Bayer’s Two Reasons to Dismiss Essure Lawsuit
Bayer argued that only seven of the 92 plaintiffs are from Missouri—the others having no connection to the state. It wants individual claims by non-Missouri plaintiffs transferred to “appropriate venues”, according to court documents. Bayer’s attorneys pointed out that its claim is consistent with legislation Republicans introduced in the state legislature last year, whereby bills in the House and Senate were intended to reduce the number of cases filed in Missouri courts by plaintiffs with no connection to the stat.
The giant chemical company’s second reason is that all claims are preempted by federal law, which means that they are immune from the lawsuits because the FDA, a federal agency, approved the medical devise.
On December 19, the Associated Press reported that a unanimous ruling by Supreme Court judges said the lower court was wrong to deny Bayer's motion to dismiss out-of-state claims in the lawsuit and they “agreed that the case doesn't seem to fit in Missouri”. The case has gone back to the St. Louis Circuit Court with an amended petition (which the judges have allowed): Now, plaintiffs assert that their lawsuit still belongs in Missouri because clinical trials were conducted in this state and Bayer based its national marketing campaign here. The Supreme Court judges have allowed the lower court to consider plaintiffs’ amended petition.
READ MORE ESSURE SIDE EFFECTS LEGAL NEWS
Essure and the FDA
Bayer still asserts that Essure is safe, but the FDA has forced the company to put a “black box warning” on its packaging listing side effects. The FDA has not gone so far as to ask the company to stop selling the medical device in the United States – yet. Three members of Congress sent a letter to FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb last November to request a meeting to address the agency's inaction on the numerous reports of adverse events associated with Essure, In the letter they said Essure is "a prime example of systemic medical device oversight shortfalls and insufficient enforcement to ensure the safety and efficacy of medical devices.”