Mirena IUD Lawsuit Help Update: Resource4thePeople Comments on New Developments in State and Federal Court Litigation
New cases alleging spontaneous migrations and other serious side effects continue to be filed as judge in New Jersey state cases sets key hearing. Resource4thePeople's national network of attorneys continue to offer free legal consultations for consumers seeking compensation over IUD allegations.
San Diego, CA (PRWEB) October 28, 2013
Resource4thePeople announced today that there have been new Mirena IUD litigation developments that will be of interest to consumers affected by allegations that the contraceptives may have caused women to suffer serious health problems.
"These are important facts that will be part of our regular updates to consumers who may be following allegations that women who used the Mirena IUD suffered serious adverse events and complications that had devastating effects on their health," said Resource4thePeople.
"In reporting these updates we also are announcing the continuation of our offer of complimentary consultations from our national network of attorneys to consumers who may be seeking information about their legal options to seek compensation over such allegations."
This update includes the reporting of the latest number of federal lawsuits involving Mirena IUD migration allegations that have been consolidated before a federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.*
There are now at least 211 federal Mirena IUD lawsuits involving these allegations from across the country that are now being overseen by Judge Cathy Seibel, according to the latest figures provided by the U.S. Panel on Multidistrict Litigation as of Oct. 17, 2013.**
"This is an increase of 52 cases since the last reporting period in mid-September and, based on the number of inquiries we are receiving from consumers over Mirena IUD migration allegations, we expect this figure to continue to climb," said Resource4thePeople.
The federal multidistrict panel detailed the allegations that have been made against the contraceptive's manufacturer, Bayer Health Care Pharmaceuticals, in this summary:***
"The cases in this litigation primarily involve injuries allegedly caused by the Mirena intrauterine contraceptive system. The cases listed on Schedule A allege that the product may migrate away from its original position, perforate the uterus, and/or cause related injuries. The cases listed on Schedule B alleges that the product causes autoimmune disorders."
Resource4thePeople is also reporting that there are over 200 other cases in a state multidistrict litigation**** involving similar allegations that have been consolidated before a New Jersey state judge according the state court file in those cases.
The judge in those cases recently provided an outline of pre-trial evidence gathering parameters that will lead up to trials that are now scheduled to occur in the second half of 2015, according to the court file. The judge also has scheduled a key hearing for Nov. 20, 2013 for an update on the progress of the litigation.
"Neither of these multidistrict litigations limit the rights of consumers who may have been affected by these allegations to seek information about their legal rights to seek possible compensation for any serious side effects they may have suffered," said Resource4thePeople.
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.
“Our team attorneys are continuing to review allegations that include claims of ectopic pregnancies, sepsis, perforations and ovarian cysts,” said Resource4thePeople.
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 knew that the product posed such risks and put it on the marketplace without adequate warnings to consumers, according to the file.****
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.
"Among the allegations in these cases is that the use of the Mirena IUD 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 also notes that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration raised objections to the marketing of the device as a safe, convenient alternative to birth control pills and other contraceptives.
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."
- MDL – 2434 IN RE: Mirena IUD Products Liability Litigation, Judge Cathy Seibel, U.S. District Court for the 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
For the original version on PRWeb visit: http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/10/prweb11264437.htm