Another Mirena headache lawsuit was filed against Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and related foreign Bayer counterparts on July 21, 2017 in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Bayer Inc., maker of the Mirena intrauterine device (IUD), is facing legal action by many plaintiffs in the form of a multidistrict litigation (MDL) of which this Mirena lawsuit is part.

Plaintiff Deanna M. is a resident of Bloomfield County, Colorado and is 29 years old. In this most recent Mirena headache lawsuit, Deanna alleges she had a Mirena IUD, a T-shaped apparatus containing measured doses of levonorgestrel or synthetic progesterone, implanted into her uterus on Feb. 27, 2012 at Westside Women’s Care Clinic in Arvada, Colo.

The implantation was done following Bayer’s included instructions, and the procedure was without incident.

Later, Deanna says she experienced trouble with clarity of her vision and sought treatment a year and a half later on Aug. 16, 2013 at Lutheran Medical Center in Wheatridge, Colo. She had a lumbar puncture as part of her diagnostic testing to access her levels of intracranial pressure due to cerebral spinal fluid (CSF).

Doctors at this facility diagnosed her with pseudotumor cerebri (PTC), a condition caused by an excess of CSF that the body does not adequately absorb. The condition is also known as Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension (IIH).

Within the next week, Deanna M. had two more lumbar punctures at the same hospital after going to the emergency room. The incident resolved with a diagnostic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) on Aug. 27, 2013 to rule out an actual brain tumor.

Problems Leading to Mirena Headache Lawsuit Continue

Deanna continued to experience difficulties and presented for yet another lumbar puncture at another facility on Feb. 3, 2015.

She was then diagnosed with vestibular neurontis. On Nov. 2, 2016, she finally had her Mirena IUD removed at the same clinic where it was implanted.

According to the legal documentation, Deanna states that she was damaged by the IUD, whose hormonal content and effects she says were strongly downplayed in all the promotional literature.

She believed that she is likely to have sustained permanent injuries, and has and will suffer economic setbacks through physician and hospital bills and lost wages.

In this Mirena headache lawsuit, Deanna M. feels she was misled by Bayer by their failure to warn of the known link between PTC, IIH and levonorgestrel. Norplant, another birth control product that uses the same synthetic hormone as Mirena, had clear warnings included with its packaging, she contends.

The plaintiff is bringing the following counts against the defendants: Negligence, Design Defect, Failure to Warn, Strict Liability, Breach of Implied Warranty, Breach of Express Warranty, Negligent Misrepresentation, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, and Fraud by Suppression and Concealment.

Deanna M. is asking for a trial by jury with a positive judgment on her behalf which includes a fair and just assessment of compensatory damages, punitive damages, all court and attorney’s fees, and any additional compensation as would be appropriate as the Mirena headache lawsuit is evaluated.

The Mirena Headaches Lawsuit is Case No. 1:17-cv-05682-UA in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.