Serious Injuries Subject of Mirena IUD Migration Lawsuit

A plaintiff filing a new Mirena IUD migration lawsuit alleges the contraceptive device led to serious, ongoing injuries. The lawsuit was filed by Melissa Vinson on November, 12, 2013.

Although the complaint was originally filed in U.S. District Court in South Carolina, the case could be identified as a tag-along case for the federal MDL assigned to the Northern District of Ohio.

Mirena side effects fuel lawsuit

In her complaint, Vinson alleges that severe Mirena side effects have resulted in the need for multiple surgical procedures. Vinson has also suffered ongoing pain and other medical problems as a result of complications stemming from this device. Her husband, Robert Vinson, is also listed as a plaintiff in this lawsuit, claiming his wife’s injuries have left him without her companionship and services.

According to the complaint, a Mirena IUD was placed in Vinson’s uterus on February 4, 2009.  During three subsequent examinations that same year and in 2010, it was noted that the IUD strings were visible and in the proper location, suggesting the IUD was still in place. However, in August, 2010, approximately one month after her last physical examination, Vinson underwent a CT scan of her abdomen to diagnose the reason for recurrent kidney stones. Doctors performing the scan discovered at that time that her IUD had migrated out of place.

Vinson followed up with her gynecologist, only to find that the IUD was likely embedded in the myometrium. When the physician tried to pull the IUD out by the strings, the strings detached from the device. Vinson’s only option at that point was to undergo a surgical procedure, known as a hysteroscopy, to remove the IUD. Unfortunately, due to the location of the IUD, it was impossible for the physician to remove the device via hysteroscopy or laparoscopy.

Vinson had to undergo another, more invasive surgical procedure three months later to remove the device. It was noted in the Mirena IUD migration lawsuit that the procedure was a slow and tedious one, since the IUD was finally located in an area of the abdomen filled with many tiny vessels. The device also broke in two during the procedure, which further complicated the process.

Once the IUD was finally removed from Vinson’s abdomen, the plaintiff had to undergo additional medical treatment, as well as the pain and suffering of her “severe and permanent” injuries. She has also suffered financially, due to mounting medical bills and lost wages for the time she has been unable to work because of her injuries. As a result, Vinson and her husband are now seeking damages from Mirena manufacturer Bayer.

Mirena IUD litigation against Bayer

Sadly, Vinson’s complaint is not the first to be filed against pharmaceutical giant Bayer in regards to their IUD. Since the device was approved by the FDA in 2000, women have been reporting serious side effects associated with the IUD. These complications include perforation of the uterus, device migration and damage to other abdominal organs. Some of the complications may affect a woman’s fertility in the future, and some may even be life-threatening.

In December, 2009, the Division of Drug Marketing, Advertising and Communications for the Department of Health and Human Services sent a letter to Bayer, warning them about their unsubstantiated claims about the Mirena IUD. The company was marketing the device as a means for increasing romance and intimacy between partners, a claim the company could not back up. While Bayer has changed their marketing tactics for the IUD, reports of serious side effects continue to be problematic for the company.

With numerous women filing lawsuits against Bayer, many of the complaints have now been coordinated into multidistrict litigation in the Northern District of Ohio. Since Vinson’s complaint has also been filed in a U.S. District Court in South Carolina, it could be on its way to the federal MDL in the near future.