while failing to inform potential users of the side effect risks associated with Mirena IUD.

It was reported that in 2009 the DDMAC (Department of Health and Human Services’ Division of Drug Marketing, Advertising, and Communications) actually contacted Bayer about some of the statements the manufacturer had made during the presentations they made about Mirena IUD in their “Simple Style” program. It was reported that the DDMAC made references to Bayer’s claim that the Mirena birth control implant increased libido and also helped women “look and feel great” as the presentation claimed, which there is no evidence to support such claims. They went on to address the fact that Bayer did not mention the side effect risks associated with the Mirena implant, like miscarriage or infection.

Mirena originally received approval to be used as an intrauterine contraceptive in the year 2000 from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The birth control device works by being implanted into the uterus. From there it slowly begins to release the synthetic hormone levonorgestrel. It has been approved for Mirena to be able to stay implanted in the uterus for as many as 5 years. However, according to this recent Mirena injury lawsuit, Bayer has actually admitted that they were not certain how the Mirena birth control implant works in order to prevent pregnancy. The Mirena lawsuit goes on to claim that the safety information Mirena provides is inadequate. According to the plaintiff it does not properly warn potential Mirena IUD users of the side effects to possibly experience spontaneous migration and perforation as a result of using the birth control implant device. The Mirena lawsuit states that Bayer only warns of the side effect risk of Mirena uterus perforation during the insertion process.

This Mirena lawsuit claims that Bayer was negligent and they are also charged with wrongful actions and that these caused the Mirena lawsuit plaintiff to suffer from severe physical injuries that caused a significant amount of pain and suffering — some of these will be permanent in nature. The Mirena lawsuit plaintiff is also seeking compensation for lost wages in addition to the inability to earn future wages.

Filing a Mirena Lawsuit