Texas Woman Files Mirena Side Effects Lawsuit

A Houston woman has filed a Mirena side effects lawsuit alleging damages stemming from severe IUD complications. The complaint, filed July 31, 2013 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, states that the plaintiff began suffering abdominal pain in 2008, and eventually had to have the Mirena surgically removed in 2012.

Mirena IUD background

An IUD, or intrauterine device, is a semi-permanent birth control method for women. A doctor inserts the device into a woman’s uterus; the device then releases hormones at regular intervals.

Even after meeting the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) minimum safety standards in 2000, tens of thousands of women began reporting Mirena IUD complications. In July 2008, the FDA responded to the rising number of complaints with a warning that Mirena complications may include embedment (the IUD moves to a place it should not be), uterine perforation, expulsion, ovarian cysts and breast cancer.

Despite the device’s obvious dangers, Bayer released the infamous “Mirena Simple Style Statements Program” a few months later. The program touted Mirena as a perfect solution for “busy moms” looking for ways of “looking and feeling great” in order to “feel better about approaching the romance in our lives” and, as an added bonus, increasing “spontaneous intimacy” in the marriage. In a 2009 letter, the FDA demanded that Bayer pull the deceptive ad campaign, citing evidence that Mirena actually decreased libido in women.

Mirena side effects lawsuit

These statements would return to haunt Bayer in a new round of Mirena IUD lawsuits filed throughout the United States, many of which have been consolidated on the federal level as multidistrict litigation in New York district court (MDL 2434). In this particular case, the plaintiff claims she was directly motivated by this campaign to have the Mirena implanted.

The Mirena IUD complaint specifically includes allegations of:

• Manufacturing defect: According to court documents, Bayer aggressively promoted the Mirena despite knowing about potential Mirena IUD complications and despite the fact that alternative IUDs are safer. Both a disregard for consumer safety and the existence of a safer alternative are classic elements of a products liability/manufacturing defect claim.
• Design defect: This products liability lawsuit/personal injury lawsuit claims that Mirena suffers from an incurable design defect.
• Negligence and failure to warn: The plaintiff contends that Bayer had a duty to put the Mirena through more rigorous testing than was conducted or, at the very least, had a duty to warn consumers about potential complications and side effects.
• Personal injury: The plaintiff states that she suffered severe pain and infections, both of which are purportedly common Mirena side effects. The pain and infection required corrective surgery to remove the device and, in all probability, such treatment requirements may continue well into the future.

The lawsuit demands unspecified monetary damages. Bayer Healthcare is expected to deny these allegations in whole.