throbber
Case 1:20-cv-00257-IMK Document 1 Filed 11/13/20 Page 1 of 41 PageID #: 1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
`
` ELECTRONICALLY
` FILED
`Nov 13 2020
` U.S. DISTRICT COURT
` Northern District of WV
`
`COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
`
`(cid:38)(cid:44)(cid:57)(cid:44)(cid:47)(cid:3)(cid:36)(cid:38)(cid:55)(cid:44)(cid:50)(cid:49)(cid:29)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:29)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:16)(cid:70)(cid:89)(cid:16)(cid:21)(cid:24)(cid:26)
`(cid:45)(cid:88)(cid:71)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:44)(cid:85)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:48)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:46)(cid:72)(cid:72)(cid:79)(cid:72)(cid:92)
`
`ASHLEY SIGLEY
` Plaintiff,
`v.
`TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS, USA, INC.;
`400 Interpace Parkway
`Parsippany, New Jersey 07054
`
`And
`
`TEVA WOMEN’S HEATH, LLC;
`5040 Duramed Road
`Cincinnati, Ohio 45213
`
`And
`
`TEVA BRANDED PHARMACEUTICAL
`PRODUCTS R&D, INC.
`41 Moores Road
`Malvern, Pennsylvania 19355
`
`And
`
`THE COOPER COMPANIES, INC.;
`6101 Bollinger Canyon Road, Suite 500
`San Ramon, California 94583
`
`And
`
`COOPERSURGICAL, INC.,
`95 Corporate Drive
`Trumbull, Connecticut 06611,
`Defendants.
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00257-IMK Document 1 Filed 11/13/20 Page 2 of 41 PageID #: 2
`
`COMES NOW Plaintiff, Ashley Sigley, through her counsel, Motley Rice, LLC, files this
`
`Complaint against Defendants Teva Pharmaceuticals, USA, Inc., Teva Women’s Health, LLC,
`
`Teva Branded Pharmaceutical Products R&D, Inc., The Cooper Companies, Inc., and
`
`CooperSurgical, Inc. (collectively hereinafter “Defendants”), jointly and severally, as the
`
`companies and/or successors in interest to the companies that designed, developed, manufactured,
`
`tested, labeled, packaged, distributed, marketed and/or sold the ParaGard IUD that was inserted
`
`into Plaintiff, and in women throughout the United States. Accordingly, Plaintiff alleges and states
`
`as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1. This is an action for damages relating to the Defendants’ design, manufacture, surveillance,
`
`sale, marketing, advertising, promotion, labeling, packaging, and distribution of the ParaGard
`
`Intrauterine medical device (“ParaGard IUD or ParaGard”) intended to provide long-term, yet
`
`reversible, “non-surgical” contraception for women.
`
`2. The Defendants have a responsibility to produce a safe and effective product, as well as
`
`the responsibility for monitoring the safety of the product in the real world. The Defendants have
`
`superior, and in many cases exclusive, access to the relevant safety and efficacy information,
`
`including post-marketing complaints and data.
`
`3. To fulfill this essential responsibility, each Defendant must vigilantly monitor all
`
`reasonably available information. The manufacturer must closely evaluate the post-market clinical
`
`experience with ParaGard and timely provide updated safety and efficacy information to the U.S.
`
`Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) and to consumers. The Defendants also must carefully
`
`Page 2 of 41
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00257-IMK Document 1 Filed 11/13/20 Page 3 of 41 PageID #: 3
`
`monitor its own quality controls post-market to ensure that the ParaGard uniformly conforms with
`
`its representations and warranties and with specifications of approval.
`
`4. After the FDA approved the ParaGard for sale and it was sold on the market, Defendants
`
`became aware of serious safety issues and adverse events associated with the ParaGard. In
`
`particular, the Defendants knew or should have known that ParaGard has a susceptibility to break
`
`in utero or upon removal, resulting in serious injuries to patients.
`
`5. This action arises from Defendants’ failures and omissions in the design, manufacture,
`
`surveillance, sale, marketing, advertising, promotion, labeling, packaging, and distribution of the
`
`ParaGard IUD.
`
`6. Defendants’ conduct, as set forth below, violated their obligations under federal and state
`
`law.
`
`II.
`
`THE REGULATORY HISTORY OF THE PARAGARD IUD NEW DRUG
`APPLICATION (“NDA”)
`
`7. On November 15, 1984, the FDA approved the new drug application (“NDA”) pursuant to
`
`§ 505(b) of the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act for ParaGard, dated September 4, 1984. The
`
`NDA was submitted to the FDA by The Population Council. Defendants, holding the NDA, must
`
`comply with the requirements for an approved NDA set forth under the federal regulations,
`
`including, but not limited to 21 C.F.R. §§314.80 and 314.81.
`
`8. On November 9, 2005, Duramed Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a subsidiary of Barr
`
`Pharmaceuticals, Inc., acquired FEI Women’s Health, LLC, which had earlier acquired the
`
`ParaGard NDA from The Population Council.
`
`9.
`
`In 2008, Teva USA became the owner of ParaGard NDA when it acquired Duramed
`
`Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a division of Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc., through its purchase of Barr
`
`Pharmaceuticals. When Teva USA acquired Duramed, it also acquired Duramed’s manufacturing
`
`Page 3 of 41
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00257-IMK Document 1 Filed 11/13/20 Page 4 of 41 PageID #: 4
`
`facilities, sales force and responsibility for maintaining and updating the labeling for ParaGard and
`
`adhering to the mandatory reporting requirements as set forth in 21 C.F.R. §§ 314.80 and 314.81.
`
`10. Teva USA manufactured the ParaGard through Duramed, which held the ParaGard NDA
`
`and designed, developed, manufactured, tested, labeled, packaged, distributed, marketed and/or
`
`sold the ParaGard IUD through September 2009. In September 2009, Teva USA changed the name
`
`of Duramed Pharmaceuticals, Inc. to Teva Women’s Health, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of
`
`Teva USA. A new entity was not created and no entities were dissolved.
`
`11. From September 2009 to August 2017, Teva Women’s Health, Inc. held the ParaGard
`
`NDA, and designed, developed, manufactured, tested, labeled, packaged, distributed, marketed
`
`and/or sold the ParaGard IUD throughout the United States. In August 2017, Teva Women’s
`
`Health, Inc. converted into Teva Women’s Health, LLC.
`
`12. From August 11, 2017 to November 1, 2017, Teva Women’s Health, LLC held the
`
`ParaGard NDA and designed, developed, manufactured, tested, labeled, packaged, distributed,
`
`marketed and/or sold the ParaGard IUD.
`
`13. On November 1, 2017, the Cooper Companies acquired the Teva Women’s Health, LLC
`
`assets, including the ParaGard NDA. From November 1, 2017 to the present, the Cooper
`
`Companies and its subsidiary CooperSurgical hold the ParaGard NDA and design, develop,
`
`manufacture, test, label, package, distribute, market and/or sell the ParaGard IUD throughout the
`
`United States.
`
`III.
`
`PARTIES
`
`14.
`
`At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff, was an individual, citizen, and resident
`
`of the State of West Virginia, in Preston County.
`
`Page 4 of 41
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00257-IMK Document 1 Filed 11/13/20 Page 5 of 41 PageID #: 5
`
`15.
`
`Defendant Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (“Teva Pharmaceuticals” or “Teva
`
`USA”) is a Delaware corporation with headquarters located at 400 Interpace Parkway, Parsippany,
`
`New Jersey.
`
`16.
`
`Defendant Teva Women’s Health, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company
`
`with headquarters located at 5040 Duramed Rd. Cincinnati, Ohio and is and/or was a wholly owned
`
`subsidiary of Defendant Teva USA. Teva Women’s Health, LLC is the product of an August
`
`2017 entity conversion pursuant to Del. Code Ann. Tit. 8, 266, whereby Teva Women’s Health,
`
`Inc., converted into Teva Women’s Health, LLC. Previously, in September 2009, Duramed
`
`Pharmaceuticals, which had held the ParaGard NDA since 2005, changed its name to Teva
`
`Women’s Healthcare, Inc. These entities – Duramed Pharmaceuticals (November 2005-
`
`September 2009), Teva Women’s Healthcare, Inc. (September 2009-August 2017), and Teva
`
`Women’s Healthcare, LLC (August -September 2017) are referred to herein collectively as “Teva
`
`Women’s Health”.
`
`17.
`
`Teva Branded Pharmaceutical Products R&D, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with
`
`its principal place of business at 41 Moore Road, Malvern PA, 19344.
`
`18.
`
`In September 2017, Teva Women’s Health LLC sold all of its assets, including the
`
`ParaGard IUD, to the Cooper Defendants. Thereafter, Teva Women’s Health LLC became a
`
`holding company with no tangible assets.
`
`19.
`
`Defendant Cooper Companies, Inc., (“Cooper Companies”) is a Delaware
`
`corporation with headquarters at 66101 Bollinger Canyon Road, Suite 500, San Ramon, California.
`
`20.
`
`Defendant CooperSurgical, Inc., (“Cooper Surgical”) is a Delaware corporation
`
`with headquarters at 95 Corporate Drive in Trumbull, Connecticut and a subsidiary of Defendant
`
`Page 5 of 41
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00257-IMK Document 1 Filed 11/13/20 Page 6 of 41 PageID #: 6
`
`Cooper Companies (collectively Defendants Cooper Companies and CooperSurgical are referred
`
`herein as the “Cooper Defendants”).
`
`21.
`
`CooperSurgical purchased assets and global rights and business of the ParaGard
`
`IUD in September 2017 for $1.1 Billion, including their manufacturing facility in upstate New
`
`York. The Cooper Companies, as an inducement for Teva to enter into the Assets Purchase
`
`Agreement, guaranteed CooperSurgical obligations under the Assets Purchase Agreement.
`
`22.
`
`23.
`
`At all relevant times, each Defendant acted in all aspects as the agent of each other.
`
`Cooper Defendants knew or should have known that the transfer and conversion of
`
`Teva Women’s Health, Inc. into Teva Women’s Health LLC was intended to thwart potential
`
`creditors from having a claim against Teva Women’s Heath, Inc. or Teva Women’s Health, LLC.
`
`24.
`
`Therefore, the Cooper Defendants are liable pursuant to the Federal Consumer
`
`Protection Acts and West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act and/or other applicable
`
`West Virginia statutes.
`
`25.
`
`The liability of these companies has passed on through various business
`
`instruments and now lies with Defendants.
`
`26.
`
`At times relevant and material hereto, Defendants held the ParaGard NDA and
`
`engaged in the business of, or were successors-in-interest to entities engaged in the business of,
`
`researching, developing, designing, formulating, licensing, manufacturing, testing, producing,
`
`processing, assembling, packaging, inspecting, distributing, selling, labeling, monitoring,
`
`marketing, promoting, advertising, and/or introducing into interstate commerce throughout the
`
`United States, in the State of West Virginia, either directly or indirectly, through third-parties,
`
`subsidiaries and/or related entities, the ParaGard IUD. At times relevant to this action, Defendants
`
`communicated with the United States Food and Drug Administration and the United States
`
`Page 6 of 41
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00257-IMK Document 1 Filed 11/13/20 Page 7 of 41 PageID #: 7
`
`Department of Health and Human Services regarding the regulation, sale, use, and safety concerns
`
`related to ParaGard IUDs, which includes managing product recalls, investigating adverse events
`
`from ParaGard IUD users, and performing mandatory reporting to the FDA regarding ParaGard
`
`IUD. At times relevant to this action, Defendants were involved in regulatory and medical
`
`communications, including but not limited to communications with physicians, doctors, and other
`
`medical personnel. This conduct led to activities giving rise to the causes of action alleged herein.
`
`27.
`
`At all times alleged herein, Defendants were authorized to conduct or engage in
`
`business within the State of West Virginia and supplied the ParaGard IUD within the state of West
`
`Virginia. Defendants received financial benefit and profits as a result of designing, manufacturing,
`
`marketing, advertising, selling and distributing the ParaGard IUD within the State of West
`
`Virginia.
`
`28.
`
`The combined acts and/or omissions of each Defendant resulted in indivisible
`
`injuries to Plaintiff. Each of the above-named Defendants is a joint tortfeasor and is jointly and
`
`severally liable to Plaintiff for the negligent acts and omissions alleged herein. Each of the above-
`
`named Defendants directed, authorized or ratified the conduct of each and every other Defendant.
`
`IV.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`29.
`
`The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter because there is complete
`
`diversity of citizenship between the parties and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00,
`
`exclusive of interest and costs. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Specifically, as alleged in more detail in the
`
`PARTIES section, Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of West Virginia, while Defendants are citizens
`
`of Ohio, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Connecticut and California.
`
`30.
`
`The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because they have sufficient
`
`minimum contacts such that asserting jurisdiction over the Defendants does not offend traditional
`
`Page 7 of 41
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00257-IMK Document 1 Filed 11/13/20 Page 8 of 41 PageID #: 8
`
`notions of fair play and substantial justice. International Shoe v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 325
`
`(1945). The Defendants have conducted and continue to conduct substantial and systematic
`
`business activities related to ParaGard device in this jurisdiction. Such activities include, but are
`
`not limited to: (a) sales of the ParaGard IUD; (b) hiring, training, and deploying employees,
`
`including sales representatives, in this jurisdiction; (c) advertising and marketing of ParaGard in
`
`this jurisdiction; (d) maintenance of company files and equipment relating to the ParaGard IUD
`
`in this case, in this jurisdiction; (e) payment of employee salaries in this jurisdiction; and (f)
`
`maintenance of a website directed to all states, including West Virginia. The Defendants also
`
`committed tortious acts within the State of West Virginia and caused injury to persons or property
`
`within the State of West Virginia arising out of acts or omissions by Defendant outside this state
`
`at or about the time of the Plaintiff’s injury, while the Defendants were engaged in solicitation or
`
`service activities within the State of West Virginia; and/or, while products, materials, or things
`
`processed, serviced, or manufactured by the Defendants were used or consumed within West
`
`Virginia in the ordinary course of commerce, trade, or use.
`
`31.
`
`Venue is proper in this District because Plaintiff currently and at the time of
`
`implant, resided in this District. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) (2). The Defendants’ ParaGard IUD was
`
`marketed, sold, and inserted in this District.
`
`V.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`32.
`
`The ParaGard IUD is an intrauterine device that is intended to provide long-term,
`
`yet temporary non-surgical birth control.
`
`33.
`
`The ParaGard IUD is a T-shaped plastic frame made of polyethylene and barium
`
`sulfate that is inserted into the uterus by a healthcare provider. Copper wire coiled around the IUD
`
`is intended to interfere with the sperm transport and fertilization of an egg. A monofilament
`
`Page 8 of 41
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00257-IMK Document 1 Filed 11/13/20 Page 9 of 41 PageID #: 9
`
`polyethylene thread is tied through the tip, resulting in two white threads, which is intended to aid
`
`in the detection and non-surgical removal of the IUD.
`
`34.
`
`Defendants market and have marketed the ParaGard IUD as providing “continuous
`
`pregnancy prevention for as short or long as [the user] want[s]—up to 10 years.”
`
`35.
`
`Defendants further market and have marketed that the ParaGard IUD can be
`
`removed anytime sooner than ten (10) years if the user decides she wants to become pregnant and
`
`“may become pregnant as soon as ParaGard is removed.”
`
`36.
`
`ParaGard is heavily marketed as being “reversible,” “non-surgical,” and can be
`
`removed by a healthcare provider “during a routine office visit in just a few minutes.”
`
`37.
`
`The marketing and promotional efforts of Defendants, their advertisers, and sales
`
`force served to overstate the benefits of ParaGard IUD and minimize and downplay the risks.
`
`These promotional efforts and marketing statements were made while Defendants negligently and
`
`fraudulently withheld important safety information from healthcare providers and the public.
`
`38.
`
`Prior to Plaintiff being inserted with the ParaGard IUD, Defendants knew and
`
`should have known that the drug was defective and unreasonably dangerous.
`
`39.
`
`Defendants knew or should have known that ParaGard can and does cause serious
`
`harm to individuals who use it, due to the risk of the ParaGard potentially breaking in utero and/or
`
`upon removal.
`
`40.
`
`Defendants knew of these risks from the trials they performed, their post-marketing
`
`experience and complaints, third party studies, and their own analysis of these studies, but took no
`
`action to adequately warn or remedy the defects and instead concealed, suppressed and failed to
`
`disclose or fix this danger.
`
`Page 9 of 41
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00257-IMK Document 1 Filed 11/13/20 Page 10 of 41 PageID #: 10
`
`41.
`
`The product warnings for ParaGard were vague, incomplete, or otherwise wholly
`
`inadequate to alert prescribing physicians and patients to the actual risks associated with ParaGard,
`
`including, but not limited to, the risk of device breakage that may result in surgical intervention,
`
`surgical intervention requiring removal of internal organs, and/or loss of reproductive health and
`
`fertility.
`
`42.
`
`Defendants' marketing and promotion, through its own website, sought to reassure
`
`physicians and patients that Defendants’ longstanding record of quality and safety assurance.
`
`43.
`
`Based upon these representations, upon which Plaintiff and her physician relied,
`
`Plaintiff had the ParaGard inserted, believing it would be safe, effective, and reversible, for the
`
`entire duration it was inserted and upon removal.
`
`44.
`
`Although ParaGard IUD is a device and Defendants market the ParaGard IUD as
`
`containing no hormones or other drugs, it is regulated by the FDA as a “drug” and Defendants are
`
`required to adhere to the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 21.
`
`45.
`
`Defendants are required to promptly review all adverse drug experience
`
`information obtained or otherwise received by the applicant from any source, foreign or domestic,
`
`including information derived from commercial marketing experience, post-marketing clinical
`
`investigations, post-marketing epidemiological/surveillance studies, reports in scientific literature,
`
`and unpublished scientific papers. Defendants, as NDA applicants and holders, must submit all
`
`follow-up information on reports forwarded to the applicant by the FDA to the FDA. Defendants
`
`must develop written procedures for the surveillance, receipt, evaluation and reporting of post-
`
`marking adverse drug experiences pursuant to FDA. 21 C.F.R. § 314.80(b).
`
`46.
`
`Defendants must submit to the FDA adverse drug experience information. 21
`
`C.F.R. § 314.80(c). Adverse drug experiences are any adverse event associated with the use of a
`
`Page 10 of 41
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00257-IMK Document 1 Filed 11/13/20 Page 11 of 41 PageID #: 11
`
`drug in humans, whether or not considered drug related, including any failure of expected
`
`pharmacological action. 21 C.F.R. §314.80(a).
`
`47.
`
`Despite these obligations, Defendants failed to adequately communicate and report
`
`to the FDA the injuries associated with the ParaGard IUD, which resulted in inadequate warnings
`
`for physicians and patients.
`
`48.
`
`On July 25, 2019, Defendants received a letter from the FDA admonishing
`
`Defendants for marketing a “false or misleading representation[] about the risks associated with
`
`ParaGard,” stating:
`
`“[t]he TV ad misbrands ParaGard within the meaning of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic
`Act and makes its distribution violative. 21 U.S.C. 352(n); 331(n). 21 C.F.R. 202.1(d) (1); (e)
`(5). This violation is concerning from a public health perspective because it creates a
`misleading impression about the safety of ParaGard.”
`
`VI.
`
`PLAINTIFF’S USE OF PARAGARD
`
`49.
`
`Upon information and belief, on or about February or March 2020, Plaintiff, at the
`
`young age of 19, presented to her healthcare provider at Mon Health Obstetrics & Gynecology
`
`located at 2000 Mon Health Medical Park Drive, Morgantown, West Virginia, to discuss options
`
`for temporary contraception.
`
`50.
`
`Plaintiff, replying on the representations made in the ParaGard brochures, videos,
`
`television and/or print advertisements as to the risks and benefits, as well as relayed by her
`
`physician, chose ParaGard IUD over a hormonal oral contraceptive or other temporary birth
`
`control method.
`
`51.
`
`Plaintiff, a young and healthy woman, wanted ParaGard because it was a reversible
`
`form of birth control that would allow her to conceive in the future.
`
`52.
`
`On March 9, 2020, pursuant to ParaGard’s instructions provided by Defendants,
`
`Plaintiff’s healthcare provider inserted a ParaGard IUD into Plaintiff’s uterine cavity at Mon
`
`Page 11 of 41
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00257-IMK Document 1 Filed 11/13/20 Page 12 of 41 PageID #: 12
`
`Health Obstetrics & Gynecology located at 2000 Mon Health Medical Park Drive, Morgantown,
`
`West Virginia.
`
`53.
`
`On July 13, 2020, after deciding she no longer wanted temporary birth control and
`
`wanted the Paragard IUD removed, Plaintiff went to her healthcare provider at Mon Health
`
`Obstetrics & Gynecology, located at 2000 Mon Health Medical Park Drive, Morgantown, West
`
`Virginia, for removal.
`
`54.
`
`On July 13, 2020, Jane Koch, CRNP, MS, of Mon Health Obstetrics & Gynecology
`
`attempted to remove the ParaGard as instructed by Defendants, by grasping the ParaGard by the
`
`forceps and pulling gently. Despite following the instructions provided by Defendants, the
`
`ParaGard IUD was unable to be removed.
`
`55.
`
`Following the first unsuccessful attempt at removal, the following day, on July 14,
`
`2020, Plaintiff returned to her healthcare provider at Mon Health Obstetrics & Gynecology and
`
`was seen by Dr. Erica Arthurs, MD. Dr. Arthurs attempted to remove the ParaGard as instructed
`
`by Defendants, by grasping the ParaGard by the forceps and pulling gently. Despite following the
`
`instructions provided by Defendants, the ParaGard was unable to be removed.
`
`56.
`
`On or about July 14, 2020, diagnostic imaging was then performed and revealed
`
`that Plaintiff’s ParaGard IUD was broken inside of Plaintiff’s uterine cavity.
`
`57.
`
`On August 5, 2020, while Plaintiff was under anesthesia, Dr. Erica Arthurs
`
`attempted to remove the ParaGard IUD vaginally from Plaintiff’s uterine cavity at Mon Health
`
`Preston Memorial Hospital located at 150 Memorial Drive, Kingwood, West Virginia; however,
`
`the ParaGard IUD was unable to be removed in its entirety and only a portion of the ParaGard IUD
`
`was removed.
`
`Page 12 of 41
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00257-IMK Document 1 Filed 11/13/20 Page 13 of 41 PageID #: 13
`
`58.
`
`Due to continued pelvic pain, Plaintiff continued to follow-up with her healthcare
`
`provider at Mon Health Obstetrics & Gynecology. Diagnostic imaging revealed the broken piece
`
`of the ParaGard IUD was embedded in Plaintiff’s uterine cavity.
`
`59.
`
`On or about September 24, 2020, due to severe abdominal and pelvic pain, Plaintiff
`
`presented to J.W. Ruby Memorial Hospital located at 1 Medical Center Drive, Morgantown, West
`
`Virginia. Plaintiff was evaluated and diagnostic imaging again revealed the broken piece of the
`
`ParaGard IUD was embedded in Plaintiff’s uterine cavity.
`
`60.
`
`Plaintiff was advised by her healthcare provider that she needed surgical
`
`intervention to remove the broken piece of the ParaGard IUD.
`
`61.
`
`On October 9, 2020, Dr. Ryan Heitmann, D.O. through a large abdominal incision,
`
`surgically removed the broken and embedded piece of the ParaGard IUD from Plaintiff’s uterine
`
`cavity at J.W. Ruby Memorial Hospital located at 1 Medical Center Drive, Morgantown, West
`
`Virginia.
`
`62.
`
`Plaintiff and her healthcare providers were provided with no warning from
`
`Defendants of the risk of ParaGard failure and injury, nor were Plaintiff and her healthcare
`
`providers provided with adequate warning of the risk of removal of ParaGard. This information
`
`was known or knowable to Defendants.
`
`63.
`
`On information and belief, Plaintiff used the ParaGard IUD manufactured,
`
`packaged, marketed, sold and/or distributed by Defendants. The ParaGard reached Plaintiff
`
`without substantial change in its condition.
`
`64.
`
`On information and belief, Plaintiff suffered severe and permanent physical and
`
`emotional injuries, endured pain and suffering, required surgical removal of the broken piece of
`
`Page 13 of 41
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00257-IMK Document 1 Filed 11/13/20 Page 14 of 41 PageID #: 14
`
`the device, and has suffered economic loss, including incurring significant expenses for medical
`
`care and treatment.
`
`65.
`
`As a result of said injuries, Plaintiff suffered significant bodily and mental injuries,
`
`including but not limited to, pain, suffering, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, medical
`
`expenses and other out of pocket losses and loss of income.
`
`66.
`
`At all relevant times, Defendants had knowledge that there was a significant
`
`increased risk of adverse events associated with ParaGard, including arm breakage, and despite
`
`this knowledge Defendants continued to manufacture, market, distribute, sell, and profit from sales
`
`of ParaGard.
`
`67.
`
`The Defendants continue to manufacture, market, distribute, sell and profit from
`
`sales of ParaGard.
`
`68.
`
`Despite such knowledge, Defendants knowingly, purposely, and deliberately failed
`
`to adequately warn Plaintiff, patients, consumers, medical providers, and the public of the
`
`increased risk of serious injury associated with using ParaGard.
`
`69.
`
`On information and belief, Plaintiff’s prescribing physician would not have
`
`prescribed ParaGard to Plaintiff, would have changed the way they warned Plaintiff about the signs
`
`and symptoms of serious adverse effects of ParaGard, and discussed with Plaintiff the true risks
`
`of arm breakage and resulting injuries and complications had Defendants provided said physicians
`
`with an appropriate and adequate warning regarding the risks associated with the use of the
`
`ParaGard IUD.
`
`70.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff suffered severe
`
`and permanent physical and emotional injuries, endured pain and suffering, required surgical
`
`Page 14 of 41
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00257-IMK Document 1 Filed 11/13/20 Page 15 of 41 PageID #: 15
`
`removal of the broken piece of the device, and has suffered economic loss, including incurring
`
`significant expenses for medical care and treatment.
`
`71.
`
`As a direct result of Plaintiff’s use of the ParaGard, Plaintiff suffered from having
`
`a broken arm of the ParaGard in her, causing her damage, including but not limited to pain,
`
`suffering, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, medical expenses and other out of pocket
`
`losses and loss of income.
`
`VII.
`
`CAUSES OF ACTION
`
` COUNT I: NEGLIGENCE
`
`72.
`
`Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference every allegation of this Complaint
`
`as if each were set forth fully and completely herein.
`
`73.
`
`At times relevant, Defendants were in the business of designing, developing, setting
`
`specifications, manufacturing, marketing, selling and/or distributing the ParaGard IUD, including
`
`the one that was inserted into the Plaintiff.
`
`74.
`
`Defendants had a duty to exercise reasonable and ordinary care in the manufacture,
`
`design, labeling, instructions, warnings, sale, marketing, safety surveillance and distribution of the
`
`ParaGard so as to avoid exposing others to foreseeable and unreasonable risks of harm.
`
`75.
`
`Defendants breached their duty in that they failed to warn Plaintiffs and their
`
`physicians by not reporting the risk of serious defects and life-altering complications described
`
`herein that Defendants knew or should have known were associated with ParaGard prior to the
`
`time of Plaintiff's insertion.
`
`76.
`
`Specifically, Defendants breached these duties and violated federal and state law
`
`by, inter alia: receiving and failing to warn of or report complaints about ParaGard to the FDA or
`
`the public and receiving and failing to warn or report to the FDA and the medical community their
`
`Page 15 of 41
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00257-IMK Document 1 Filed 11/13/20 Page 16 of 41 PageID #: 16
`
`knowledge and information regarding complaints about ParaGard, including but not limited to
`
`instances of breakage, instances of perforation, and instances of migration.
`
`77.
`
`Defendants knew that the ParaGard could break upon removal and failed to warn
`
`Plaintiff of this potential injury.
`
`78.
`
`Defendants knew or reasonably should have known that the ParaGard IUD was
`
`dangerous or likely to be dangerous when used in its intended or reasonably foreseeable manner.
`
`79.
`
`At the time of the manufacture and sale of the ParaGard IUD, Defendants knew or
`
`should have known that the ParaGard IUD was designed and manufactured in such a manner so
`
`as to present an unreasonable risk of the fracture of the arm of the drug upon removal.
`
`80.
`
`At the time of the manufacturer and sale of the ParaGard IUD, Defendants knew or
`
`should have known that the ParaGard IUD was designed and manufactured to have unreasonable
`
`and insufficient strength or structural integrity to withstand normal placement and subsequent
`
`removal.
`
`81.
`
`At the time of the manufacture and sale of the ParaGard IUD, Defendants knew or
`
`should have known that using the ParaGard IUD for its intended use or in a reasonably foreseeable
`
`manner created a significant risk of a patient suffering severe injuries, including but not limited to,
`
`additional surgeries and/or medical procedures in order to remove the fragmented product, even
`
`leading to hysterectomy.
`
`82.
`
`Defendants knew or reasonably should have known that the consumers of the
`
`ParaGard IUD would not realize the danger associated with using the drug for its intended use
`
`and/or in a reasonably foreseeable manner.
`
`Page 16 of 41
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00257-IMK Document 1 Filed 11/13/20 Page 17 of 41 PageID #: 17
`
`83.
`
`Defendants breached their duty to exercise reasonable and prudent care in the
`
`development,
`
`testing, design, manufacture,
`
`inspection, marketing,
`
`labeling, promotion,
`
`distribution and sale of the ParaGard IUD in, among others, the following ways:
`
`a.
`
`Designing and distributing a product in which they knew or should have
`
`known that the likelihood and severity of potential harm from the product exceeded
`
`the burden of taking measures to reduce or avoid harm;
`
`b.
`
`Designing and distributing a product in which they knew or should have
`
`known that the likelihood and severity of potential harm from the product exceeded
`
`the likelihood of potential harm from other drug available for the same purpose;
`
`c.
`
`Failing to use reasonable care in manufacturing the product and producing
`
`a product that differed from their design or specifications;
`
`d.
`
`Failing to use reasonable care to warn or instruct Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s
`
`healthcare providers or the general health care community about the ParaGard
`
`IUD’s substantially dangerous condition or about facts making the product likely
`
`to be dangerous, including pre-and post-sale;
`
`e.
`
`Failing to perform reasonable pre-market and post-market testing of the
`
`ParaGard IUD to determine whether or not the product was safe for its intended
`
`use;
`
`f.
`
`Failing to provide adequate instructions, guidelines, and safety precautions,
`
`to those persons to whom it was reasonably foreseeable would recommend, use,
`
`insert and remove the ParaGard IUD;
`
`Page 17 of 41
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00257-IMK Document 1 Filed 11/13/20 Page 18 of 41 PageID #: 18
`
`g.
`
`Advertising, marketing and recommending the use of the ParaGard IUD,
`
`while concealing and failing to disclose or warn of the dangers known by
`
`Defendants to be connected with and inherent in the use of the ParaGard IUD;
`
`h.
`
`Representing that the ParaGard IUD was safe for its intended use when in
`
`fact, Defendants knew and should have known the product was not safe for its
`
`intended purpose;
`
`i.
`
`Continuing manufacture and sale of the ParaGard IUD with the knowledge
`
`that the IUD was dangerous and not reasonably safe, and failing to comply with the
`
`FDA good manufacturing regulations;
`
`j.
`
`Failing to use reasonable and prudent care in the design, research,
`
`manufacture, and development of the ParaGard IUD so as to avoid the risk of
`
`serious harm associated with the use of the IUD;
`
`k.
`
`Failing to establish an adequate quality assurance program used in the
`
`manufacturing of the ParaGard IUD;
`
`l.
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket