Tap To Call: 727-451-6900

Stories from the Women Suing Bayer

Many articles have been published recently about the lawsuits regarding the Mirena IUD, and most focus on Bayer and their accountability. We at Dolman Law Group wanted to take a moment to give a glimpse of a few of the brave women who are fighting for their just compensation against Bayer. Here are three plaintiffs who were injured by their Mirena IUD, and are currently in litigation:

First, Yvette Thames has filed a lawsuit against Bayer Pharmaceuticals. She, like many others, is claiming that a Mirena intrauterine device caused her serious complications.

According to the complaint, Yvette received the IUD in January 2010 under the care of her doctor. Initially, it seemed the procedure had gone off without any complications. Unfortunately, however, in March of 2011 Ms. Thames sought medical treatment for pelvic cramping and vaginal bleeding. The strings of the IUD could not be found, and she later underwent a transvaginal ultrasound: this revealed that her IUD had in fact migrated.

In August of 2011, Yvette underwent hysteroscopy to remove her implant. For five or six days after this surgery, she still suffered from from bleeding. The lawsuit states that this caused serious pain and distress to Thames, as well as being the cause of substantial medical costs.

Her lawsuit alleges that Bayer was aware — or reasonably should have been aware — of the risks of migration and other complications associated with the implant. The lawsuit argues that published scientific literature, as well as regulatory action by other countries (several nations have banned the IUD over safety concerns) were enough for Mirena manufacturers to be aware of the serious risks of migration and other alleged complications.

The Mirena lawsuit claims drug manufacturers not only knew, but actively concealed these risks from health care professionals, as well as patients like Thames. The complaint argues that manufacturers failed to include adequate warning information in the prescribing information included with the device. Thames would not have used the IUD had she been aware of the serious risks associated.

If you would like to know more about Yvette’s case, the case is formally titled Yvette Thames, v. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceutics, Incorporated, Case No. 4:13-cv-14671-TGB-RSW, filed in the MDL In Re: Mirena IUD Production Liability Litigation, MDL 13-MD-2434, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

Next, Monica Townes alleges that her IUD was inserted properly on Sept. 22, 2011 and after subsequent inspection, her doctor said that there were no complications. Just over a month later, however, an ultrasound revealed her Mirena IUD’s spontaneous migration: the device was located on the right side of her pelvis. One week later Monica required a procedure for the removal of the IUD.

The case does not cite what specific damages she suffered as a result of the reportedly defective contraceptive, but noted the label “does not warn about spontaneous migration of the IUD, but only states that migration may occur if the uterus is perforated during insertion.” Further, her attorney argues that there are many reports of these concerns in the FDA’s Adverse Event reports and that the company should have chosen to act.

Instead, it is alleged that the company engaged in marketing that earned it a rebuke from the FDA for potentially misleading consumers about the benefits of using the device while limiting the emphasis on the potential for Mirena IUD spontaneous migration side effects and uterine perforation even after the device was properly inserted.

For more information on Monica, her Mirena IUD side effects lawsuit is Monica Townes v. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., Case No. 13-cv-02236, U.S. District Court, District of Arizona. Counts against the pharmaceutical firm include negligence, strict products liability and breaches of various warranties, among others.

Lastly, Rebecca Lash, 38 years old, had her Mirena IUD inserted on June 29,2010 and filed her Mirena lawsuit on Sept. 24, 2013 after surgery didn’t help her complications.  In September 2011, the Rebecca began experiencing severe abdominal pain and cramping. She felt a pressure in her lower left quadrant. She was diagnosed with an abscess and infection on her left fallopian tube and ovary.

“On or about Sept. 24, 2011, [Rebecca} underwent removal of her Mirena IUD,” the lawsuit states. “Following removal of her device, Plaintiff still faced problems. Around Oct. 12, 2011, Rebecca underwent surgery for removal of her left ovary and fallopian tube at Allegheny General Hospital. She was found to have a perforated sigmoid diverticulum with a large left ovarian abscess.” Her Mirena had migrated so drastically that costly and dangerous surgery was required — anesthesia is oftentimes one of the riskiest parts of any surgery. Rebecca had to go through hospitalization, medical therapy, continuing treatment and continuing monitoring. Some women experience lifelong Mirena side effects including infertility if the IUD migrates in such a way to cause permanent interior scarring. Sometimes ectopic pregnancies can occur, which require an abortion.

Lash says she, like many other women out there, thought she was choosing a safe form of birth control – and she was blindsided by her Mirena experience. She says she was “prevented from discovering the information sooner because Defendant misrepresented and continues to misrepresent to the public, to the medical profession, and to Plaintiff that the product is safe and free from serious defects and side effects, and Defendant has fraudulently concealed facts and information that could have led Plaintiff to an earlier discovery of potential causes of action.”

Rebecca’s case is Rebecca Lash v. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc., Case No: 2:13-cv-01390-MRH, the United States District Court Western District of Pennsylvania Pittsburgh Division.

She joins the many other Mirena victims who feel Bayer purposefully hid the real risks of the device, and feel they were tricked into choosing an option that wasn’t as safe as they were led to believe. Stay tuned for more up to date information on the Mirena Lawsuits from Dolman Law Group. Call us if you have any questions. (833) 606-DRUG [3784].

https://www.dolmanlaw.com/practice-area/defective-medications-bad-drugs/