Women who claim injuries from Mirena IUD say they don’t need expert testimony to prove their case

mirena IUD 435x290 Women who claim injuries from Mirena IUD say they dont need expert testimony to prove their caseMost claims against Bayer over injuries allegedly caused by its Mirena IUD do not need expert witness testimony because, “for years, Bayer has admitted – everywhere but in the courtroom – that Mirena can perforate the uterus after being properly inserted,” women suing the pharmaceutical company said.

Bayer is fighting to have numerous lawsuits in a multidistrict litigation (MDL) tossed out of court on the grounds that most of the expert witnesses have been barred from testifying. Without that testimony, Bayer argues, the plaintiffs cannot establish causation. The drug company also claims that injuries known as secondary perforation can happen even if the device is implanted properly by a doctor.

Plaintiffs attorneys argued back to U.S. District Judge Cathy Seibel that Bayer’s own admission of secondary perforation with Mirena gives them sufficient causation to make their case. “A party’s admissions are admissible evidence, and when such evidence shows that a defendant has admitted general causation – that is, admitted that the complained-of injury can occur – no expert testimony on that subject is required,” the plaintiffs stated.

The Mirena intrauterine device was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2000. It is a T-shaped device that is inserted through the vagina into the cervix where it releases a small amount of the hormone levonorgestrel. It prevents pregnancy for up to five years. It is also used to treat heavy menstrual bleeding.

The device can migrate from its intended position in the cervix and fall out of the body or move within the abdomen where it can puncture tissue and organs. Bayer faces mounting lawsuits from women who claim they were not adequately warned of Mirena side effects.

Source: Legal Reader