Nearly 1,300 women who filed suit against pharmaceutical giant Bayer AG suffered defeat in a New York court recently, when a judge issued a major ruling in favor of the company. The ruling has severely undercut the plaintiffs’ case, and has left its future in doubt.
Judge Issues Critical Ruling
U.S. District Judge Cathy Seibel ruled last week that her earlier ruling, which barred important expert testimony supporting the plaintiffs’ assertions, dealt a fatal blow to the women’s suit in its entirety. Judge Seibel sided with Bayer in March after the company filed a motion to prevent the plaintiffs’ experts from testifying, after finding that their opinions had been created for the purpose of the lawsuit and were not based in science.
Plaintiff Claim Post Insertion Perforation
The plaintiffs are suing Bayer as a result of injuries they suffered from the use of the Mirena intrauterine device. The device, which is implanted into the uterus as a birth control method, can perforate the uterus as it is being implanted. Bayer’s warning label for the device reportedly advises doctors and consumers about this possibility.
At issue in the lawsuit is the plaintiffs’ contention that the Mirena device can perforate the uterus after insertion, and that Bayer was negligent in not warning consumers of that possibility.
Bayer defended itself by arguing that there is no evidence that the device can injure the uterus after insertion, and that any eventual uterine perforations which are detected were sustained during insertion. Thursday’s ruling, said Siebel, resulted from the fact that a jury would have no reason to find for the plaintiffs without the testimony of the barred experts.
Lack of Evidence to Blame
Bayer responded to the decision by reaffirming that, in its opinion, the plaintiffs had failed to present any admissible evidence which would prove their case.
After hundreds of women filed suit against the company for the Mirena device, in 2013 the cases were consolidated into a single case in New York.
Leave a Comment