Active LitigationMDL 3181
Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit Facts
TorHoerman Law is actively accepting claims for the Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit.
Active Litigation·MDL 3181
TorHoerman Law is actively accepting claims for the Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit.
Some soreness and discomfort are expected after spinal cord stimulator surgery, but severe or worsening pain may signal a complication.
Concerning pain can occur with electric shocks, burning sensations, infection, lead migration, hardware problems, neurological symptoms, or loss of previously effective stimulation.
Severe pain alone does not establish that a spinal cord stimulator was defective or that medical care was negligent.
A potential legal claim depends on the cause of the pain, the device or procedure involved, the medical treatment required, and the evidence connecting the injury to a product defect, inadequate warning, or other actionable conduct.
TorHoerman Law is reviewing claims from individuals who suffered serious complications after receiving a spinal cord stimulator, including severe pain, failed pain relief, abnormal stimulation, lead migration, neurological symptoms, revision surgery, and explant surgery.

Spinal cord stimulators are implanted devices used to manage chronic pain when medications, physical therapy, injections, or other treatments have not provided enough relief.
The system uses leads placed in the epidural space to deliver electrical stimulation intended to alter or block pain signals before they reach the brain.
Some soreness and discomfort are expected after implantation, particularly around the incision and generator pocket.
Increased pain becomes more concerning when it is severe, continues to worsen, feels different from the pain being treated, or occurs with electric shocks, burning sensations, weakness, numbness, infection symptoms, or changes in stimulation.
Some patients also experience problems after a device initially worked but later failed to provide meaningful pain relief.
In those cases, medical evaluation may identify lead migration, lead fracture, generator problems, infection, unintended stimulation, or another complication affecting the implanted system.
Patients who suffered injuries beyond expected postoperative discomfort may have questions about whether the device, implantation procedure, or later medical care contributed to the problem.
TorHoerman Law is reviewing spinal cord stimulator claims involving severe pain and other serious complications after implantation.
If you or a loved one experienced significant pain or injury after receiving a spinal cord stimulator, contact our law firm for a free consultation or use the chat feature on this page to learn whether you may qualify to file a spinal cord stimulator lawsuit.
Contact TorHoerman Law today for a free consultation.
You can also use the chat feature on this page to find out if you qualify to file a spinal cord stimulator lawsuit.
Some pain is normal after spinal cord stimulator surgery, especially around the incision, lead placement area, and generator pocket during the early healing period.
Many patients also notice temporary soreness, tightness, tenderness, or a tingling sensation as the body adjusts to the permanent implant and the stimulation settings are refined.
SCS therapy is intended to provide long-term pain relief, but postoperative discomfort does not disappear immediately after surgery.
Pain should generally improve as the surgical site heals, while persistent or worsening pain may require further evaluation.
Pain is more concerning when it becomes severe, spreads into a new area, feels electrical or burning, or occurs with weakness, numbness, fever, drainage, or other neurological symptoms.
Those changes can point to complications such as infection, lead migration, hardware problems, unintended stimulation, or, more rarely, spinal cord injuries.
Patients should also be evaluated if the device initially worked but later stopped providing meaningful relief or began causing new pain.
A healthcare provider may review the stimulation settings, examine the surgical site, assess the implanted hardware, or order imaging depending on the symptoms.
Severe pain after spinal cord stimulator implantation can result from normal postoperative healing, a problem with the implanted hardware, or a complication involving the surrounding tissue or nerves.
During the trial period, temporary leads are placed near the spinal cord, while permanent implantation places permanent leads and an implanted pulse generator beneath the skin.
Mild to moderate incision-site discomfort is common for several days after surgery and should generally improve as healing progresses.
Pain that becomes more severe, develops after an initial period of improvement, or feels different from ordinary surgical soreness may require further evaluation.
Potential causes of severe or worsening pain include:
The cause cannot always be determined from the way the pain feels alone.
Burning pain can result from nerve irritation, painful inflammation, infection, or abnormal stimulation, while electric shocks can reflect stimulation settings, lead position, or hardware function.
A healthcare provider may use physical examination, device interrogation, programming changes, or imaging to distinguish among these possibilities.
Patients should also follow the pain medication and postoperative instructions prescribed by their treating provider while the surgical site heals.
Spinal cord stimulation systems depend on thin wires that carry electrical signals from the pulse generator to electrodes positioned near the spinal cord.
Lead migration occurs when implanted leads move from their intended location, while lead fracture occurs when a lead breaks or loses electrical continuity.
Lead migration is one of the most frequently reported device-related complications.
A 2023 systematic review and meta-analysis involving 2,932 patients estimated lead migration in approximately 10% of spinal cord stimulator implants, with clinically recognized migration most often identified after loss of therapeutic benefit.
More recent research has produced lower estimates in some populations, illustrating how rates vary with device type, anchoring technique, and study design.
When permanent leads move or become damaged, patients may experience returning chronic or leg pain, changes in stimulation coverage, tingling, shocks, or stimulation in an unintended part of the body.
Loss of pain relief can sometimes be addressed by adjusting stimulation levels, but significant migration or lead fracture may require revision surgery.
The same issue can occur during the trial period with temporary leads, although movement during a trial does not necessarily mean that a permanent system will later migrate.
When reprogramming cannot restore effective stimulation, additional surgery may be needed to reposition or replace the affected lead.
A spinal cord stimulator is intended to alter pain signaling, but problems with programming or implanted hardware can sometimes cause uncomfortable or painful stimulation instead.
Patients may describe electric shocks, sudden jolts, burning, excessive tingling, or stimulation that appears in an area outside the original pain pattern.
Changes in stimulation may result from settings that are too strong, movement of the leads, connection problems, generator malfunction, charging problems, or another hardware issue.
A 2024 review of device-related spinal cord stimulator complications identifies lead migration, lead fracture, lead disconnection, generator failure, loss of charge, hardware-related pain, and intolerance to paresthesia among recognized device-related complications.
Not every unusual sensation means the system has mechanically failed. Programming adjustments may correct some problems, while persistent symptoms may require device interrogation, imaging, or further evaluation of the implanted components.
A hardware problem may eventually require revision or replacement when the device cannot be restored through reprogramming or other nonoperative measures.
The need for removal surgery depends on the problem, whether useful pain relief can be restored, and whether keeping the system implanted remains medically appropriate.
Severe pain can also arise from the surgical site rather than from the electrical function of the stimulator.
Infection, wound problems, bleeding, painful inflammation, generator-pocket discomfort, and rare neurological injuries are recognized complications after implantation.
Pain at the pulse-generator site is a particular concern when discomfort persists beyond normal postoperative healing.
A 2026 study of 250 permanent spinal cord stimulator implants reported pocket pain in 6.4% of patients overall, with some patients eventually requiring revision or explantation.
The location of the generator can make pain more noticeable during sitting, bending, sleeping, or other movement.
Surgical site infection can cause increasing pain, redness, warmth, swelling, drainage, fever, or wound breakdown.
A multicenter study of 2,737 spinal cord stimulator implants reported a 2.45% infection rate. Infection involving deeper implanted components may require antibiotics and, in some cases, partial or complete device removal.
Underlying health conditions can also affect recovery. Diabetes is associated with impaired wound healing generally, and an older 707-patient spinal cord stimulation study reported infection in 9% of patients with diabetes compared with 4% of patients without diabetes, although later studies have not consistently identified diabetes as an independent SCS infection risk factor.
Rare surgical complications can cause much more serious pain and neurological symptoms.
Bleeding around the spinal cord, direct neural injury, or another complication affecting the nervous system can cause severe pain, weakness, numbness, or loss of function and may result in permanent nerve damage.
New neurological symptoms, rapidly worsening pain, or signs of deep infection after implantation warrant prompt medical evaluation.
Some soreness is expected after spinal cord stimulator implantation, but pain that is severe, worsening, or accompanied by other symptoms should be medically evaluated.
A change from the patient’s normal postoperative recovery or underlying chronic pain can indicate infection, abnormal stimulation, lead movement, hardware problems, or a neurological complication.
Medical evaluation may be particularly important when pain occurs with:
Evaluation may involve examination of the surgical site, neurological testing, review of the stimulation settings, device interrogation, or imaging to assess the leads and surrounding structures.
Severe neurological symptoms, rapidly progressing weakness, loss of bladder or bowel control, or other signs of spinal cord compression may require emergency treatment rather than routine follow-up.
Severe pain after spinal cord stimulator surgery can have several possible causes, including normal healing, therapeutic failure, a surgical complication, or a problem involving the implanted device.
In medical device litigation, the relevant evidence can help show what SCS system was implanted, how the patient responded during the spinal cord stimulator trial, what changed after permanent implantation, and whether a documented device or surgical problem coincided with the onset of pain.
Relevant evidence may include:
These records can help distinguish a device-related problem from ordinary postoperative pain, therapeutic failure, or another medical condition.
Current spinal cord stimulator litigation includes claims involving severe pain, abnormal stimulation, lead migration, lead fracture, device malfunctions, neurological injury, revision surgery, and device removal.
Whether a particular case may be viable depends on the device involved, the alleged device problems, the treatment details, the injuries suffered, and the evidence connecting those problems to the spinal cord stimulator.
TorHoerman Law is reviewing claims involving allegedly defective spinal cord stimulation systems and serious complications after implantation.
Qualifying cases are handled on a contingency fee basis, meaning there are no attorney fees unless compensation is recovered.
If you or a loved one suffered severe pain or another serious complication after receiving a spinal cord stimulator, contact TorHoerman Law for a free consultation.
You can also use the chat feature on this page for a free case review and to learn whether you may qualify to file a spinal cord stimulator lawsuit.
Some incisional soreness and pain around the implantable pulse generator are expected during the early recovery period.
Johns Hopkins Medicine states that mild to moderate incision discomfort is common for the first several days and that incisions generally heal within two to four weeks.
Recovery varies by patient, procedure, and the instructions provided by the treating surgeon.
A typical early recovery may include:
Manufacturer instructions vary.
Boston Scientific advises avoiding lifting more than five pounds and rigorous bending or twisting during at least the first two weeks, while some clinical programs extend movement restrictions for roughly six weeks to reduce stress on newly implanted leads.
Ice packs and prescribed pain medication may also be used to manage postoperative soreness when recommended by the treating healthcare provider.
Spinal cord stimulation may be considered for certain chronic pain conditions after medications, physical therapy, injections, or other less invasive therapies have failed to provide adequate relief.
Conditions treated with SCS can include complex regional pain syndrome, painful diabetic neuropathy, persistent spinal pain syndrome, and what has historically been called failed back surgery syndrome.
A spinal cord stimulator is not expected to eliminate pain completely.
Treatment is generally considered successful when a patient experiences significant pain relief and meaningful functional improvement, but not every patient achieves long term relief after permanent implantation.
A spinal cord stimulator trial allows a patient to test the therapy before receiving a permanent spinal cord stimulator.
Temporary leads are placed near the spinal cord and connected to an external generator that remains outside the body during the trial period.
If the trial provides sufficient pain relief, the patient may proceed to permanent implantation.
The permanent system generally includes implanted leads and an implantable pulse generator placed beneath the skin.
Modern SCS systems differ in their battery systems and stimulation modes.
Traditional systems use tonic stimulation, while newer devices may offer high-frequency or burst stimulation, both of which can provide pain relief with little or no noticeable tingling in some patients.
Pain that occurs specifically when stimulation is active may be related to programming, lead position, hardware function, or the way stimulation is being delivered.
Patients may experience shocks, burning, excessive tingling, or stimulation in an area that was not originally targeted.
Traditional low-frequency stimulation commonly produces paresthesia, while high-frequency stimulation may provide pain relief without noticeable sensations.
Burst stimulation is another modern stimulation mode designed to alter pain signaling differently from conventional tonic therapy.
Persistent painful stimulation should be evaluated rather than assumed to be a normal feature of treatment.
Programming changes may correct some problems, while imaging studies or device interrogation may be needed when lead movement or hardware problems are suspected.
It depends on the specific system and implanted components. Some older spinal cord stimulators are not MRI compatible, while many newer systems are labeled MR Conditional, meaning MRI may be performed only under specified conditions.
FDA records show that systems from manufacturers including Abbott, Nevro, and Boston Scientific have received device-specific MR Conditional labeling.
Eligibility for an MRI can depend on the implantable pulse generator, leads, lead position, scanner strength, body position, and other technical requirements.
Patients should provide the imaging facility with their device identification information before undergoing an MRI.
A device being FDA approved does not mean every MRI procedure is automatically safe for that particular system.
Yes.
Some patients initially experience significant pain relief during the trial or after permanent implantation but later lose some or all of the therapeutic benefit.
This is commonly described as loss of efficacy or therapeutic failure.
Possible explanations include lead migration, changes in stimulation coverage, hardware problems, changes in the underlying pain condition, or a decline in therapeutic response even when the system appears to be functioning normally.
Loss of long term relief does not by itself prove that a device is defective.
The cause may require evaluation of symptoms, stimulation settings, device function, imaging, and the patient’s underlying medical condition.
Yes.
Current spinal cord stimulator litigation involves major manufacturers including Boston Scientific, Abbott, Nevro, and Medtronic.
Federal Boston Scientific cases are centralized in MDL No. 3181, which was established in June 2026.
In October 2026, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation separately created MDL No. 3194 for Abbott spinal cord stimulator cases and MDL No. 3195 for Nevro cases.
Medtronic claims remain outside those three manufacturer-specific MDLs.
Plaintiffs in current lawsuits allege various product defects, regulatory violations, manufacturing problems, and failures to adequately warn patients and physicians about certain risks.
These are allegations, and creation of an MDL does not establish that a manufacturer is liable or that a particular spinal cord stimulator caused an individual patient’s injuries.
No.
A spinal cord stimulator being FDA approved does not automatically prevent an injured patient from filing a lawsuit, although federal approval can affect which product liability claims are legally available.
Many spinal cord stimulators are Class III medical devices that entered the market through the FDA premarket approval process.
Federal law can preempt certain state-law claims that would impose requirements different from or additional to federal requirements, while other claims may depend on allegations that parallel existing federal requirements.
Whether a claim is viable depends on the particular device, regulatory history, alleged defect or warning problem, medical evidence, and applicable law.

Tor Hoerman has represented injured individuals for more than 30 years, with experience spanning individual personal injury cases and nationwide mass tort litigation. His work includes car accidents, catastrophic injuries, product liability claims, and other serious injury cases. Tor has served in court-appointed leadership roles in national litigation and tried cases involving major corporate defendants.
TorHoerman Law’s legal content is researched and written by our editorial team and attorneys for legal accuracy, clarity, and relevance. We rely on statutes, court records, government publications, medical research, and other authoritative sources when applicable. This page provides general legal information and does not constitute legal advice.
TorHoerman Law reviews its legal content for factual accuracy, current information, and relevant legal context before publication and as material developments occur. This article is provided for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. For guidance about a specific case, contact TorHoerman Law.
You can learn more about this topic by visiting any of our Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit pages listed below:
A serious injury can change your life.

TorHoerman Law represents people whose lives have been disrupted by serious injuries, unsafe products, and negligence. Our attorneys handle individual personal injury cases as well as national mass tort lawsuits involving major corporations.
Founded in 2009, our legal team brings more than 100 years of combined experience handling serious injury and complex civil litigation.
Do you believe you’re entitled to compensation?
Use our Instant Case Evaluator to find out in as little as 60 seconds!

In this case, we obtained a verdict of $495 Million for our client’s child who was diagnosed with Necrotizing Enterocolitis after consuming baby formula manufactured by Abbott Laboratories.

In this case, we were able to successfully recover $20 Million for our client after they suffered a Toxic Tort Injury due to chemical exposure.

In this case, we were able to successfully recover $103.8 Million for our client after they suffered a COX-2 Inhibitors Injury.

In this case, we were able to successfully recover $4 Million for our client after they suffered a Traumatic Brain Injury while at daycare.

In this case, we were able to successfully recover $2.8 Million for our client after they suffered an injury due to a Defective Heart Device.
A serious injury can change your life.