Roughly 8.5 percent of women in the United States use long-term birth control devices like intrauterine devices or IUDs. This method offers up to five years of birth control by emitting low-dose hormones. The implant can be removed at any time if the woman decides that she no longer wants to use the device or decides that she would like to become pregnant.
Despite the purported benefits of many IUD devices, some of them cause serious injuries and painful consequences for patients. One example is Bayer, which manufactured an IUD device marketed and sold under the brand name Mirena. The Mirena IUD was approved in Europe in 1991 and was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2000. Since its approval, the FDA has received over 45,000 reports of adverse events associated with Mirena IUD devices, including expulsion, migration, dislocation, and hemorrhaging of the vagina.
In the ensuing litigation and multitude of lawsuits filed against Bayer, patients alleged that Bayer intentionally sold the product despite knowing of the dangerous, painful, and life-threatening complications that could arise. The lawsuits were eventually consolidated into an MDL proceeding, which stands for multi-district litigation. Like a class action, common legal issues and factual issues are decided at the global level. When it comes to individual damages, however, each plaintiff must still prove his or her case before being awarded any compensation.
In a major disappointment to the plaintiffs in the MDL, a judge in the United States District Court in New York granted summary judgment to Bayer, dismissing a plaintiff’s lawsuit based on a finding that the plaintiff did not sufficiently prove that the Mirena IUD device caused the injuries they alleged in the lawsuit. In product liability cases involving medical devices, expert medical testimony must be provided that explains how the defective nature of the medical device caused the injuries that the plaintiff suffered. Most significantly, the judge concluded that the plaintiff did not provide enough expert witness testimony regarding how the Mirena device could become dislocated and travel to other regions of the patients’ abdominal cavities. The court also noted that the label provided with Mirena always contained a warning that the device could perforate the cervix or uterus, typically during insertion, and that the perforation may not be detected until some time after implantation. The judge rejected the plaintiff’s argument that a secondary perforation was likely in many cases and that the defendant Bayer failed to warn against such an event.
If you or someone you love has suffered injuries as the result of a defective and unreasonably dangerous medical device, you may be entitled to compensation. At Moll Law Group, our dedicated and experienced Mirena lawyers have the skill it takes to conduct a thorough investigation into your claim, retain qualified experts, and negotiate with insurance companies and opposing counsel. We can work with you at each step of the way and ensure that your family and you are given the personal attention and compassion that you deserve. Representing clients throughout the U.S., including in Illinois, California, Texas, and Florida, we provide a free consultation to discuss your situation. Call us now at 312-462-1700 or contact us online.