Mirena Intracranial Hypertension Lawsuit Centralization Sought Again with JPML

With a growing number of Mirena IUD lawsuits filed nationwide on behalf of women who have suffered a dangerous buildup of intracranial fluid pressure on the brain, known as pseudotumor cerebri (PTC) or idiopathic intracanial hypertension (IIH), another request has been filed with the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) seeking to centralize the cases before one judge for coordinated pretrial proceedings.

Mirena is a small, T-shaped birth control device, which is implanted into the uterus to provide protection against pregnancy for up to five years. Known as an intrauterine device (IUD) or intrauterine system (IUS), the polyethylene frame for Mirena contains a steroid reservoir that release levonorgestrel, which is a second generation progestin used in many forms of birth control.

More than 100 women nationwide have filed Mirena intracranial hypertension lawsuits against Bayer, alleging that the manufacturer failed to warn women that the IUD may cause a dangerous build up of fluid around the brain, which can cause severe headaches, dizziness, nausea and irreversible vision loss.

Did You Know?

AT&T Data Breach Impacts Millions of Customers

More than 73 million customers of AT&T may have had their names, addresses, phone numbers, Social Security numbers and other information released on the dark web due to a massive AT&T data breach. Lawsuits are being pursued to obtain financial compensation.

Learn More

Since 2013, consolidated pretrial proceedings have been established in the federal court system for Mirena claims involving migration or perforation injuries. However, that federal multidistrict litigation (MDL) has excluded cases involving the development of intracranial hypertension or pseudotumor cerebri.

In August 2014, the U.S. JPML rejected a request to establish a second Mirena MDL for intracranial hypertension lawsuits, indicating that too few cases existed at that time to justify centralized proceedings. However, since that time, a growing number of complaints have been filed by Mirena intracranial hypertension lawyers nationwide, with the number of cases increasing rapidly over the past year.

Last week, a new motion to transfer (PDF) was filed by a group of plaintiffs, renewing the request to establish a separate MDL for cases filed by women who suffered levonorgestral-induced intracranial hypertension after a Mirena IUD was implanted.

In complex litigation, where a large number of plaintiffs allege similar injuries were caused by the same medication or medical device, it is common for coordinated pretrial proceedings to be established to reduce duplicative discovery into common issues, avoid conflicting pretrial rulings from different courts and to serve the convenience of witnesses, parties and the judicial system.

According to the new request, there are now at least 116 substantially similar cases pending in 17 different U.S. District Courts, and the number of claims is expected to continue to increase throughout 2017.

“Each of these actions assert virtually identical claims against the same defendants, the Bayer entities, for the same injury, the development of IH, caused by the same product, Mirena,” the motion states. “While the number of filed cases is substantial, the filed cases represent only a small sample of the cases that are expected to be filed against Bayer by women alleging that Mirena LNG-IUS caused them to develop IH. This product has been used by more than 15 million women worldwide.”

The motion calls for the cases to be consolidated in the Southern District of Mississippi.

5 Comments

  • MelissaOctober 25, 2021 at 12:23 pm

    I had a mirena for 5 years than had it replaced within a year i begin having dizzy spells, numbing of certain parts of my face, whooshing, ringing and or heartbeat sound in my ears and severe loss of balance with constant falls etc. I ultimately had the mirena surgically removed because it had become embedded in my uterus. I was also diagnosed with fibroids at this point as well as intracranial h[Show More]I had a mirena for 5 years than had it replaced within a year i begin having dizzy spells, numbing of certain parts of my face, whooshing, ringing and or heartbeat sound in my ears and severe loss of balance with constant falls etc. I ultimately had the mirena surgically removed because it had become embedded in my uterus. I was also diagnosed with fibroids at this point as well as intracranial hypertension and a chiari malformation type 1.

  • HalliSeptember 23, 2021 at 10:35 pm

    I had the mirena placed in 2018. Since them I have had worsening migraines and have been diagnosed with Chiari Malformation.

  • SamanthaOctober 24, 2017 at 8:05 pm

    I've started having simple partial seizures since having mirena placed. When given an MRI they found chiari malformation. Any reports of connection there?

  • NicoleJanuary 30, 2017 at 10:41 pm

    Breanne - My Mirena was placed in 2010 and shortly after is when symptoms of ptc occured, I was then diagnosed with Chiari , had decompression in 2014, unsuccessful. I am currently working with McSweeney Langevin @ 612-746-4646 . I did read a few articles about PTC causing a Chiari Malformation to worsen

  • BreanneJanuary 10, 2017 at 6:09 pm

    What about people like myself who have the Mirena but also have a rare brain condition called Chiari Malformation that also can have issues like CSF build up? But I didn't start having CSF build up until after the Mirena was placed.

Share Your Comments

I authorize the above comments be posted on this page*

Want your comments reviewed by a lawyer?

To have an attorney review your comments and contact you about a potential case, provide your contact information below. This will not be published.

NOTE: Providing information for review by an attorney does not form an attorney-client relationship.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

More Top Stories

Plaintiffs Oppose Phased Discovery Over Suboxone Tooth Decay Risks in MDL
Plaintiffs Oppose Phased Discovery Over Suboxone Tooth Decay Risks in MDL (Posted today)

Plaintiffs say a federal judge should not waste time on a phased discovery plan requiring them to first prove Suboxone strips can cause tooth decay, saying the science is obvious and such a plan could delay resolution of hundreds of product liability lawsuits.