Plaintiffs in the Mirena lawsuits accuse Bayer of failing to adequately warn about its potential to spontaneously migrate away from the uterine wall. Bayer has also been accused of failing to properly warn about side effects that may stem from use of the IUD, according to the law firm Bernstein Liebhard LLP. Mirena lawsuits allege that the drug company overstated benefits of the IUD and downplayed its potential for complications. (The FDA issued a warning letter to Bayer in 2009 regarding these issues.)
Many women have also blamed Mirena on miscarriages, infertility and infections.
Heidi is being treated for depression because she is unable to conceive. “I asked my gynecologist to remove the Mirena just a few months after it was implanted,” she says. “The cramps were so awful I was doubled over in pain. It took an ultrasound to find it and I needed surgery to have it removed. And to top it off, my gynecologist told me it is highly unlikely that I will be able to have children.” Heidi, 35 years old, says she always wanted a family.
“Now I wonder if my husband and I will stay together - he wants children too,” she adds, crying.
Tracey (not her real name) also had a Mirena that migrated outside the uterus. “Just one month after I had the IUD implanted, I needed surgery to have it removed, she says. “I went to my doctor with stomach pain and bowel problems so he ordered a CT Scan. That is how they found the Mirena. I’m still on antibiotics for pelvic inflammatory infection and now I discover that PID can cause infertility. I am furious with the Mirena maker for putting this device on the market. And where is the FDA?”
As more Mirena lawsuits are filed, it is hopeful that Bayer’s Mirena sales decrease, unless the drug company is forced to take it off the market first. A recent lawsuit filed in the Southern District of Illinois was added to the Mirena multidistrict litigation (MDL) pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
READ MORE MIRENA IUD LEGAL NEWS
Hampton, age 28, had the Mirena implanted in 2012. According to her complaint, the insertion was proper and uncomplicated, and a six-week checkup showed the device was still properly placed. Six months later, she suffered from severe cramping. Follow-up medical visits showed that she was suffering from a retained IUD. Hampton’s complaint was transferred to the New York Mirena MDL (Re: Mirena IUD Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2434, in the Southern District of New York).