Is There a Spinal Cord Stimulator Class Action Lawsuit?

Current lawsuits for spinal cord stimulator complications involve several major spinal cord stimulator manufacturers, but the federal litigation is not organized into one industrywide proceeding.

Instead, cases involving Boston Scientific, Abbott, and Nevro have been centralized into separate manufacturer-specific multidistrict litigations, while Medtronic spinal cord stimulator lawsuits remain outside those coordinated proceedings.

The allegations vary by company and device, with plaintiffs bringing defective medical device lawsuit claims involving device failure, manufacturing defects, inadequate warnings, regulatory compliance, and other alleged problems.

Because the claims are separated by manufacturer, the litigation against each of these device manufacturers is developing on its own track.

The current status by manufacturer includes:

• Boston Scientific: Federal lawsuits involving Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulators are centralized in MDL No. 3181 before Judge Josephine L. Staton in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The litigation includes allegations involving the WaveWriter Alpha product line, device malfunctions, loss of stimulation, manufacturing defects, and questions about the regulatory history of certain devices.
• Abbott: Abbott spinal cord stimulator lawsuits are centralized in MDL No. 3194 before Judge Lindsay C. Jenkins in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Plaintiffs raise allegations involving Abbott’s premarket approval supplement history, regulatory compliance, product warnings, and the conduct of company representatives involved with spinal cord stimulation systems.
• Nevro: Nevro spinal cord stimulator lawsuits are centralized in MDL No. 3195 before Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The cases include allegations involving device performance, warnings, regulatory compliance, and the role of company representatives in programming implanted systems.
• Medtronic: Medtronic spinal cord stimulator lawsuits have not been centralized into a separate federal MDL as of October 2026. Those cases continue outside the Boston Scientific, Abbott, and Nevro proceedings and include allegations involving device malfunction, electrical shocks, migration, and loss of pain relief.

The creation of separate MDLs does not combine every spinal cord stimulator claim into one lawsuit.

Each plaintiff continues to pursue an individual claim based on the specific device implanted, the alleged defect or failure, the injuries suffered, and the damages supported by the evidence.

How the Spinal Cord Stimulator MDLs Work

The federal multidistrict litigations involving spinal cord stimulator systems coordinate lawsuits that raise common factual questions against the same manufacturer while preserving each plaintiff’s individual claim.

Centralization allows shared issues involving product design, manufacturing, warnings, regulatory history, and company records to be handled in one federal court rather than repeatedly litigated across multiple districts.

Plaintiffs may still allege different complications, including serious injuries, device migration, loss of stimulation, electrical shocks, or nerve pain, depending on what happened after implantation.

Each claimant must still present evidence that the spinal cord stimulator caused or contributed to the injuries alleged in that individual case.

The MDL process can also address common allegations that medical device manufacturers designed or manufactured defective products or failed to adequately warn patients and physicians about certain risks.

Cases that are not resolved through the coordinated pretrial process can later proceed individually, including through trial in the appropriate federal court.

Spinal cord stimulator claims are generally pursued individually because the device, alleged failure, medical history, injuries, and treatment can differ significantly from one patient to another.

One patient may experience loss of stimulation or device migration, while another may develop an infection, nerve damage, or complications requiring revision or removal surgery.

Those differences can affect causation, the medical evidence needed to support the claim, and the damages associated with each case.

Patients may still raise similar allegations against the same manufacturer, including claims involving defective design, manufacturing problems, or inadequate warnings, which is why federal courts can coordinate related lawsuits through multidistrict litigation.

The MDL process allows common pretrial issues to be handled together without converting the cases into a class action or eliminating the need for each plaintiff to prove an individual claim.

Class Action vs. MDL: How They Differ

A class action combines claims into one representative case for a defined group, while multidistrict litigation coordinates separate lawsuits that share common factual issues.

In an MDL, each plaintiff keeps an individual claim and must prove the injuries, causation, and damages specific to that case.

The main differences between a class action and an MDL include:

• Individual claims: MDL plaintiffs remain parties to their own lawsuits, while class members are represented collectively unless they opt out.
• Damages: Compensation in an MDL depends on the injuries and losses proven in each individual case rather than a single class-wide recovery.
• Pretrial proceedings: MDLs centralize discovery, motions, and other shared pretrial issues before one federal judge.
• Settlement decisions: An MDL plaintiff can decide whether to accept or reject an individual settlement offer.
• Trials: Cases that do not resolve during the MDL process may later proceed individually, including through trial.

Filing a spinal cord stimulator lawsuit generally begins with identifying the implanted device, documenting the complications that followed, and determining which manufacturer made the system.

Because these are individual product liability claims rather than a single class action, eligibility depends on the facts of each patient’s medical history, spinal cord stimulator implantation, injuries, and device records.

Those considering a claim can generally expect the following steps:

1. Identify the spinal cord stimulator: Locate your implant card, surgical records, or other documents showing the manufacturer, model, and date of implantation. A spinal cord stimulator is an implantable medical device that typically includes leads placed in the epidural space and a pulse generator implanted elsewhere in the body.
2. Gather your medical records: Records from the original implant procedure, follow-up appointments, device programming, imaging, physical therapy, revision procedures, and other medical treatment can help establish what happened before and after implantation.
3. Document the complications: Keep records of abnormal device behavior, loss of stimulation, worsening pain, electric shocks, infections, nerve damage, or other symptoms that developed after the device was implanted.
4. Confirm whether additional treatment was required: Claims involving severe injuries may include evidence of repeated programming attempts, hospitalization, revision surgery, device replacement, or complete removal of the spinal cord stimulator.
5. Determine which manufacturer is involved: Federal lawsuits involving Boston Scientific, Abbott, and Nevro are currently coordinated in separate multidistrict litigations, while Medtronic claims remain outside those MDLs.
6. Have the potential claim reviewed: A spinal cord stimulator lawyer can review the device information, medical records, treatment history, alleged complications, and applicable filing deadline to determine whether the facts support a product liability claim.
7. File an individual lawsuit if the claim qualifies: A lawsuit is filed in the injured patient’s name and may become part of the appropriate manufacturer-specific MDL when federal centralization applies.

Joining the current spinal cord stimulator litigation does not mean enrolling in a class action or automatically receiving compensation.

Each plaintiff must support an individual claim with evidence connecting the implanted device and alleged defect or failure to the injuries, medical treatment, and other losses being claimed.

Spinal cord stimulator complications can leave patients dealing with continued pain, additional procedures, lost income, and uncertainty about whether the implanted device contributed to the harm.

Current litigation involving Boston Scientific, Abbott, Nevro, and Medtronic raises allegations involving device failure, manufacturing defects, inadequate warnings, and other problems associated with spinal cord stimulation systems.

TorHoerman Law reviews spinal cord stimulator claims by examining the device involved, the medical history, the reported complications, and the evidence connecting the implant to the injuries alleged.

Our law firm also evaluates how the claim fits within the current manufacturer-specific litigation, including the Boston Scientific, Abbott, and Nevro MDLs where applicable.

If you or a loved one suffered serious complications after a spinal cord stimulator was implanted, you may be eligible to file an individual product liability claim against the manufacturer.

Contact a spinal cord stimulator attorney from TorHoerman Law for a free consultation to discuss your case and learn whether you may qualify to file a spinal cord stimulator lawsuit.

We handle qualifying product liability claims on a contingency fee basis, meaning you pay no attorney fees unless our law firm recovers compensation for you.

You can also use the chat feature on this page for a free case review.