Quantcast

Mirena IUD Lawsuit Help: Resource4thePeople Reports Number of Consolidated Cases Increases as Litigation Advances

September 5, 2013

Judge sets date for another important hearing in multidistrict litigation of federal cases involving allegations of women suffering serious side effects from Mirena contraceptive. Resource4thePeople's national network of attorneys will continue to offer free legal consultations for consumers seeking compensation for alleged IUD problems.

San Diego, CA (PRWEB) September 05, 2013

http://www.resource4thepeople.com/defectivemedicaldevices/mirena-IUD-lawsuits.html

Resource4thePeople continues its consumer updates today about the progress of lawsuits filed by women alleging that they suffered serious side effects as a result of their use of the Mirena Intrauterine Device with the announcement of new developments in the litigation.

The most recent figures provided by federal court officials and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration show that the number of Mirena Iawsuits alleging serious side effects and the number of Adverse Event Reports to the FDA have increased.

There are now at least 123 Mirena lawsuits from across the country that have been consolidated before a federal judge in New York, according to the latest figures* provided by the U.S. Panel for Multidistrict Litigation.

"These figures show that the problems being reported by women who have allegedly suffered serious injuries from the Mirena IUD are still increasing," said Resource4thePeople.

"These increases correspond with the rising number of inquiries we have been receiving involving Mirena IUD side effects and therefore our national network of attorneys will maintain its offer of free consultations to women seeking information about their legal options to seek compensation over health problems they may have suffered."

The federal cases*** from across the country that have been consolidated are now being overseen by U.S. District Court Judge Cathy Seibel in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The 123 cases alleging that the Mirena IUD caused serious health problems before Judge Seibel reflect an increase of 18 over the last reported figures on July 10, 2013.

Judge Seibel has scheduled an important hearing on Sept. 26, 2013 at which attorneys for the women seeking compensation over Mirena IUD allegations and defense lawyers will brief her on the progress of the litigation.

"Judge Seibel has also outlined a plan for bellwether, or test cases, to be tried from lawsuits within this litigation although final dates have not been set," Said Resource4thePeople.

"As this litigation progresses our national team of experienced attorneys will continue to provide consultations and review allegations from other women who may be seeking compensation over similar claims."

The court file in these cases shows that among the allegations are claims that the Mirena IUD migrated from its original positioning and subjected women to perforated uteruses and other serious side effects.

Resource4thePeople also is reporting that another key court hearing has been scheduled for Sept. 25, 2013 in a separate state court multicounty litigation in New Jersey with at least 170 cases, according to the court file in that litigation.**** These lawsuits contain the same allegations as the federal cases.

"The increasing number of consumer inquiries in response to this litigation indicates to us that there may be many other women who may have suffered from similar allegations,” said Resource4thePeople.

“As a result our team of attorneys will continue to review allegations that include claims of ectopic pregnancies, sepsis, perforations and ovarian cysts.”

Resource4thePeople also reports that among the most recent Mirena IUD lawsuits alleging serious side effects is one filed by an Ohio woman in a Pennsylvania federal court.*****

That woman claims that a Mirena IUD migrated, punctured her cervix and has caused her serious health problems for which she has incurred medical and other expenses, according to the court file in the case.

The woman also claims that officials at Bayer Pharmaceuticals, the contraceptive's manufacturer, knew that the product posed such risks and put it on the marketplace without adequate warnings to consumers, according to the file.

"As more Mirena IUD lawsuits alleging serious health problems are filed and more information becomes available about this product we will continue to update consumers," said Resource4thePeople.

The Mirena IUD received approval from the Food and Drug Administration in 2000 as a contraceptive and was approved to treat heavy menstrual bleeding in 2009.

The device is a t-shaped IUD, which, after being placed in the uterus, is supposed to serve as a method of preventing pregnancy for as many as five years. The method of contraception is the release into the uterus of the progestin levonorgestrel to prevent the release of eggs in a woman's ovaries.

"Our lawyers are now reviewing claims that the use of the Mirena IUD allegedly led to medical conditions including ectopic pregnancy, infertility, perforation of the uterine wall, cervix and pelvic organs, embedment of the device in the uterine wall or other organs, migration of the IUD, infertility, pelvic inflammatory disease and serious infections that may have required surgical removal of the device,” said Resource4thePeople.

Resource4the People notes that although the device's manufacturer, Bayer Pharmaceuticals, has marketed the device as a safe, convenient alternative to birth control pills and other contraceptives the FDA raised objections to that marketing plan and reacted against the campaign.

The FDA issued a warning letter****** to Bayer officials in 2010 in which FDA regulators objected to the marketing campaign, admonished Bayer and told the company that it was downplaying the health risks of the Mirena IUD while overstating its benefits.

"The program overstates the efficacy of Mirena, presents unsubstantiated claims, minimizes the risks of using Mirena, and includes false or misleading presentations regarding Mirena," the FDA said. "Thus, the program misbrands the drug in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act."

Sources:

*http://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/Pending_MDL-Dockets_By_District-August-15-2013.pdf

**http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Surveillance/AdverseDrugEffects/ucm082193.htm

***In Re: Mirena IUD Products Liability Litigation, MDL 2434 U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York

****In Re: Mirena Multicounty Litigation, Bergen County Superior Court of New Jersey Case #297

***** Gonzalez v. Bayer Pharmaceuticals Corp. et al., Case # 2:13-cv-04082-JP, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

******http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/EnforcementActivitiesbyFDA/WarningLettersandNoticeofViolationLetterstoPharmaceuticalCompanies/UCM197229.pdf

For the original version on PRWeb visit: http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/9/prweb11086399.htm


Source: prweb



comments powered by Disqus