Ohio Woman Files Mirena IUD Migration Lawsuit

Jessee v. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals is the latest products liability action filed against the manufacturer in New Jersey district court. The Mirena IUD migration lawsuit contends that Bayer designed and distributed a defective IUD without sufficient pre-market testing, causing the plaintiff to sustain physical, emotional and financial injury. Ohio resident Shedella Jessee is demanding actual, compensatory and punitive damages, plus attorney fees and costs, as the court deems just and proper.

Allegations raised in the lawsuit echo those of dozens of other women who argue that Bayer failed to adequately disclose potential Mirena side effects such as spontaneous device migration, uterine perforation and other complications that may require surgical removal of the IUD. The plaintiff states that she has endured substantial pain and suffering and has been saddled with major expenses for medical care and treatment. Jessee also claims she will continue to suffer financial ramifications, since she has lost past income and continues to incur hospital expenses related to her Mirena IUD injuries.

Plaintiff suffers permanent damages from Mirena IUD migration

On May 17, 2011, Shedella Jessee had the Mirena intrauterine device implanted by her physician. At the time, she appeared to tolerate the procedure well and showed no symptoms of adverse effects. However, in August of that same year, the plaintiff was forced to undergo surgical removal of the Mirena IUD, but despite several attempts to remove the device from her body, the surgeon had to remove the IUD along with the surrounding omentum. According to the complaint, Bayer’s product labeling only warns of the possibility of Mirena migration at the time of insertion, indicating it is only likely in the event the uterus is accidentally punctured.

However, an increasing number of women who received the IUD claim that the device is prone to dislodge months if not years later, causing a domino effect  of severe complications. Plaintiffs from around the nation have alleged injuries stemming from embedment in the uterine wall, organ damage and adhesions, as well the need for hysterectomies after the Mirena migrated out of its original position, puncturing the uterus and wreaking havoc inside the abdominal cavity. One of the most dangerous and regularly reported Mirena side effects, spontaneous migration has been noted as a “frequently encountered complication” by researchers, though Bayer maintains that this is a rare occurrence.

Since its approval in 2000, the Mirena IUD has enjoyed commercial success, and has been used by more than 15 million women worldwide. Bayer has a track record of overstating the efficacy of its product and downplaying safety concerns, according to the complaint, and has been reprimanded for its misleading direct-to-consumer advertising campaign, in which it claimed the Mirena could help women look and feel great and enhance intimacy with their partners. In their “Simple Style Program,” the defendants omitted risks of serious infections, and the possibility of miscarriage should a woman become pregnant while using Mirena. Bayer has since corrected such claims to comply with federal regulations, but for women like Jessee, who may have been swayed by these bold statements, these actions came too late.

Causes of action listed in Mirena IUD migration lawsuit

Jessee’s Mirena lawsuit complaint levels several counts against Bayer, including defective design, manufacturing defect, failure to warn, breach of implied warranty, negligence, breach of express warranty and punitive damages. The last cause of action for punitive damages is sought for Bayer’s purported intentional disregard for the safety and well being of the general public.