Motion Seeks New MDL Over Brain Problems Linked to Mirena IUD

Mirena IUD Brain Injuries

Written by Faith Anderson on May 29, 2014
Consumer Justice Foundation Seal

Motion Seeks New MDL Over Brain Problems Linked to Mirena IUD

In addition to migration and perforation complications, use of the Mirena IUD may also be linked to severe neurological problems.

As the number of lawsuits filed against Bayer over problems with its Mirena intra-uterine device (IUD) migrating out of position and perforating the uterus continue to mount in the federal court system, a request has been filed to create a new multidistrict litigation (MDL) for Mirena lawsuits filed on behalf of women who allege that side effects of the birth control device caused them to suffer neurological problems. If you used a Mirena IUD, and you have since suffered side effects like migration of the device, perforation of internal organs, or serious neurological problems, our consumer advocates at the Consumer Justice Foundation can help. We are dedicated to protecting the rights of consumers harmed by dangerous medical devices, and can put you in touch with an attorney who has experience handling Mirena injury cases.

Neurological Problems Allegedly Linked to Mirena

On May 27, a group of nine plaintiffs filed a motion to establish a separate MDL in the Middle District of Tennessee for Mirena lawsuits involving non-stroke neurological injuries, including a condition called pseudotumor cerebri (PTC), also known as idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH). PTC occurs when levels of cerebrospinal fluid become elevated, leading to increased pressure in the skull, which can act like a tumor, resulting in symptoms like double vision, temporary blindness and severe migraine headaches. According to the motion, Mirena attorneys are prepared to file product liability lawsuits against Bayer on behalf of at least 65 women who have suffered similar neurological side effects after receiving a Mirena IUD implant for birth control.

Mirena Includes No Brain Injury Warnings

Plaintiffs involved in the Mirena brain injury lawsuits allege that Bayer knew or should have known about the connection between levonorgestrel (Mirena IUD) and PTC/IIH, yet failed to provide consumers and the medical community with warnings about the risk of brain problems caused by the build-up of cerebrospinal fluid and the associated pressure on the brain. According to the MDL motion, “Because Mirena’s IUS label is devoid of any warnings of PTC or IIH, once a patient’s healthcare provider rules out transient cerebral ischemia or stroke as a cause of symptoms of migraine and/or asymmetrical visual loss, the healthcare provider will not typically know or advise a patient with PTC to remove Mirena IUS, which causes or contributes to the development and/or progression of PTC/IIH.”

A Qualified Mirena Lawyer Can Help

There are currently more than 500 Mirena lawsuits pending in the federal court system as part of an MDL, and the complaints have been centralized before U.S. District Judge Cathy Seibel in the Southern District of New York. Unlike the lawsuits included in the newly proposed MDL, which involve alleged neurological side effects of Mirena, these prior complaints have been brought by women who have suffered injuries resulting from the Mirena IUD migrating from its position and perforating the uterus or becoming embedded in the uterine wall. If you believe you have been adversely affected by side effects of Mirena IUD, contact an experienced Mirena attorney to discuss your legal options. You may have grounds to file a product liability lawsuit against Bayer, in order to seek fair and timely reimbursement for your injuries.

Posted Under: Legal, Medical Products, News
Start Claim Now
Do you deserve compensation?

An attorney will review your situation for FREE and help you found out what really went wrong.

How Can We Reach You?

Please Explain Your Situation

By clicking the "Submit" button below, you agree that law firms you are matched with may contact you by telephone even if you are on a federal or state Do Not Call registry. Up to 10 law firms may respond to your request within approximately 2 weeks. In some cases 3 or more firms may respond to your request after 30 days. Use of this site is subject to our Terms of Use.
×