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.

Woman’s Injuries Prompt Another Mirena® IUD Lawsuit

Filed December 12th, 2012 admin

The national law firm, Parker Waichman LLP, has filed a lawsuit on behalf of a woman who suffered injuries as the result of the Mirena® intrauterine device (IUD). The lawsuit names the manufacture, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, as the defendant.

The lawsuit alleges that the Mirena® IUD birth control device is defective and punctured her uterus. The injury prompted the woman to receive laparoscopic surgery. According to the lawsuit, Bayer has failed to warn the public about the risks of the Mirena® IUD migrating spontaneously. When the Mirena® IUD migrates, there is a higher risk of serious complications such as intrauterine pregnancy and miscarriage, the lawsuit alleges.

The woman received the Mirena® IUD in 2009 and appeared to tolerate the initial procedure well as and there were no signs that the device had perforated her uterus, according to the lawsuit. However, in November 2011, the woman began to experience pelvic pain and was brought to the emergency room. An X-ray revealed that the Mirena® IUD was no longer inside her uterus and had migrated outside and was overlying it. Three months later, the plaintiff received a laparoscopic surgery to remove the Mirena® IUD.

The lawsuit alleges that Bayer knew about the risks but failed to warn the woman and the public about them. Bayer only warned about the risk of uterine perforation when the device is first inserted, and did not mention anything about spontaneous migration, the lawsuit says. The woman is suing for economic loss in the form of lost wages and her impaired ability to earn future wages.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments are closed.

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