Case Review Form

      * Denotes required field.


      * First Name

      * Last Name

      * Email Address

      * Phone Number

      Cell Phone Number

      Office Phone Number

      Street Address




      Zip Code

      Please provide the best method and times to contact you:

      Date of birth of injured person

      Name of drug:

      Date you started taking the drug (mm-yyyy):

      Date you stopped taking the drug (mm-yyyy):

      Please describe any side effects:

      Other Info:

      No Yes, I agree to the Parker & Waichman LLP disclaimers.Click here to review all.

      Yes, I would like to receive the Parker & Waichman LLP monthly newsletter, InjuryAlert.

      please do not fill out the field below.

Mirena® IUD Device Perforated Woman’s Uterus, Lawsuit Filed

Filed March 20th, 2013 edlieber1

A Michigan woman has filed a Mirena® IUD lawsuit, alleging that the contraceptive device caused injuries by perforating her uterus and migrating outside of it. The lawsuit was filed on February 15th in the Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division, Morris County, and names Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc. as a defendant.

When the Mirena® IUD was placed in the woman in November 2009, there was little evidence to suggest the device had perforated her uterus, the lawsuit alleges. An x-ray performed last October, however, revealed that the Mirena® IUD was located outside of the uterus. One month later, the woman had laparoscopic surgery to retrieve the IUD. She is suing for severe and permanent physical injuries, significant pain and suffering and economic loss due to medical expenses and lost wages. The lawsuit claims that the woman’s damages result from the negligent and wrongful conduct of Bayer, which allegedly concealed the risks connected to use of the device.

The lawsuit claims that Bayer has a history of misrepresenting the safety of Mirena®. In 2009 the Department of Health and Human Services’ Division of Drug Marketing, Advertising, and Communications (DDMAC) sent Bayer a letter, stating that the company had made numerous unfounded claims about the supposed benefits of the device in the company’s “Simple Style” Program. The DDMAC said that, in addition to overstating the benefits of the Mirena® IUD, Bayer failed to mention a number of risks.

A petition has been filed to consolidate Mirena® IUD lawsuits into a multidistrict litigation (MDL) in federal court. Attorneys for the plaintiffs have requested that the cases be centralized in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments are closed.

Click Here Now, to Have an Attorney Answer Your
Medicinal Drug Injuries Questions
No Cost - No Obligation!