A new patient joins a multidistrict litigation claiming that IUD problems with Mirena PTC cause serious side effects, amidst numerous similar claims.

Allegedly, the device can cause a range of circulatory side effects including stroke, pseudotumor cerebri (also known as idiopathic intracranial hypertension) and other serious side effects because of the impact of the device’s hormones on the body, despite the fact that the device is marketed as a low or no hormone form of birth control.

Plaintiff Charlene G. claims that she had the Mirena IUD (intrauterine device) implanted into her body on or around Dec. 13, 2010, after which point she began to experience adverse side effects. She claims these were a direct and proximate result of her use of the Mirena IUD.

She states that she suffered injury because the device is dangerous to people and can cause a range of serious side effects, despite being marketed as safe and effective by Bayer Pharmaceuticals, the makers of Mirena.

Charlene states that around August 2014, she began to experience IUD problems including tinnitus, dizziness, stiffness in her neck, papilledema, visual issues and obstruction including blurred vision and a blind spot, headaches, as well as nausea and vomiting. On or around Jan. 21, 2015, she claims that she was diagnosed with pseudotumor cerebri.

Because of her IUD problems, she claims that she had the Mirena removed on or around May 8, 2015, then had a new one implanted into her body on or around July 30, 2015, after again, allegedly relying on information provided by Bayer that testified to the device’s safety and efficacy.

She claims that she then experienced the same symptoms that she had experienced before, had to take medication and undergo three lumbar punctures to treat the symptoms of her IUD problems.

The Mirena IUD problems lawsuit claims that Charlene was injured because of the Mirena device and has been permanently injured as a result of her use of the device. She claims that she was also financially injured by the device because she will continue to incur medical expenses and lose wages because of missed work caused by her injury from the device.

Charlene claims that she and her healthcare provider made the choice to use the Mirena IUD as opposed to a comparable product because of information provided in the patient information booklet she received.

In this booklet, Bayer claims that the product was a low or no hormone form of birth control. She claims that despite this claim, the product actually releases a high amount of hormones into the body.

The Mirena IUD problems lawsuit claims that Bayer did not sufficiently study the systemic effects of the synthetic hormone used in Mirena — synthetic progestin levonorgestrel.

Allegedly, the synthetic hormone impacts the body more drastically than the naturally occurring version of the hormone, though Bayer erroneously advertised that the synthetic version mimicked the body’s natural version. In reality, the synthetic hormone, and the drastic hormonal fluctuations caused by the device, actually caused serious side effects.

The Mirena IUD Problems Lawsuit is Case 1:18-cv-05898-PAE, in the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of New York.