The Battle Against Mirena (UID)A Missouri woman has joined others across the country to begin a legal fight against the makers of the Mirena® IUD contraceptive device, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals. A lawsuit was filed on her behalf recently in Superior Court of New Jersey in Morris County by the national law firm of Parker Waichman LLP.
The firm represents several victims who’ve suffered serious injuries caused by the Mirena® IUD contraceptive device. Like other lawsuits the firm has filed on behalf of Mirena® IUD victims, the latest claims that Bayer hid evidence of the dangers of its device and further, created a deceptive marketing campaign that targeted its specific prospective recipients of the device. This campaign knowingly glossed over the dangerous side effects of Mirena® IUD while promoting it as a means for “busy moms” to help increase their libido and make them look and feel better.
In this latest case, the Missouri woman was implanted with Mirena® IUD during a 2009 procedure. By the end of the next year, after experiencing little complication with the device until just before then, the woman began suffering from severe pain. A trip to the emergency room and an ultrasound revealed that the Mirena® IUD device had perforated her uterus and migrated from the location where it was originally implanted.
complication is not uncommon for many Mirena® IUD recipients
This complication is not uncommon for many Mirena® IUD recipients. If the device does migrate from the uterus, it could lead to an unintended and dangerous pregnancy that puts both a baby’s and the mother’s life at risk.
Bayer had ample evidence showing that this was one of several potentially serious complications that a Mirena® IUD recipient could face while they have the device implanted to prevent pregnancy. This and other side effects – common side effects like weight gain and acne – were conspicuously left out of the company’s “Simple Style” program that was created as a means of marketing this new contraceptive.
Like a social network, the “Simple Style” program was targeted at women who’ve already had one child (the only approved would-be recipients of Mirena® IUD). It attempted to have women share their success stories while using the Bayer device, all while downplaying the side effects that were commonly associated with it. Instead, by targeting so-called “busy moms” with the Mirena® IUD device, Bayer promoted a return to a lifestyle these women may have enjoyed previously all while preventing pregnancy. The company sold women on the belief that Mirena® IUD could have positive effect on their libido and help them “look and feel great.”
warning label, Bayer only notes the risk of uterine perforation exists
On its warning label, Bayer only notes the risk of uterine perforation exists when the device is being implanted, not spontaneously as it has for many women who’ve received the device. In this latest case, the Missouri woman had to endure a laproscopic surgery to remove the Mirena® IUD device.
Her lawsuit seeks damages for severe and permanent physical injury, substantial pain and suffering, and economic losses due to increased and unforeseen medical expenses and missed time from work.