Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit [September 2026 Update]

A South Carolina woman has sued Abbott Laboratories, alleging her Abbott Proclaim spinal cord stimulator caused painful electrical shocks, burning sensations, and worsening pain before it ultimately had to be removed. 

She filed the complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on August 28. 

She received the permanent implant in May 2021 after an Abbott representative told her it would provide long-term relief similar to her earlier trial device.

She alleges Abbott representatives repeatedly reprogrammed and adjusted the device after implantation, often without meaningful physician supervision, but the shocks and pain continued. 

The device’s leads eventually migrated from their intended position, becoming displaced and nonfunctional. 

She underwent explant surgery in April 2023, less than two years after implantation, but says the removal didn’t resolve all her symptoms. 

Her suit alleges the injuries stemmed from a defect in the device’s firmware and power management systems that were never properly tested, bringing claims including manufacturing defect, failure to warn, and fraudulent concealment.

The case adds to growing litigation against Abbott and other spinal cord stimulator manufacturers, with a hearing scheduled this month on whether to centralize Abbott and Nevro cases into their own MDLs, separate from the existing Boston Scientific MDL.

The FDA announced a Class I recall of certain Boston Scientific Infinion CX spinal cord stimulator leads on September 3rd. 

More than 1,081 serious injuries had been reported as of May 27th, tied to lead fractures that can disrupt pain-relief stimulation. 

The FDA labeled this the most serious type of recall, warning continued use could result in serious injury or death, though no deaths have been reported. 

The recall covers unused leads still in distribution and doesn’t require removing devices already implanted in patients.

The recall adds pressure to the existing Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulator MDL centralized in the Central District of California. 

Separate motions remain pending to establish similar MDLs for Abbott and Nevro devices, with the JPML scheduled to hear oral arguments on those September 24th.

The federal judge overseeing Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulator litigation has ordered that future lawsuits can now be filed directly with the MDL court, rather than being filed in a plaintiff’s home district first and later transferred.

The order follows an August 5 status conference and is expected to speed up the process for new claimants joining the litigation while helping standardize case information across the docket.

The MDL is centralized in the Central District of California, where the judge is overseeing coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings for lawsuits alleging Boston Scientific’s spinal cord stimulators malfunctioned, causing painful injuries that sometimes require revision or removal surgery.

An accompanying docket management order details what information plaintiffs must provide when filing, and the next status conference is scheduled for October 7.

Eventually, the judge is expected to select a group of bellwether cases for early trials, which would help both sides gauge how juries respond to the evidence before broader settlement talks or additional trials proceed.

Separate spinal cord stimulator litigation continues to build against Abbott, Medtronic, and Nevro, though the JPML previously declined to fold those manufacturers into the Boston Scientific MDL.

Plaintiffs have filed separate motions seeking to centralize claims against Abbott and Nevro individually, with the panel scheduled to hear oral arguments on those requests September 24.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation will hear oral arguments in late September on whether to consolidate all federal Abbott Laboratories and Nevro spinal cord stimulator lawsuits for coordinated pretrial proceedings.

The hearing follows separate motions filed earlier this summer seeking manufacturer-specific MDLs for each company, mirroring the Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulator MDL already established in the Central District of California.

Both proposed MDLs would keep Abbott and Nevro claims on parallel but separate tracks, distinct from the ongoing Boston Scientific proceedings.

U.S. District Judge Josephine Staton has appointed 19 attorneys to leadership positions in the Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulator MDL.

The August 13 pretrial order names three co-lead counsel, a plaintiffs’ liaison counsel, four members of the executive committee, six members of the steering committee, and five attorneys on a leadership development committee.

The appointed attorneys will coordinate discovery, pretrial proceedings, and other work on behalf of plaintiffs with claims pending in the MDL.

Judge Staton said the court may appoint additional leadership if the litigation’s needs change.

A Kentucky man has filed suit against Boston Scientific in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on August 11th.

The plaintiff was implanted with a spinal cord stimulator in 2017 to treat chronic pain, having first undergone a trial period with a temporary device that provided relief.

He alleges the permanent implant he ultimately received was substantially different and failed to work the same way.

He claims the device caused unexpected shocks and pain in his shoulder instead of relief.

Doctors surgically removed the implant in December 2021.

Surgeons told him some wires had to stay behind, fused to his bones through calcification.

He alleges this caused permanent nerve damage, and argues Boston Scientific knew about high device failure rates but continued marketing it as safe.

His case brings claims including manufacturing defects, failure to warn, and fraudulent concealment.

The case joins the Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulator MDL, already consolidated before a federal judge in the same district.

Bellwether trials are expected to help gauge how juries respond to similar claims.

The JPML is also set to hear arguments on September 24th on whether to separately centralize Nevro and Abbott stimulator cases in the same court.

Nevro Corporation filed an opposition on August 6, asking the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to reject a request to consolidate federal lawsuits involving its spinal cord stimulators. 

Nevro argues that the cases lack sufficiently common defect and injury allegations to justify coordinated pretrial proceedings.

Plaintiffs filed the Nevro-specific MDL request after the JPML declined to consolidate spinal cord stimulator lawsuits involving multiple manufacturers. 

The panel instead created a separate Boston Scientific MDL in June. 

The JPML has not yet announced whether it will hear oral arguments on the Nevro petition.

Abbott Laboratories is urging the JPML to reject a plaintiff motion seeking to consolidate its spinal cord stimulator lawsuits. About two dozen cases are pending against Abbott nationwide.

In an August 4 filing, Abbott argued the cases are too individualized for consolidation and plaintiffs share no common defect theory or injury.

Abbott noted it currently faces 23 spinal cord stimulator claims.

The motion follows the JPML’s June decision to centralize Boston Scientific’s similar cases and a separate motion is also pending to centralize Nevro’s cases.

If granted, Abbott cases would proceed individually within coordinated pretrial proceedings.

An Alabama woman has filed suit against Boston Scientific, alleging her spinal cord stimulator failed to relieve chronic pain. She says it caused complications requiring full surgical removal of the device.

She received the Boston Scientific Model SC-1232 in October 2023.

Instead of pain relief, she developed worsening pain, leg numbness, and electric shock sensations, eventually needing a cane to walk.

She also alleges the device caused bladder incontinence, a condition she says she was never warned about.

She claims a Boston Scientific representative met with her multiple times, who characterized her experience as uncommon and assured her reprogramming would eventually help.

Those adjustments failed, and her symptoms continued.

She underwent a second surgery to remove the entire system.

Even after removal, she says she still suffers pain and other symptoms.

Her suit brings claims including manufacturing defects, failure to warn, and fraudulent concealment.

The case will join other Boston Scientific suits consolidated in the Central District of California.

Seventeen individuals nationwide have filed a joint suit against Abbott Laboratories, alleging the company’s spinal cord stimulators failed to relieve chronic pain and caused neurological harm.

Seventeen individuals from twelve states filed the complaint in the Northern District of California on July 13.

All say their implants malfunctioned or failed, requiring further treatment or revision surgery.

The suit claims Abbott’s stimulators, FDA-approved in 2001, were later altered through dozens of approval supplements.

These changes affected battery chemistry, firmware, waveform controls, and leads. Plaintiffs say the changes altered device function without new approval or testing.

They also claim Abbott hid the scope of these changes from regulators and patients. The suit alleges manufacturing defect, failure to warn, and fraudulent concealment.

It seeks compensatory, statutory, and punitive damages.

The filing adds to a pending JPML motion to centralize Abbott spinal cord stimulator suits.

That motion seeks consolidation in the Central District of California, with fall arguments expected.

Boston Scientific’s similar cases are already consolidated there before Judge Josephine L. Staton.

An initial status conference is set for next month.

Spinal cord stimulator lawsuits continue to move forward against manufacturers, including Boston Scientific, Abbott, and other spinal cord stimulator product manufacturers.

In the video below, TorHoerman Law attorney & partner Steve Davis covers the latest developments in the litigation, explains what multidistrict litigation means, and discusses the complications commonly alleged by patients.

Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulator lawsuits have been centralized in MDL No. 3181 in the Central District of California for coordinated pretrial proceedings.

Abbott cases were not included in that MDL and currently remain pending primarily in the Northern District of Illinois.

The lawsuits remain in the early stages, and no settlement amounts have been established.

TorHoerman Law continues to investigate potential claims involving defective or malfunctioning spinal cord stimulators, and we are actively accepting new clients in the spinal cord stimulator lawsuits.

If you experienced serious complications after receiving a spinal cord stimulator, use the chatbot on this page to learn whether you may qualify to file a claim right now.

Judge Josephine L. Staton has set an August 5, 2026 initial conference in the Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulator MDL, consolidated in the Central District of California under a June 5 JPML order.

The June 23 pretrial order requires plaintiffs’ counsel to meet by July 24 to propose a leadership structure (Lead Counsel, Liaison Counsel, Steering Committee) and file a joint preliminary report.

Separately, plaintiffs have petitioned the JPML for their own MDLs against Abbott and Nevro.

The June 22 Abbott petition cites 15 pending cases plus 12 related suits across six districts.

The June 26 Nevro petition cites 17 cases across six jurisdictions.

Both seek assignment to Judge Staton but would proceed as separate, parallel proceedings.

A Louisiana woman has filed a new lawsuit against Boston Scientific, alleging that its WaveWriter Alpha spinal cord stimulator caused burning sensations, electric shocks, dizziness, fainting, and repeated device resets instead of relieving her chronic pain.

The complaint also claims that Boston Scientific sales representatives programmed and adjusted the device during follow-up appointments without adequate physician oversight, delaying consideration of removal even as her symptoms worsened.

The case will be joined to the federal spinal cord stimulator litigation centralized before Judge Josephine L. Staton.

Plaintiffs have asked the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) to create a new federal MDL for lawsuits involving Nevro spinal cord stimulators.

The motion argues that at least 17 pending cases share common allegations about the company’s device design, regulatory history, and marketing.

Plaintiffs have asked the panel to transfer all current and future federal Nevro lawsuits to the Central District of California for coordinated pretrial proceedings.

Multidistrict litigation (MDL) allows lawsuits involving similar factual allegations to be managed by one federal judge, reducing duplicative litigations and inconsistent rulings, while allowing each plaintiff to maintain an individual lawsuit.

Unlike a class action lawsuit, each case in an MDL remains separate and may be returned to its original court for trial if it is not resolved in the MDL.

In June, the JPML limited consolidation in another MDL to only devices manufactured by Boston Scientific, triggering motions to be filed for MDLs involving Abbott Laboratories and now Nevro.

If the motion is granted, Nevro lawsuits would move forward in their own MDL, allowing coordinated discovery and pretrial rulings while each plaintiff’s claim remains an individual lawsuit.

A Texas man has filed a product liability lawsuit alleging that an Abbott Proclaim XR5 spinal cord stimulator migrated from its implanted position, causing a severe infection and tissue damage.

The plaintiff filed the complaint on June 25, 2026, alleging that the device’s leads and battery moved toward the surface of his back and began pushing through his skin.

The resulting infection reportedly placed him at risk of meningitis and required emergency removal of the device in October 2024.

The complaint alleges manufacturing defects, failure to warn, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, and other claims.

The lawsuit is seeking compensatory and punitive damages. This case joins others involving alleged problems with Abbott spinal cord stimulators.

Plaintiffs have also filed a motion asking the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to consolidate federal Abbott spinal cord stimulator lawsuits in the Central District of California for coordinated pretrial proceedings.

The Abbott-specific request follows the panel’s June 2026 decision declining to create a broader industrywide MDL involving multiple spinal cord stimulator manufacturers.

Plaintiffs have asked the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) to consolidate all federal Abbott spinal cord stimulator lawsuits into a new multidistrict litigation (MDL), weeks after the panel declined to create a single industry-wide proceeding covering multiple manufacturers.

The June 22 motion argues that Abbott spinal cord stimulator lawsuits involve common allegations that the company knew its implantable pain devices were associated with risks such as electrical shocks, lead migration, device failure and the need for revision surgery, yet failed to adequately warn patients and physicians.

According to the filing, at least 15 federal lawsuits and 12 related cases involving 33 plaintiffs are already pending in courts across the country.

Plaintiffs propose transferring the Abbott litigation to the Central District of California, where the JPML recently established a separate MDL for Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulator lawsuits.

If the panel grants the request, the Abbott lawsuits would proceed through coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings while remaining individual cases.

The court would also be expected to organize a bellwether trial process to help evaluate claims and guide potential settlement discussions.

A New Jersey man has filed a spinal cord stimulator lawsuit against Abbott Laboratories, alleging that an implanted Proclaim XR 5 system caused painful electrical shocks, burning, and worsening chronic pain.

According to the complaint, symptoms began about a year after implantation and included shocks radiating from the battery site into his lower extremities.

The lawsuit claims the device remains implanted and continues to cause debilitating side effects.

The plaintiff alleges that Abbott knew of reports of battery failures, lead migration, loss of stimulation, painful shocks, and other complications through adverse event data but failed to provide adequate warnings to patients, physicians, and regulators.

The complaint asserts claims of manufacturing defect, failure to warn, negligence, fraudulent concealment, and consumer fraud, and seeks compensatory and punitive damages.

The filing comes shortly after the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation declined to include the Abbott cases in the newly created Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulator MDL.

As a result, Abbott lawsuits remain in individual federal courts rather than proceeding through coordinated multidistrict litigation.

A major procedural decision in the spinal cord stimulator litigation arrived this month when the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) declined to create a single industrywide MDL covering claims against Boston Scientific, Abbott, Nevro, and Medtronic.

Instead, the panel centralized only the Boston Scientific cases, finding that the allegations against that manufacturer share enough common factual issues to justify coordinated proceedings.

The new MDL will be transferred to the Central District of California before U.S. District Judge Josephine L. Staton.

The panel pointed to allegations that Boston Scientific obtained FDA premarket approval for certain spinal cord stimulator devices by relying heavily on published literature involving competitors’ products rather than conducting clinical studies on its own devices.

Plaintiffs contend those regulatory issues, along with questions about device performance and patient injuries, create substantial overlap among the Boston Scientific lawsuits.

However, the JPML concluded that claims against Abbott, Nevro, and Medtronic involve different device designs, separate regulatory histories, and manufacturer-specific conduct.

Because plaintiffs do not allege that the companies acted together, the panel found there would be limited overlapping discovery and declined to consolidate the litigation on an industrywide basis.

While the ruling narrows the scope of coordinated federal proceedings, it also represents a significant step forward for plaintiffs pursuing claims against Boston Scientific.

Centralization is expected to streamline discovery, avoid inconsistent rulings, and allow the court to evaluate common evidence regarding the company’s regulatory practices and device safety.

The decision leaves open the possibility that additional coordination efforts involving other manufacturers could be pursued as more spinal cord stimulator lawsuits are filed nationwide.

An Arizona man filed a product liability lawsuit against Abbott Laboratories on May 28, alleging that defects in his spinal cord stimulator’s leads caused worsening pain, electric shocks, fainting, atrial fibrillation, and other heart-related complications.

According to the complaint, Ethan Schwartz received a permanent spinal cord stimulator implant in 2018 and learned in 2024 that lead-related problems required surgical removal of the device.

The lawsuit claims that surgeons had to cut through bone to remove the implanted leads and that Schwartz experienced a cardiac event during the procedure.

He alleges that Abbott knew about lead-related complications and failed to adequately warn patients or to address known defects.

The complaint includes claims for manufacturing defect, failure to warn, negligence, fraudulent concealment, breach of warranty, and consumer protection violations, and seeks compensatory and punitive damages.

A New Jersey man has filed a product liability lawsuit against Abbott Laboratories alleging defects in the company’s Proclaim XR spinal cord stimulator caused painful electrical shocks, burning sensations, battery problems, and worsening chronic pain after implantation.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff received the neurostimulator in 2024 to treat chronic pain but later experienced intense burning and uncontrolled electrical shocks near the implanted battery site.

The lawsuit alleges the problems stemmed from defective Bluetooth circuit components that caused battery drainage, overheating, and unintended stimulation events.

The complaint further claims Abbott was aware of manufacturing-related issues involving the device’s Bluetooth hardware for years but allegedly characterized the problem as a software issue and relied on software updates instead of implementing a hardware recall.

Plaintiffs contend the company continued distributing devices containing the allegedly defective components despite knowledge of recurring adverse events.

The lawsuit also raises allegations concerning Abbott’s regulatory submissions, claiming the company made numerous modifications to its spinal cord stimulator systems through premarket approval supplements that substantially altered the device from earlier FDA-approved versions.

Plaintiffs argue those changes affected the device’s safety profile and contributed to patient injuries.

A federal judge has denied a motion to dismiss claims brought by a plaintiff alleging injuries caused by a spinal cord stimulator device, allowing the case to proceed in federal court.

The lawsuit alleges that the implanted spinal cord stimulator was defectively designed and failed to provide adequate warnings about potential risks.

According to court filings, the plaintiff claims the device caused serious complications, including worsening pain and other adverse effects that ultimately required additional medical treatment.

In denying the motion to dismiss, the court found that the plaintiff had sufficiently alleged facts to support product liability and failure to warn claims at this stage of the litigation.

The ruling does not address the merits of the allegations but allows discovery and further proceedings to move forward.

A newly filed lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs is drawing attention to the serious complications that can occur following spinal cord stimulator implantation.

The complaint was filed by an Arizona veteran who alleges he lost the ability to walk and control his bladder after receiving a spinal cord stimulator as part of a VA clinical study designed to evaluate treatments for chronic lower back pain.

According to the lawsuit, the plaintiff entered the October 2023 procedure without mobility issues but awoke experiencing numbness in his legs, involuntary leg movements, and incontinence.

Despite reporting these symptoms immediately after surgery, he was allegedly discharged from the hospital and later advised against removing the device even as his condition worsened.

He was ultimately diagnosed with myelomalacia, a serious spinal cord injury that can result in permanent neurological damage.

The case comes as spinal cord stimulator litigation continues to expand nationwide.

While this lawsuit focuses on alleged medical negligence during a VA-sponsored study, it also underscores broader concerns surrounding spinal cord stimulation systems manufactured by companies such as Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Nevro.

Plaintiffs in pending product liability cases have alleged device failures, lead migration, electric shocks, worsening pain, and the need for revision surgeries.

The lawsuit also arrives as federal officials consider whether to consolidate spinal cord stimulator product liability claims into a multidistrict litigation (MDL).

If established, the proceeding could centralize hundreds of cases involving similar allegations that spinal cord stimulators can cause severe and life-altering complications.

The veteran’s allegations serve as another reminder that complications associated with these devices may extend beyond device malfunction claims and include questions about patient selection, implantation practices, and post-operative monitoring.

A new lawsuit filed against Abbott Laboratories alleges that an implanted spinal cord stimulator caused a patient to suffer severe neurological injuries and paralysis following treatment for chronic pain.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff underwent implantation of an Abbott spinal cord stimulator after a successful trial period suggested the device would safely manage pain symptoms.

However, after permanent implantation, the patient allegedly experienced worsening complications that ultimately resulted in serious neurological damage and paralysis.

The lawsuit claims the device malfunctioned and failed to perform as intended.

Plaintiffs further allege Abbott did not adequately warn patients and physicians about the risks associated with the spinal cord stimulator system, including the potential for catastrophic neurological injuries.

A new Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleges that an Abbott Eterna spinal cord stimulator malfunction caused worsening pain and neurological complications after implantation.

According to the complaint, Abbott Laboratories sales representatives repeatedly adjusted the device despite lacking medical licenses, while assuring the plaintiff that the spinal cord stimulator could be programmed to function properly.

Hawaiian resident Laverne Livingston received an Abbott Eterna spinal cord stimulator implant in December 2023 after completing a temporary trial period that appeared to provide pain relief.

Spinal cord stimulators are implantable medical devices designed to treat chronic nerve and back pain by delivering electrical impulses near the spinal cord. Permanent systems typically include a pulse generator implanted beneath the skin and electrical leads placed near the spine.

The complaint alleges Abbott sales representatives encouraged Livingston to proceed with the permanent implant by claiming the permanent spinal cord stimulator would provide the same or greater pain relief as the temporary system.

The lawsuit states the device later caused severe complications, including electrical shocks, numbness, worsening pain, balance problems, difficulty walking, and incontinence.

The lawsuit also alleges Abbott representatives repeatedly reprogrammed the Eterna device after complications developed, despite not being licensed healthcare providers.

Livingston claims the programming changes failed to resolve the problems and delayed removal of the spinal cord stimulator.

The complaint alleges physicians referred her back to Abbott representatives instead of arranging device removal.

A new spinal cord stimulator lawsuit filed against Nevro and its parent company Globus Medical alleges a defective SCS implant caused worsening neurological injuries after repeated device failures and delayed removal recommendations.

According to the complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, plaintiff Paul Pospisil alleges he suffered permanent nerve damage after receiving two Nevro Senza HFX iQ spinal cord stimulator implants in 2024 and 2025.

The lawsuit claims Nevro sales representatives participated in the device selection, implantation process, and programming adjustments despite lacking medical licenses to practice medicine.

The complaint alleges Pospisil began experiencing burning pain, numbness, weakness, and irregular electrical shocks within weeks of each implantation procedure. The lawsuit states Nevro representatives repeatedly attributed the complications to programming issues instead of possible device failure.

The filing alleges representatives modified device settings without a physician present and delayed recommendations for device removal despite worsening symptoms.

Pospisil alleges prolonged implantation of the devices caused permanent neurological injuries and worsening physical limitations.

The lawsuit presents claims involving manufacturing defect, design defect, failure to warn, negligent supervision, fraudulent misrepresentation, and corporate negligence.

The filing joins a growing number of spinal cord stimulator lawsuits pending against manufacturers, including Abbott Laboratories and Boston Scientific.

Plaintiffs in separate federal cases recently petitioned the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) to consolidate spinal cord stimulator lawsuits into a multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the Northern District of Illinois.

Multidistrict litigation is a federal procedure that centralizes similar lawsuits before one judge for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

Defendants opposing consolidation argue the claims involve different products and alleged defects, making centralized proceedings inappropriate.

A newly filed lawsuit against Abbott and Boston Scientific alleges that spinal cord stimulator devices were significantly modified after initial FDA approval through pre-market approval supplements, resulting in device failures and permanent injuries.

The complaint claims manufacturers made extensive changes to core components such as battery systems, firmware, and stimulation features without conducting new clinical testing or undergoing full regulatory review.

These modifications are alleged to have increased the risk of malfunctions, including electrical shocks, loss of pain relief, and repeated device failures.

The plaintiff alleges she experienced worsening pain, device malfunctions, and ultimately required surgical removal of the implants, with portions of the device remaining in her body and causing long-term complications.

These allegations reflect broader claims in spinal cord stimulator litigation, where plaintiffs argue that manufacturers used regulatory pathways to implement design changes without adequate safety validation and failed to warn patients about increased risks.

Lawyers are currently advocating for the consolidation of spinal cord stimulator lawsuits into multidistrict litigation (MDL), which could have major implications for the resolution of cases involving spinal cord stimulation injuries and alleged defects.

A federal judicial panel will hear arguments on May 28, 2026, to determine whether spinal cord stimulator injury lawsuits filed across multiple jurisdictions should be consolidated into multidistrict litigation.

The hearing will take place before the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in Milwaukee.

At issue is whether a growing number of cases involving spinal cord stimulators manufactured by companies including Abbott and Boston Scientific share sufficient factual similarities to warrant centralization.

Plaintiffs allege that the devices have caused serious complications, including worsening pain, unexpected electrical shocks, and neurological injuries.

Currently, more than a dozen lawsuits are pending in courts nationwide.

Plaintiffs seeking consolidation argue that combining the cases would streamline pretrial proceedings, reduce duplicative discovery, and prevent inconsistent rulings.

They have proposed that the litigation be centralized in the Northern District of Illinois.

If the panel grants consolidation, a single judge would oversee coordinated discovery and pretrial motions.

The court would likely also schedule a series of early bellwether trials to help evaluate the strength of claims and guide potential settlement discussions.

Each individual case would remain separate and could return to its original court for trial if no resolution is reached.

The JPML’s decision will determine how the litigation proceeds but will not address the merits of the claims.

A ruling is expected in the weeks following the hearing.

A spinal cord stimulator lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on April 14, 2026 alleges that Abbott Laboratories and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are liable for injuries involving an Abbott Proclaim spinal cord stimulator.

According to the complaint, Stookey received an Abbott Proclaim spinal cord stimulator implant for chronic pain management. Spinal cord stimulators are implanted neurostimulation systems that deliver electrical pulses to the spinal cord to interrupt pain signaling.

The systems include a pulse generator implanted under the skin, leads placed near the spinal cord, and an external controller used to adjust stimulation settings.

The lawsuit alleges the device failed to provide pain relief and contributed to worsening pain, neurological complications, and loss of function. Stookey underwent additional surgical intervention after complications developed and alleges permanent injury resulting from device performance.

The complaint states Abbott representatives who lacked medical licensure participated in programming the spinal cord stimulator after implantation. The allegations include real-time adjustments to stimulation settings, interpretation of patient feedback, and direct involvement in device configuration during clinical interactions.

The lawsuit asserts those actions exceeded technical support roles and constituted unauthorized practice of medicine.

The spinal cord stimulator lawsuit further alleges Abbott modified aspects of the device through regulatory pathways involving supplemental approvals without additional clinical testing.

The complaint asserts the approval process failed to adequately evaluate safety risks tied to design and software changes, including risks involving lead malfunction and unexpected electrical stimulation.

A newly filed lawsuit involving Medtronic’s Intellis LT spinal cord stimulator alleges that the device failed to relieve chronic pain and instead caused worsening symptoms.

The complaint claims the implanted neurostimulator did not function as intended and led to increased pain, reduced mobility, and additional complications following surgery.

Plaintiffs in similar cases have alleged that these devices can lose effectiveness over time or fail entirely, leaving patients in worse condition than before implantation.

The newly filed lawsuit aligns with allegations seen in other cases that design changes and modifications to spinal cord stimulators were not adequately tested, contributing to malfunctions such as lead migration, unintended electrical stimulation, and loss of therapeutic benefit.

Spinal cord stimulator cases are largely centered on product liability claims, including whether a device was defectively designed, whether risks were properly disclosed, and whether the product performed as represented for chronic pain treatment.

If you’ve suffered serious injuries or complications from a spinal cord stimulator, you may be eligible to file a lawsuit and seek compensation.

Contact TorHoerman Law today to find out if you qualify for a spinal stimulator lawsuit.

Three new lawsuits were filed against Boston Scientific by patients who have suffered injuries and complications from the company’s spinal cord stimulators.

These spinal stimulator lawsuits center on allegations that the devices, intended to treat chronic pain, instead caused new or worsening symptoms, including severe pain, electrical shocks, and the need for additional surgeries.

Plaintiffs allege that device malfunctions, including lead migration, battery issues, and erratic stimulation, resulted in complications that required revision procedures or complete removal of the device.

Like other spinal stimulator cases, these lawsuits filed against Boston Scientific also investigate whether manufacturers adequately tested the devices and disclosed potential risks.

Several lawsuits claim companies made modifications to approved devices without sufficient additional safety review and failed to warn patients and physicians about known complications and declining effectiveness over time.

Three new Nevro spinal cord stimulator (SCS) lawsuits were filed in the Northern District of California on March 23, 2026.

Plaintiffs allege that Nevro SCS implants are defectively designed, improperly programmed by unlicensed sales representatives, and falsely marketed as safe and effective.

The complaints echo prior allegations in lawsuits against Abbott Laboratories and Boston Scientific regarding defective spinal cord stimulators.

SCS implants are battery-powered devices designed to relieve chronic back pain by blocking nerve signals before they reach the brain.

The devices include a pulse generator, leads along the spinal cord, and an external remote for adjusting stimulation.

Nevro SCS devices underwent design changes over the past two decades approved under the FDA 510(k) fast-track process, which requires devices to be “substantially equivalent” to prior models.

Plaintiffs claim these approvals lacked significant clinical testing.

All three complaints also name the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), asserting failure to ensure device safety and efficacy.

Each plaintiff reported positive results from temporary trial implants.

After permanent implantation, devices allegedly caused worsening pain and long-term complications.

One plaintiff’s Nevro SCS implant required removal after failing to relieve pain.

The complaint reports avascular necrosis of the femoral heads, shocks, weakness in extremities, and ongoing pain despite reprogramming by unlicensed Nevro representatives.

Another case reports similar device failure, long-term mobility issues, bedsores, pulmonary embolism, and use of a foley catheter.

Nevro and Globus Medical face claims including manufacturing defect, failure to warn, negligence per se, breach of warranty, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, and violation of consumer protection laws.

The FDA faces claims under the Administrative Procedure Act, with plaintiffs seeking injunctive and declaratory relief.

The Ninth Circuit has affirmed summary judgment in favor of Medtronic, ruling that a Washington plaintiff failed to support his claims that a spinal cord stimulator malfunction caused him additional pain.

The court held that the plaintiff lacked necessary expert testimony to establish causation, which is required under Washington law for complex medical device claims.

The plaintiff alleged that Medtronic failed to respond appropriately when the implanted device malfunctioned and worsened his condition.

However, the appellate panel found that none of his disclosed experts linked his injuries to the device or to Medtronic’s actions.

In fact, one expert attributed the plaintiff’s symptoms to a prior car accident rather than the implant.

The court also rejected claims under the Washington Consumer Protection Act, finding insufficient evidence of a deceptive act with broader public impact.

The alleged sales representation about device capabilities was deemed an isolated interaction and contradicted by evidence that such features were not offered due to regulatory limitations.

As a result, all claims were dismissed.

A new lawsuit has been filed alleging that an Abbott Proclaim spinal cord stimulator caused serious injuries after implanted leads migrated from their intended position, leading to device failure and additional medical complications.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff underwent implantation of the device to manage chronic pain but later experienced a loss of therapeutic benefit.

The lawsuit claims the stimulator’s leads shifted, preventing proper delivery of electrical impulses and resulting in increased pain and the need for revision surgery.

The case alleges that the device was defectively designed and that Abbott failed to adequately warn patients and physicians about the risk of lead migration.

The plaintiff also claims the manufacturer did not sufficiently test the device to ensure long term safety and effectiveness before bringing it to market.

Lead migration is a known complication associated with spinal cord stimulators and can cause loss of pain relief, unintended stimulation, and additional surgical intervention.

The lawsuit seeks damages for the plaintiff’s injuries and related medical costs.

This filing adds to ongoing litigation involving spinal cord stimulators, in which plaintiffs are raising similar claims regarding device performance and safety.

A new lawsuit has been filed against Abbott Laboratories alleging that a spinal cord stimulator implanted to treat chronic pain malfunctioned after the device’s leads migrated, causing painful electric shocks and loss of bladder control.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff received the implant to manage severe back pain.

The lawsuit claims the device failed when the leads moved out of position, triggering uncontrolled electrical stimulation and worsening neurological symptoms.

The plaintiff alleges the malfunction caused repeated electric shocks and incontinence, ultimately requiring revision surgery to remove the device.

The lawsuit alleges that Abbott failed to adequately warn patients and physicians about the risk of lead migration and device malfunction, which can result in serious complications and additional surgeries.

The complaint brings claims for negligence, failure to warn, design defect, manufacturing defect, and breach of warranty.

The plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive damages for injuries allegedly caused by the device.

A newly filed lawsuit is drawing attention to potential safety risks associated with spinal cord stimulators when patients encounter electromagnetic equipment in public settings.

According to a complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, a woman alleges that Transportation Security Administration (TSA) agents required her to pass through an airport body scanner despite being informed that she had an implanted spinal cord stimulator.

The plaintiff claims she presented a medical identification card and repeatedly requested an alternative screening method, such as a manual pat-down, which is typically recommended for individuals with implanted electronic medical devices.

The lawsuit alleges that TSA personnel ignored those requests and directed her through the scanner, stating the machine had been adjusted to avoid harming the implant.

After entering the scanner, the woman reportedly experienced a sudden shock and intense pain, which she claims permanently damaged the spinal cord stimulator and ultimately required surgical removal of the device.

Spinal cord stimulators are implantable devices designed to treat chronic pain by delivering electrical impulses to the spinal cord.

Because they contain sensitive electronic components and wiring, patients are often advised to alert security personnel before passing through screening systems that may generate electromagnetic interference.

The case also emerges as a growing number of spinal cord stimulator lawsuits are being filed nationwide involving alleged device malfunctions.

Plaintiffs in these cases claim that certain models manufactured by companies such as Medtronic, Abbott Laboratories, and Boston Scientific may be prone to issues including lead breakage, device migration, unintended electrical shocks, and loss of therapeutic benefit.

Given the increasing number of similar claims, some plaintiffs have asked the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to consolidate federal spinal cord stimulator lawsuits involving Abbott and Boston Scientific into a single multidistrict litigation in the Northern District of Illinois.

If granted, the consolidation would allow a single federal judge to oversee coordinated discovery, rule on pretrial motions, and potentially schedule bellwether trials to test key evidence that could shape future settlement discussions.

The airport scanner incident highlights another potential risk scenario for patients with implanted spinal cord stimulators and may further intensify scrutiny over device reliability and safety protocols in environments involving electromagnetic screening technology.

A federal lawsuit filed in February 2026 alleges that a Medtronic spinal cord stimulator caused unnecessary and harmful electrical shocks, worsening pain, and additional medical complications for a patient in Illinois.

The complaint claims that company representatives, rather than licensed medical professionals, were involved in programming the device, contributing to adverse outcomes.

The lawsuit further asserts that Medtronic failed to adequately report adverse events to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and did not provide sufficient warnings about potential risks associated with its spinal cord stimulator systems.

Claims include manufacturing defects, failure to warn, negligence, unauthorized practice of medicine, and violations of consumer protection laws.

This case is part of a broader wave of litigation involving spinal cord stimulators, where patients report device malfunctions, overstimulation, and the need for revision or removal surgeries.

Lawyers are advocating for the creation of a multidistrict litigation (MDL) to handle the growing number of cases involving potentially dangerous spinal cord stimulator devices.

Patients experiencing similar unexpected shocks or worsening symptoms after implantation may be eligible to pursue legal claims.

An investigation by KARE 11 reports that multiple patients have filed lawsuits after allegedly suffering paralysis and severe neurological injuries following spinal cord stimulator implant procedures performed at Nura Pain Clinic.

The lawsuits claim the routine pain management procedures resulted in catastrophic complications, leaving some patients permanently unable to walk.

According to the report, at least three patients allege they experienced spinal cord damage shortly after undergoing implantation of spinal cord stimulators intended to treat chronic pain.

Plaintiffs contend the procedures caused irreversible injuries that dramatically altered their lives.

Court filings describe allegations of negligence related to the placement of the device leads and postoperative care.

Spinal cord stimulators are medical devices implanted near the spine to deliver electrical pulses that interrupt pain signals before they reach the brain.

While commonly used for chronic back and nerve pain, the devices carry known risks including infection, bleeding, nerve injury, and lead migration.

Paralysis is considered a rare but serious complication.

The defendants have denied wrongdoing.

The cases are expected to proceed through the civil court system, where expert testimony will likely address surgical technique, patient selection, and whether the standard of care was met.

Plaintiffs in multiple federal lawsuits have asked the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) to consolidate pending cases involving Abbott and Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulators into a single multidistrict litigation (MDL).

The motion seeks transfer of 15 currently pending actions, filed in federal courts in California, Illinois, Mississippi, and Michigan, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for coordinated pretrial proceedings. Most of the cases also name the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as a defendant under the Administrative Procedure Act.

According to the filing, the lawsuits involve overlapping factual and legal issues, including federal preemption defenses raised by the manufacturers and challenges to the FDA’s approval and oversight of the devices.

Plaintiffs’ counsel state that hundreds of additional claims are anticipated, with approximately 400 individuals already represented and other firms preparing to file similar cases.

No court has yet ruled on dispositive motions in the pending cases. The JPML will decide whether to establish an MDL and determine the appropriate venue for centralized proceedings.

Internal interrogation logs from implanted pulse generators (IPGs) are used to determine whether devices changed stimulation settings without a physician reprogramming them.

Unlike general issues of “malfunction,” this issue centers on objective electronic data generated by the device itself.

During routine follow-up visits, physicians download interrogation reports that record time-stamped activity inside the device.

In legal claims, plaintiffs may point to logs that show:

• Unexpected therapy mode switches
• Sudden amplitude increases or decreases
• System resets without a documented clinical adjustment

This could strengthen the potential argument that these entries reflect uncommanded changes in therapy, not normal use.

Internal interrogation logs from implanted pulse generators (IPGs) can be an important source of information about device performance and reliability.

These logs are not narrative summaries or patient reports.

They are electronic records automatically generated and stored by the device itself during operation.

An implanted pulse generator is a battery-powered medical device used in therapies such as spinal cord stimulation and deep brain stimulation.

During follow-up appointments, clinicians use a specialized programmer to “interrogate” the device.

This process downloads stored data from the IPG and generates a report containing time-stamped entries that document device activity over a given period.

Interrogation logs can record therapy mode changes, adjustments to stimulation amplitude, battery status updates, system diagnostics, software resets, and error codes.

These entries raise technical questions about what triggered the change.

Depending on the device’s design and settings, events reflected in the log may result from patient-initiated adjustments within allowed ranges, automatic recalibration features, built-in safety protocols, environmental interference, or internal software processes.

A new lawsuit has been filed against Abbott Laboratories over its Eterna spinal cord stimulator, alleging the device malfunctioned and caused significant harm to a patient.

The complaint was filed on January 26, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by plaintiff Zella Tuttle, who received the implant in October 2023 for chronic pain management.

According to the filing, the device failed within two months, as the stimulator leads migrated from their intended positions, leading to loss of therapeutic benefit and increased pain.

Surgeons subsequently removed the device in December 2023.

The lawsuit claims Abbott marketed the Eterna system using the FDA’s 510(k) process, asserting it was substantially equivalent to earlier devices despite incorporating significant changes in software, features, and components without new clinical testing.

The complaint also alleges that Abbott sales representatives, rather than qualified medical personnel, made adjustments to the device after implantation.

Tuttle’s lawsuit asserts claims of manufacturing defects, failure to warn, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, breach of warranty, fraud, and fraudulent concealment.

The complaint further raises concerns about the unauthorized practice of medicine by company representatives.

Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages for the injuries and complications resulting from the device’s failure.

This case adds to a growing number of product liability claims targeting spinal cord stimulators, with plaintiffs citing lead migration and device malfunctions as recurring issues.

Abbott has not publicly commented on the lawsuit.

New spinal cord stimulator lawsuits are increasingly focusing on alleged unintended device resets and shock sensations tied to device communication or programming failures

Instead of relying on generalized malfunction allegations, plaintiffs are citing device interrogation reports generated during follow-up visits that record unexplained resets, communication errors, or abrupt changes in stimulation output.

Programming histories are being used to show unexpected shifts in stimulation settings, including changes that occurred without patient-initiated adjustments or clinician reprogramming.

Clinic visit records further document repeated troubleshooting attempts, such as multiple reprogramming sessions, temporary loss of pain relief, or reports of sudden jolting sensations, which plaintiffs argue indicate device instability rather than normal post-implant adjustment.

This narrow issue matters because programming logs and reset events can help distinguish a device-related failure from surgical technique or patient anatomy defenses in a spinal cord stimulator lawsuit.

Clear documentation of repeated resets or abnormal device behavior can also strengthen failure-to-warn and defect theories by showing that the complication was detectable, recurring, and medically significant, which shapes which cases survive early challenges and proceed into discovery.

A Florida jury has awarded a Brevard County couple $27 million in a medical malpractice case involving delayed treatment after spinal surgery at Holmes Regional Medical Center.

The case stems from a 2018 surgery in which the patient developed clear signs of spinal cord compression shortly after the procedure.

Evidence presented at trial showed hospital staff failed to properly assess those symptoms and delayed returning the patient to surgery.

Experts testified that nurses did not follow internal safety policies designed to detect post-operative spinal injuries.

The delay allowed a hematoma to cause permanent damage to the spinal cord.

As a result, the patient was left partially paralyzed and now relies on a cane, experiences severe nerve pain, and suffers from ongoing leg spasms.

The injuries were described as permanent and avoidable.

The jury found the hospital primarily responsible for the harm and awarded damages, including compensation for loss of quality of life and loss of consortium for the patient’s spouse.

The verdict highlights the financial consequences of delayed post-surgical care and failures to follow established safety protocols.

A new spinal cord stimulator lawsuit has been filed against Boston Scientific and the FDA following serious complications allegedly caused by the Spectra WaveWriter device.

Plaintiff Dena Lawler filed the complaint on May 1, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

She received the Spectra WaveWriter spinal cord stimulator in 2020 to treat chronic back pain and post-laminectomy syndrome.

Within a month, she began experiencing worsened symptoms.

Subsequent medical evaluations revealed lead migration and improper lead positioning.

Lawler underwent revision surgery three months later, but by early 2021, she developed chest pain and was diagnosed with cardiac arrhythmia.

The lawsuit claims Boston Scientific made substantial modifications to the implanted device that altered its safety and effectiveness but bypassed full FDA review by using the premarket approval supplement process instead of seeking new premarket approval (PMA).

The plaintiff argues this constituted a regulatory failure.

Lawler is pursuing damages and has requested a jury trial.

The FDA declined to comment, citing pending litigation, and Boston Scientific has not issued a response.

The American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) has released consensus guidelines for the use of peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) in treating chronic pain and neurological disorders.

The guidelines, published in the Journal of Pain Research, provide evidence-based recommendations for clinicians and payors.

The guidelines establish that PNS is effective for multiple chronic pain conditions, with strong evidence (Level 1, Grade A) supporting its use across various nerve targets.

They differentiate PNS from other neuromodulation techniques such as peripheral nerve field stimulation (PNfS), percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (PENS), and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), noting that these modalities are less specific and have lower evidence.

The guidelines recommend procedural accuracy using ultrasound or fluoroscopy, consideration of device type and MRI compatibility, and shared decision-making between clinician and patient.

Nerve blocks may aid in anatomical targeting but are not supported as predictors of PNS efficacy.

PNS has demonstrated effectiveness for upper and lower extremity pain, low back pain, complex regional pain syndrome, and certain neuropathies.

Evidence supports long-term outcomes in specific cases, and economic analyses indicate potential cost savings over conventional therapies.

The ASPN guidelines are intended to inform standard of care and may influence clinical, coverage, and litigation considerations involving chronic pain and nerve injury.

A new product liability lawsuit has been filed against Boston Scientific Corporation, alleging defects in the company’s WaveWriter Alpha spinal cord stimulator system that led to painful complications and multiple revision surgeries.

According to the complaint, filed October 17, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, plaintiff Ollie Wilson received the Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulator in 2022 to manage chronic pain.

The suit claims the device malfunctioned due to lead migration and a battery “flipping” within the patient’s body, causing loss of stimulation, nerve pain, and shocking sensations.

After unsuccessful corrective surgeries, the device was removed in December 2024.

The plaintiff accuses Boston Scientific of manufacturing defects, failure to warn, breach of warranty, negligence, and misrepresentation.

The complaint also includes a claim under California’s Unfair Competition Law and an administrative claim against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), alleging that the agency improperly allowed Boston Scientific to market substantially modified versions of the device under earlier approvals without full regulatory review.

Boston Scientific’s WaveWriter Alpha system, first launched in 2021, is approved for the treatment of chronic intractable pain of the trunk and limbs.

The device has been subject to prior advisories, including a 2024 notice warning that rechargeable models could temporarily suspend therapy during charging due to device resets.

The case adds to broader scrutiny over spinal cord stimulators, which have been linked to reports of lead migration, device failure, and the need for revision surgeries across multiple manufacturers.

No multidistrict litigation has been established involving Boston Scientific devices as of October 2025.

Our attorneys are actively investigating spinal cord stimulator lawsuits on behalf of individuals who these potentially defective medical devices have harmed.

Reports of device migration, nerve damage, and chronic pain have resulted in growing legal action against the manufacturers.

Attorneys across the country could attempt to consolidate spinal cord stimulator lawsuits into a single multidistrict litigation (MDL) to enhance discovery management and simplify pretrial procedures.

If the case is consolidated, this will establish an MDL rather than a class action lawsuit.

In a multidistrict litigation (MDL), similar cases are consolidated and transferred to one federal court for centralized oversight by a single judge.

However, each plaintiff maintains an individual claim and the right to their own settlement or verdict.

This arrangement is typical in medical device and product liability cases where injuries and outcomes vary from person to person.

A class action lawsuit, by contrast, consolidates plaintiffs into a single case with a shared outcome. MDLs enable more tailored compensation and are often employed when defective products result in unique situations or injuries.

People who experienced complications from a spinal cord stimulator implant might be able to pursue legal action.

Contact TorHoerman Law for a free, no-obligation case review to explore your legal options.

A newly filed lawsuit names the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as a defendant alongside major medical device manufacturers over alleged defects in spinal cord stimulators.

Plaintiffs claim the devices caused severe injuries including nerve damage, electric shocks, and worsening chronic pain.

The complaint accuses the FDA of improperly allowing device modifications without adequate safety testing or warnings, using the Premarket Approval (PMA) supplement process to bypass rigorous review.

Device makers cited in the suit include Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Abbott/St. Jude, and Nevro.

Plaintiffs allege that the manufacturers and the FDA failed to act despite thousands of adverse event reports, including nearly 500 deaths and multiple device recalls.

According to the complaint, the FDA allowed manufacturers to make significant changes to device design and functionality without requiring new clinical trials or public safety disclosures.

Plaintiffs argue this regulatory process enabled unsafe devices to remain on the market, exposing patients to preventable harm.

Spinal cord stimulators have been the subject of growing scrutiny.

Over 80,000 injury reports related to these devices have been submitted to the FDA since 2008.

At least 40 product recalls have occurred in recent years, including Class I recalls of models manufactured by Abbott and Boston Scientific due to defects that may cause serious injuries or require surgical removal.

The litigation is in its early stages, with court proceedings expected to focus on the FDA’s role in the PMA process and potential liability for regulatory decisions.

The inclusion of a federal agency as a defendant is unusual and may raise jurisdictional and immunity issues as the case progresses.

Australian health officials are considering restrictions on spinal cord stimulators following renewed scrutiny over the devices’ safety and effectiveness.

The review comes in response to a 2023 study published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, which concluded that spinal cord stimulation offers little to no long-term benefit for chronic back pain and may pose serious risks.

Researchers analyzed multiple clinical trials and found that the devices, which deliver electrical pulses to the spinal cord to disrupt pain signals, performed only marginally better than placebo treatments.

The study also identified a high incidence of complications, including infections, lead migration, device malfunction, and frequent surgical removals.

In light of these findings, Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) is reviewing whether the devices should face tighter regulations or potential market withdrawal.

Health experts in Australia argue that the risks outweigh the benefits in many cases, prompting calls for a national reassessment of their use.

As international regulators begin to question the utility of spinal cord stimulators, the developments raise broader questions about the devices’ future in the United States.

While no federal action has been taken, increasing scrutiny abroad may prompt further research, regulatory review, and further build upon active Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuits in the U.S. if similar safety concerns continue to emerge.

A growing number of lawsuits allege that rechargeable spinal cord stimulators (SCS) suffer from defective batteries that prematurely drain, overheat, or fail to recharge—problems that can halt therapy, trigger painful shocks, or require urgent device removal.

Battery Defects Take Center Stage

• A 2011 recall of St. Jude’s Eon and Eon Mini IPGs revealed internal battery weld failures that leaked electrolyte, causing devices to lose charge or overheat during recharging. This led to therapy interruption and emergency explant surgery in multiple cases

• More recent reports and lawsuits highlight similar issues across major manufacturers—Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Abbott—whose rechargeable SCS devices have allegedly failed without warning, forcing patients to undergo revision surgery

Why This Matters to Patients

Power failures in SCS units can interrupt pain therapy, leading to the return of debilitating symptoms and, in some cases, sudden painful shocks or burns.

Overheating during charging poses additional safety hazards.

What Patients Should Monitor

• Unexpected shutdowns or loss of therapy between charges
• Difficulty recharging the device or significantly shortened battery life
• Unusual warmth or sensations at the implant site during charging

If any of these issues occur, patients are urged to contact their physician immediately—battery malfunctions may require device inspection or prompt removal to prevent further harm.

On May 27, 2025, U.S. News & World Report published an article highlighting AposHealth® and its CEO, Dr. Cliff Bleustein, who called the company’s new wearable device “a revolution in care” for chronic pain.

While the product itself is not an implanted device, Bleustein’s comments were made while also promoting a new spinal cord stimulator developed by Abbott as part of an overall strategy to offer alternatives to opioids.

Despite claims of innovation, spinal cord stimulators—Abbott’s included—have a long history of safety concerns and questionable clinical effectiveness.

These devices, surgically implanted near the spine to deliver electrical impulses meant to disrupt pain signals, have been linked to serious complications such as nerve damage, electrical shocks, burns, lead migration, and worsened pain.

Thousands of adverse event reports have been filed with the FDA.

Abbott, along with other manufacturers, has faced lawsuits over allegations that its spinal cord stimulators are defective and were marketed without sufficient warning of potential risks.

Furthermore, while widely used, spinal cord stimulators have limited scientific evidence supporting their long-term effectiveness, and no clear consensus exists among independent researchers regarding their benefit for chronic pain patients.

As new devices enter the market and manufacturers continue to promote them as safer alternatives to opioids, legal scrutiny over spinal cord stimulator injuries is expected to increase.

Patients harmed by defective or malfunctioning stimulators may have grounds for legal action.

Spinal cord stimulators (SCS) are implantable devices designed to manage chronic pain by delivering electrical impulses to the spinal cord, altering pain perception before signals reach the brain.

While intended to provide relief, these devices have been associated with various complications and adverse events.​

History and Usage

Spinal cord stimulators have gained popularity as alternatives to opioid medications for pain management.

They are typically recommended for patients who have not found relief from other treatments.

The implantation involves placing electrodes near the spinal cord and a pulse generator under the skin, allowing patients to control the intensity of stimulation.

Common Complaints and Injuries

Despite their intended benefits, spinal cord stimulators have been linked to several adverse effects:​

• Device Malfunction and Migration: Electrodes may move from their original position, leading to ineffective pain relief or stimulation of unintended areas, necessitating additional surgical intervention.
• Infections: Surgical implantation carries the risk of infections at the incision site or deeper tissues, which can be severe if not promptly addressed.
• Neurological Damage: Incorrect placement or malfunctioning devices can cause nerve injuries, resulting in symptoms like numbness, tingling, or loss of function.
• Pain and Overstimulation: Some patients report increased pain or discomfort due to device malfunction, leading to overstimulation and injury to nearby nerves or soft tissues.
• Serious Adverse Events: The FDA has received reports of severe complications, including paralysis, sepsis, and even death, associated with spinal cord stimulators.

Regulatory Concerns

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has documented a high number of adverse event reports related to spinal cord stimulators, raising concerns about their safety and the adequacy of pre-market evaluations.

From 2004 to 2019, the FDA received 220,374 reports, including 156,817 injuries and 931 deaths. ​

Recent Legal Actions

Numerous patients have pursued legal action against manufacturers, alleging that these devices caused serious health issues.

Lawsuits typically cite:​

• Product Liability: Claims that the devices are defectively designed or manufactured, leading to unforeseen complications.​
• Failure to Warn: Allegations that manufacturers did not adequately inform patients and healthcare providers about potential risks associated with the stimulators.​
• Medical Malpractice: Cases where improper implantation or management by healthcare providers resulted in patient harm.​

Recent Developments

In August 2024, a New Jersey man secured a $1.25 million settlement after experiencing complications from a spinal cord stimulator.

If you or a loved one experienced complications from a Spinal Cord Stimulator such as infection device migration, device malfunction, or neurological complications, then you may be eligible to take action and file a Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit

Contact Torhoerman Law today for a free consultation.

Use the chatbot on this page to find out if you qualify to file a Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit and to get in touch with a licensed lawyer.

A medical malpractice lawsuit in Essex County, New Jersey, concluded with a $1.25 million settlement for Orlando Figueroa, a 61-year-old man left with partial paralysis and incontinence following spinal cord stimulator surgery.

The settlement, finalized on August 24, 2024, highlighted failures in preoperative assessment and subsequent care.

Figueroa first sought treatment in April 2017 from neurosurgeon Dr. Antonios Mammis at University Hospital in Newark.

At the time, he experienced severe lower back pain radiating into his legs, intermittent incontinence, and required mobility assistance.

Mammis recommended a spinal cord stimulator but did not order diagnostic imaging of the spine before proceeding with the procedure on May 22, 2017.

Following the surgery, Figueroa experienced worsening symptoms, including significant incontinence and difficulty walking.

A CT scan performed after his return to the hospital on May 26 revealed spinal cord compression caused by the stimulator.

Emergency surgery was performed to remove the device and address the narrowing of the spinal canal through additional laminectomies.

Despite these measures, Figueroa suffered permanent loss of bladder function and further loss of mobility in his lower extremities, necessitating increased reliance on a wheelchair.

Figueroa filed suit against Mammis, University Hospital, and Rutgers University, alleging that the failure to obtain preoperative diagnostic imaging violated the standard of care.

His neurosurgery expert testified that the spinal canal was too narrow to accommodate the stimulator, which led to compression and subsequent damage.

The defense argued that Figueroa’s preexisting conditions contributed to his deteriorated condition and that neurological deficits are a known risk of spinal cord stimulator placement.

They also claimed that Figueroa’s delay in seeking follow-up care after the initial surgery worsened his outcome.

However, the plaintiff maintained that the lack of preoperative imaging and mismanagement during the procedure were critical failures.

If you or a loved one experienced complications from a Spinal Cord Stimulator such as infection device migration, device malfunction, or neurological complications, then you may be eligible to take action and file a Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit

Contact Torhoerman Law today for a free consultation.

Use the chatbot on this page to find out if you qualify to file a Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit and to get in touch with a licensed lawyer.

Abbott has issued a recall of nearly 200,000 Proclaim and Infinity neurostimulation systems after reports that some devices failed to resume therapy following MRI scans.

The FDA classified the recall as Class I, its most serious designation, signaling potential risks of significant harm to patients.

The affected devices include Proclaim spinal cord stimulators, dorsal root ganglion stimulators, and Infinity deep brain stimulators used for managing chronic pain and movement disorders such as Parkinson’s disease and essential tremor.

The issue centers on the devices’ “MRI mode,” which temporarily disables therapy during imaging scans.

To minimize the risk of therapy disruption, linked to 73 reported injuries, Abbott recommends that patients and healthcare providers ensure the paired Bluetooth connection remains intact.

Complaints arose after some devices failed to reconnect to their paired Patient Controller app, preventing therapy from resuming.

This failure occurs when the implantable pulse generator (IPG) loses communication with the app due to the deletion of the Bluetooth pairing, damage or loss of the app, or upgrading the iOS software on the paired Apple device during MRI mode.

If the app cannot reconnect to the IPG, patients cannot exit MRI mode, and the only solution may involve surgically removing and replacing the device.

Abbott reported a global incidence rate of 0.06%, with approximately half of the cases requiring corrective surgery.

The company has not disclosed the number of complaints received or whether any injuries or fatalities have occurred.

In July, Abbott issued an urgent medical device correction letter to healthcare providers who manage these devices, providing updated guidance on exiting MRI mode.

The letter also advises providers to instruct patients to avoid deleting the Bluetooth connection to their device controller in the event of a malfunction, update their systems, and consult with a physician prior to undergoing an MRI scan.

This recall raises questions about the safety and reliability of neurostimulation systems and highlights potential risks associated with their reliance on external apps for functionality.

If you or a loved one experienced complications from a Spinal Cord Stimulator such as infection device migration, device malfunction, or neurological complications, then you may be eligible to take action and file a Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit

Contact Torhoerman Law today for a free consultation.

Use the chatbot on this page to find out if you qualify to file a Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit and to get in touch with a licensed lawyer.

A Chatham County jury awarded $4.5 million in a medical malpractice case involving a Savannah doctor who implanted a spinal cord stimulator incorrectly and failed to disclose the error to the patient.

The verdict was reached after a five-day trial and just two hours of jury deliberation in the case of Amy E. Douglas v. Dr. Thomas Lawhorne III and Optim Orthopedics LLC.

In September 2017, Dr. Lawhorne performed an unnecessary spinal cord stimulator implant surgery on Amy Douglas.

Evidence presented during the trial showed there was no medical justification for the procedure, and the device was incorrectly placed, damaging a spinal nerve root.

Despite discovering the error, Dr. Lawhorne did not inform Ms. Douglas, document the mistake in his records, or notify his colleagues.

The complications from the misplaced device caused Ms. Douglas significant pain, requiring multiple corrective surgeries to remove the stimulator and address the damage.

She was dismissed from Dr. Lawhorne’s care during her first post-surgery visit, which led her to seek legal action.

Key Testimonies:

• Neurosurgeon Dr. John Sarzier, a former partner at Optim Orthopedics, testified on Ms. Douglas’ behalf. He detailed the corrections he made to address the damage caused by the botched surgery. Dr. Sarzier was later dismissed from the practice.
• Dr. Lawhorne admitted in court that he implanted the device incorrectly, taking responsibility after jurors were presented with overwhelming evidence and testimony.

If you or a loved one experienced complications from a Spinal Cord Stimulator such as infection device migration, device malfunction, or neurological complications, then you may be eligible to take action and file a Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit

Contact Torhoerman Law today for a free consultation.

Use the chatbot on this page to find out if you qualify to file a Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit and to get in touch with a licensed lawyer.

The effectiveness and safety of spinal cord stimulators are being questioned following a controversial study suggesting the devices may be no better than a placebo for treating certain types of chronic pain.

Private health insurers and independent scientists are now urging Medicare to stop funding these costly procedures, citing significant doubts about their utility and outcomes.

Spinal cord stimulators, which are surgically implanted to interfere with nerve signals and alleviate chronic pain, have become increasingly common.

The global market for these devices is projected to reach nearly $3 billion by 2025.

Despite their widespread use, a study published in JAMA found no significant difference in pain relief, disability, or quality of life between patients using an active stimulator and those with a deactivated device.

The research involved 50 Norwegian patients with chronic back and leg pain following spinal surgery.

This study has sparked calls for stricter oversight.

Experts argue that existing research supporting spinal cord stimulators is heavily influenced by manufacturer funding, raising concerns about bias.

Dr. Adrian Traeger from the Institute for Musculoskeletal Health has recommended halting subsidies for these devices until further evidence is gathered, suggesting that any continued use should occur within clinical trial settings.

Patient experiences further complicate the issue.

Cases such as that of Australian photographer Lou Whelan, who underwent two unsuccessful stimulator implants, highlight the risks.

Both devices failed to provide relief and resulted in increased epidural scarring.

An investigation earlier this year revealed over 500 serious complications linked to stimulators, including a significant proportion deemed life-threatening.

If you or a loved one experienced complications from a Spinal Cord Stimulator such as infection device migration, device malfunction, or neurological complications, then you may be eligible to take action and file a Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit

Contact Torhoerman Law today for a free consultation.

Use the chatbot on this page to find out if you qualify to file a Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit and to get in touch with a licensed lawyer.

The FDA has flagged 428 patient deaths and tens of thousands of injuries and malfunctions related to spinal cord stimulators (SCSs) in a recent letter to healthcare providers.

These reports highlight growing concerns about the safety, efficacy, and regulatory oversight of these devices, which are commonly used to manage chronic pain.

Key Findings from the FDA:

• Between 2016 and 2020, the FDA received 107,728 Medical Device Reports (MDRs) for spinal cord stimulators, including 428 reports of patient deaths.
• Approximately 30% of adverse event reports cited inadequate pain relief, often occurring when trial stimulation protocols were not followed.
• Many of the deaths occurred within 30 days post-implantation, with patients often presenting comorbidities. The average patient age was 69 years.
• Common device issues included charging problems, but these were deemed consistent with long-term battery-powered stimulation devices.

This comes after organizations such as Public Citizen have criticized the FDA for what they call “dangerously lax oversight” of high-risk implantable medical devices, including spinal cord stimulators.

Public Citizen has called for a reassessment of approved SCS models to determine if any should be removed from the market, original Premarket Approval (PMA) submissions for new devices, and reclassification of SCS devices into a higher-risk category.

If you or a loved one experienced complications from a Spinal Cord Stimulator such as infection device migration, device malfunction, or neurological complications, then you may be eligible to take action and file a Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit

Contact Torhoerman Law today for a free consultation.

Use the chatbot on this page to find out if you qualify to file a Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit and to get in touch with a licensed lawyer.

Spinal cord stimulators, widely used for back pain management and marketed as a safer alternative to opioids, have come under scrutiny due to safety concerns.

An NBC News investigation, conducted in partnership with the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, revealed over 80,000 injury reports filed with the FDA related to these devices.

The prevalence of spinal cord stimulators is significant, with approximately 60,000 Americans receiving these devices annually.

Despite their promise to reduce reliance on opioids, questions persist about their safety and long-term effectiveness.

The FDA has responded by announcing new safety goals for medical devices, underscoring the need for stricter regulatory oversight.

This investigation highlights critical issues within the medical device industry, including the importance of transparency and accountability.

While these devices aim to address the opioid crisis, their risks may undermine their intended benefits.

Experts have advised caution regarding their implantation and emphasized the need for thorough patient monitoring.

If you or a loved one experienced complications from a Spinal Cord Stimulator such as infection device migration, device malfunction, or neurological complications, then you may be eligible to take action and file a Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit

Contact Torhoerman Law today for a free consultation.

Use the chatbot on this page to find out if you qualify to file a Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit and to get in touch with a licensed lawyer.