San Diego Woman Sues Bayer For Displaced Mirena IUD

San Diego Woman Sues Bayer For Displaced Mirena IUD

By Dominic Rivera

Kira Balius of San Diego, California, has filed a lawsuit against Bayer Pharmaceuticals over personal injuries she allegedly suffered from what she refers to in her lawsuit as the “defective and unreasonably dangerous product Mirena.”

Balius alleges in the Mirena lawsuit that she had the Mirena intrauterine device (IUD) inserted on October 31, 2006, at the Emerald Bay Center for Women’s Health in South Lake Tahoe, California. During follow-up appointments, the IUD strings were not visible, so an ultrasound had to be performed to confirm that the IUD was in place.

In October 2008, Balius requested that the IUD be removed “due to cramping, irregular bleeding and pain during intercourse.” The Mirena lawsuit states that because of her request, “her uterus was probed with an IUD hook and no IUD could be found in the uterine cavity. The Mirena strings could not be located and a sonogram was ordered, which demonstrated that Plaintiff’s IUD was no longer within her uterus.”

Balius was told that the Mirena IUD had been expelled during a heavy menstrual period. However, two years later Balius was suffering from severe pelvic pain and irregular bleeding. An annual exam in February 2010 revealed through a sonogram the Mirena IUD was protruding from the left side of the uterine wall.

Balius underwent laparoscopy surgery on March 24, 2010, which revealed that the IUD was “displaced from the uterus into the left posterior cul de sac and somewhat walled off with filmy adhesions,” the lawsuit states. The Mirena IUD was eventually removed.

Mirena IUD Lawsuits Grow

The Mirena IUD is an implantable form of birth control designed to block pregnancy by releasing hormones that thicken cervical mucus and discourage the release of an egg. The device is designed to be implanted in the uterus and left in place for up to five years. Today, more than 2 million women in the United States use Mirena, and the IUD has been used by more than 15 million women worldwide.

Balius alleges in her Mirena IUD lawsuit that “Mirena’s label does not warn about spontaneous migration of the IUD but only states that migration may occur if the uterus is perforated during insertion.”

It further alleges that even Mirena’s label describes perforation as an “uncommon” event, despite numerous incidents of women who have suffered migration and perforation post-insertion.

The Mirena lawsuit contends that Bayer failed to disclose and warn users of the health hazards and risks associated with Mirena and in fact acted to deceive the medical community and public at large, including all potential users of Mirena by promoting it as safe and effective.

Balius is seeking for compensatory, statutory and punitive damages, together with interest, costs of suit, attorney’s fees and other relief that the Court may deem appropriate.

The Mirena IUD lawsuit is Kira Balius v. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc., Case No. 3:13-cv-02286-WQH-JMA, United States District Court for the Southern District of California.

If you, or someone you know, received the Mirena IUD and suffered from complications as a result, remember that you have rights. Learn more about your options and obtain a free case evaluation by visiting the Mirena IUD Injury Class Action Lawsuit Settlement Investigation.