Kelly Holleran Nov. 5, 2013, 10:37am

Three women have filed suit against the drug company that they claim manufactured a contraceptive system that migrated within their bodies.

Watisha Hill, Jill Oertle and Debra Scolieri claim the contraceptive Mirena, which is manufactured by defendant Bayer, moved from its proper position within their bodies, necessitating the removal of the device and causing the women injuries.

Mirena is a type of birth control that is inserted into the uterus, where it can remain for up to five years. However, it can also puncture the lining of the uterine wall and migrate through the lining, causing injuries to women, according to the complaint filed Oct. 15 in St. Clair County Circuit Court.

“Defendant has a history of overstating the efficacy of Mirena while understating the potential safety concerns,” the suit states. “Specifically, DDMAC pointed out that Bayer failed to communicate any risk information, inadequately communicated Mirena’s indications, and overstated the efficacy associated with the use of Mirena in Bayer-sponsored on internet search engines.”

In fact, despite its knowledge of increasing perforation occurrences, Bayer continues to downplay the risks, the complaint says.

Because of the device’s movement within their bodies, the plaintiffs claim they suffered permanent injuries, endured physical pain and suffering and experienced mental pain. They also lost their enjoyment of life, incurred medical costs and lost their earnings and earning capacities, according to the complaint.

The plaintiffs allege design defect, negligence, failure to warn, breach of express warranty, misrepresentation by omission, fraudulent misrepresentation and breach of implied warranty.

They blame Bayer for causing their injuries, saying it negligently failed to use due care in designing Mirena, placed an unsafe product into the stream of commerce, failed to warn of dangers associated with Mirena and failed to thoroughly test Mirena before releasing the product to the market.

In their complaint, the plaintiffs seek a judgment of more than $350,000, plus costs, attorneys’ fees and other relief the court deems just. They also seek actual damages and pre- and post-judgment interest.

John J. Driscoll of The Driscoll Law Firm in St. Louis; Douglas P. Dowd and William T. Dowd of Dowd and Dowd in St. Louis; and Carmen S. Scott of Motley Rice in Mt. Pleasant will be representing them.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case number: 13-L-528.

Want to get notified whenever we write about Driscoll Law Firm ?
Next time we write about Driscoll Law Firm, we'll email you a link to the story. You may edit your settings or unsubscribe at any time.

Organizations in this Story

Driscoll Law Firm
211 North Broadway
St. Louis, MO 63102

More News