Thousands of women have filed lawsuits against Bayer, alleging that they have suffered injuries as a result of receiving the company’s birth control implant device, called Mirena. The T-shaped device is made of polymer and implanted in the uterus. It releases synthetic progestin hormones that alter the uterine wall and decrease the rate at which sperm can survive in the uterus. It also prevents ovulation.
In March 2014, one of these lawsuits went to trial in the Northern District of Georgia. The plaintiff in this case stated that the contraception device resulted in the development of a pseudotumor cerebri. The symptoms associated with this condition led to vision and hearing issues, neck and head pain, vertigo, and severe migraine headaches. The plaintiff’s complaint included claims for concealment, failure to warn, breach of express and implied warranties, negligence, fraud, and strict liability. The defendant moved for summary judgment, and the district court granted the motion. The plaintiff appealed, stating that the lower court abused its discretion when it denied her motions to extend the time to conduct factual discovery and expert witness disclosures.
On review, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court’s motion for summary judgment. The appellate court concluded that it was proper to deny the plaintiff’s motion to extend the discovery deadlines, particularly since the lower court had already granted the plaintiff one prior extension to conduct discovery. Additionally, the appellate court ruled that the lower court was not acting beyond its discretion when it denied the plaintiff’s request to amend the complaint to name two additional defendants that were foreign companies.
Finally, the appellate court stated that summary judgment in the defendant’s favor was appropriate. The plaintiff failed to preserve the issue of whether the lower court’s ruling granting summary judgment was appropriate. As a result, the appellate court deemed this issue waived and not properly before the Eleventh Circuit on appeal.
Other plaintiffs in Mirena IUD claims have alleged a wide variety of injuries. In some cases, the victims have experienced a painful migration of the device, resulting in tears to other organs and requiring follow-up surgeries to repair the damage and remove the device. Common injuries associated with the Mirena device include ectopic pregnancies, perforation of the uterus, and other pelvic inflammatory diseases. In some severe cases, patients have required a hysterectomy to address the injuries that result from the migration of the device.
At Moll Law Group, we have assisted numerous women with bringing claims against Bayer to seek compensation for injuries they sustained. Our skilled Mirena IUD lawyers understand how devastating these injuries can be for a victim and the serious impact they can have on the victim’s family. Serving clients throughout the nation, including in California, Illinois, New York, and Texas, we offer a free consultation to help you learn about your legal rights and how we may be able to assist you. Call us now at 312-462-1700 or contact us online to schedule your phone consultation.