Attorneys looking to push the litigation involving Essure forward need to speak with any woman who was implanted with the permanent birth control device and suffered serious complications. They have reason to believe they can craft a lawsuit that gets around the loophole that has been barring women from seeking compensation for their injuries – but, before they can take action, they need to speak with women who believe they were injured by the device. Although these lawsuits face significant legal hurdles, the attorneys believe that if they can find the right plaintiff for their first lawsuit that they may be able to create momentum for the rest of the women who were implanted with the device.
To date, there have only been a handful of lawsuits filed against Bayer over its permanent birth control device – and the cases face serious legal challenges. Specifically, the way the device was approved for sale protects Bayer against liability for any injuries the device causes. (You can read more about these challenges here.) Attorneys are now strategizing for the ideal way of getting around this issue – which is known as “federal preemption” – to help ensure other women have a chance at seeking compensation for their injuries.
One lawsuit accuses Bayer of selling and marketing a device that “migrates from the [fallopian] tubes, perforates organs, breaks into pieces, and/or corrodes, wreaking havoc on the female body.”
In the suit, plaintiff Heather Walsh alleges that the conditional premarket approval (CPMA) received from the FDA is invalid because Bayer failed to follow the agency’s requirements for such an approval. Specifically, the lawsuit claims that Bayer was cited by the FDA and the Department of Health for:
The lawsuit claims that in mid-2013 the FDA found an internal document with more than 16,000 entries of complaints, which included device migration, that were never properly reported to the FDA. According to the suit, Bayer claimed that the side effects were never reported because the patients were not “at last contact” experiencing pain and that the complications were “mere trivial damage” that did not “rise to the level of a serious injury.” Furthermore, the suit claims that Bayer even went as far as to manipulate the medical records of its trial participants to reflect favorable data – specifically that patients were in less pain than they actually were.
The lawsuit also claims that Bayer was negligent because it:
The suit claims that Bayer required doctors to buy two Essure kits per month regardless of whether they actually used them. The suit calls this promotion “unreasonably dangerous” and that Bayer’s distribution plan “aimed solely at capturing the market with reckless disregard for the safety of the public.”
Thousands of women have come forward and reported problems including:
No. Attorneys investigating lawsuits against Bayer are looking to file cases on an individual basis. This means that each woman who wishes to sue Bayer for her injuries must file her own lawsuit and hire her own attorney. It is our belief that if this litigation moves forward, it will be on an individual basis and not as a class action. You can learn more about why lawsuits involving medical devices typically aren’t suited for class actions here.
Get in touch with ClassAction.org today by filling out the form on this page or contacting us here. After you get in touch, an attorney may then reach out to you directly to learn more about your problems and to explain how you may be able to take legal action. There are a number of hurdles to overcome in this litigation, but attorneys believe they have a strategy to help women receive at least the chance at suing Bayer and seeking compensation for their injuries.
Before commenting, please review our comment policy.
ClassAction.org is a group of online professionals (designers, programmers and writers) with years of experience in the legal industry. We work closely with class action and mass tort attorneys across the country and help with investigations into corporate wrongdoing.