Lawsuit Says Mirena IUD Caused Life-Threatening Problems

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

Sherry Broadwater of Pennsylvania has filed a Mirena IUD lawsuit against Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, alleging that the intrauterine device caused her debilitating side effects and complications related to post-insertion migration.

Intrauterine devices (IUDs) are contraceptive devices that are inserted into the uterus by a physician. The Mirena IUD can remain in place for up to five years, preventing pregnancy through several mechanisms including the constant release of hormones that block contraception. However, it has been associated with several Mirena IUD complications, including perforation and migration. In this situation, the device punctures the wall of the uterus and moves into the abdominal cavity.

Broadwater received a Mirena IUD in January 2010. The Mirena IUD lawsuit states that the initial procedure went well and there was no reason to suspect that anything had gone wrong. However, Broadwater subsequently experienced severe abdominal discomfort, as well as headaches and mood swings.

In May 2011, Broadwater had a positive result from a pregnancy test and requested the removal of the IUD. At the time, physicians believed Broadwater had expelled the device. However, the pain and other symptoms continued, and in November 2011, an X-ray revealed that the device had migrated from Broadwater’s uterus. It required surgical intervention to remove the device. The Mirena IUD lawsuit asserts that Broadwater suffered from medical complications from the device and will continue to require monitoring and treatment.The Mirena IUD lawsuit asserts that Bayer was aware of the risks associated with their products. The lawsuit alleges that “numerous” women have suffered from post-insertion migration of the device, though the warning label only indicates that this is a concern when the device is initially inserted.

Further, the Mirena IUD lawsuit also asserts that the manufacturers deliberately downplayed the risks and exaggerated the benefits of the device. To this end, the lawsuit cites a 2009 letter from the Department of Health and Human Services’ Division of Drug Marketing, Advertising and Communications (DDMAC) to Bayer regarding their “Mirena Simple Style Program,” a direct-to-consumer marketing program. The letter states that the program exaggerated the benefits of the Mirena IUD.

For example, the Simple Style Program says that Mirena IUD could increase intimacy and sexual satisfaction, despite the fact that 5 percent of patients experienced decreased libido. Additionally, the program made the assertion that the Mirena IUD could make women “look and feel great.” The DDMAC characterizes such claims as “unsubstantiated” on the grounds that the Mirena IUD was found to increase the risk of weight gain, acne and breast pain. Additionally, the letter points out that the program omitted any kind of warnings about serious Mirena IUD side effects, including the risk of post-insertion migration.

The Mirena IUD lawsuit is formally titled Sherry Broadwater v. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc., Case No. 2:13-cv-01583, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

If you suffered from serious side effects after using the Mirena IUD, you may qualify for compensation. You can start to explore your options by visiting the Mirena IUD Injury Class Action Lawsuit Settlement Investigation Lawsuit Settlement Investigation. Here, you can enter information about your situation for a legal review by a trained expert with a background in this type of litigation. The initial consultation is completely free of charge. From this consultation, you can receive additional guidance on the best steps to take in your exact situation.