Table of contents
- Latest Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit Updates
- October 2, 2026: JPML Consolidates Abbott and Nevro Suits
- August 4, 2026: Abbott Opposes Centralization
- June 16, 2026: Conditional Transfer Order Sends Cases to California
- June 5, 2026: Panel Creates MDL No. 3181
- March 25, 2026: Ninth Circuit Upholds Medtronic Win
- July 24, 2025: Law.com Reports Suits Naming the FDA
- August 2, 2024: New Jersey Malpractice Settlement
- September 14, 2023: FDA Classifies Abbott Recall as Class I
- September 3, 2020: FDA Letter to Health Care Providers
- What Is a Spinal Cord Stimulator?
- Who May Be Affected?
- Reported Injuries or Damages
- Recall and Regulatory Background
- Evidence to Preserve
- Filing Deadlines
- Frequently Asked Questions
- Who Is Being Sued in the Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit?
- Is There a Spinal Cord Stimulator MDL?
- Why Is the FDA Named in Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuits?
- What Are the Long-Term Effects of a Spinal Cord Stimulator?
- How Do You Qualify for a Spinal Cord Stimulator?
- What Does the Research Say About Spinal Cord Stimulators?
- How Many FDA Reports Cited Unsatisfactory Pain Relief?
Spinal cord stimulator lawsuits say implanted pain devices caused shocks, burning, lead migration and neurological injury. Plaintiffs also say the devices won approval using other makers’ research instead of new clinical studies.
Patients have sued Boston Scientific, Abbott, Nevro and Medtronic in federal court. A federal panel set up MDL No. 3181 for the Boston Scientific cases on June 5, 2026.
Medtronic faces separate suits outside these proceedings. Abbott and Medtronic dispute the claims, and no court has ruled on liability in the MDL cases.
Latest Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit Updates
October 2, 2026: JPML Consolidates Abbott and Nevro Suits
On October 2, 2026, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated more than 25 lawsuits against Abbott and more than 20 against Nevro, Bloomberg Law reported [1].
Judge Lindsay C. Jenkins in the Northern District of Illinois and Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr. in the Northern District of California will each hear one set.
August 4, 2026: Abbott Opposes Centralization
On August 4, 2026, Abbott filed a motion opposing centralization of 23 spinal cord stimulator injury lawsuits, MD+DI reported [2]. Abbott argued that the 23 cases do not all share a common cause of injury.
Fourteen of the 23 lawsuits also name the FDA as a defendant. Abbott said 13 of the 23 plaintiffs have injuries that are unique to them.
June 16, 2026: Conditional Transfer Order Sends Cases to California
On June 16, 2026, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued Conditional Transfer Order 1. It sent tag-along actions to the Central District of California [3].
The six tag-along cases were assigned to Judge Josephine L. Staton. They join the Boston Scientific cases already centralized in that court.
June 5, 2026: Panel Creates MDL No. 3181
On June 5, 2026, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation created MDL No. 3181 for Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulator cases in its transfer order. The cases moved to Judge Staton in California.
The panel declined to create an industry-wide MDL. It noted 23 cases pending against Boston Scientific in nine districts and 46 related actions in fourteen districts. Six related actions name Medtronic, and the MDL is limited to Boston Scientific.
March 25, 2026: Ninth Circuit Upholds Medtronic Win
On March 25, 2026, the Ninth Circuit upheld dismissal of William Hunt’s claim against Medtronic, Becker’s Spine Review reported [4]. Hunt alleged that his spinal cord stimulator malfunctioned.
The ruling concerns one patient’s case. Medtronic is one of four makers named in spinal cord stimulator suits, along with Boston Scientific, Abbott and Nevro.
July 24, 2025: Law.com Reports Suits Naming the FDA
On July 24, 2025, Law.com reported a dozen lawsuits name the FDA as well as makers such as Abbott and Boston Scientific [5]. The suits involve spinal cord stimulators, devices surgically implanted to reduce chronic back pain.
Law.com called the decision to name the FDA an unusual twist. The other defendants named in those suits are device makers such as Abbott and Boston Scientific.
August 2, 2024: New Jersey Malpractice Settlement
On August 2, 2024, a New Jersey man reached an Essex County medical malpractice settlement of $1.25 million, Law.com reported [6]. He was left with incontinence and partial paralysis in the legs after spinal surgery.
The case was a medical malpractice claim and did not target a device maker. It is separate from the product liability litigation.
September 14, 2023: FDA Classifies Abbott Recall as Class I
On September 14, 2023, MedTech Dive reported that the FDA classified Abbott’s recall of its Proclaim and Infinity neurostimulation systems as Class I [7].
Patients could not exit MRI mode on the devices. Abbott had received 186 reports about the problem and 73 notices of injuries. No patients have died.
September 3, 2020: FDA Letter to Health Care Providers
On September 3, 2020, MedTech Dive reported the FDA letter to health care providers [8]. The letter outlined deaths, injuries and malfunctions reported with spinal cord stimulators.
The letter reminded providers to complete a stimulation trial before permanent implantation. The FDA estimated about 50,000 spinal cord stimulators are implanted each year.
What Is a Spinal Cord Stimulator?
According to Johns Hopkins Medicine, a spinal cord stimulator is an implanted device. It sends low levels of electricity directly into the spinal cord to relieve pain [9].
It has thin wires, called leads, and a small battery pack. Doctors use it most often after other pain treatment fails to help enough.
Who May Be Affected?
Patients implanted with a spinal cord stimulator for chronic pain, who later reported injury or lost pain relief, match the injuries alleged in these lawsuits. Some also needed revision or removal surgery.
The suits cover devices from Boston Scientific, Abbott, Nevro and Medtronic. Abbott Proclaim and Infinity users who could not leave MRI mode were covered by a separate Class I recall, described below.
The Minnesota Star Tribune reported on a case in Minnesota federal court. Patients there allege Medtronic changed a device approved under a 1984 Itrel II application through more than 400 PMA supplements [10].
Medtronic says the cases lack merit and are preempted by federal law. Only a legal review of your own facts can show whether you qualify.
Reported Injuries or Damages
The JPML order says each plaintiff alleges an implanted spinal cord stimulator caused injury. The alleged harms include poor pain relief, shocking, burning, lead migration, autonomic dysfunction and neurological injuries.
Becker’s reviewed the lawsuits and described electric shocks, worsening pain, neurological injury and repeated corrective surgeries [11]. Abbott says the allegations are without merit.
As MD+DI reported, Abbott’s motion listed injuries in its cases, such as cardiac issues, infection, battery and Bluetooth issues, blood clots and strokes. These are plaintiffs’ allegations.
Medscape reported on the FDA’s 2020 letter [12]. The FDA letter counted 107,728 medical device reports from July 27, 2016 to July 27, 2020.
The reports included 497 associated with patient deaths (428 unique events), 77,937 with injuries and 29,294 with malfunction. Inadequate pain control was the most reported problem, at 28%.
The FDA said the reports did not provide enough information to conclude that a device caused or contributed to a death.
A Public Citizen report by Dr. Michael Carome (June 10, 2020) said the FDA approved 945 of 1,008 PMA supplements, or 94%, from 1980 to 2019 [13].
Recall and Regulatory Background
Abbott recalled its Proclaim and Infinity systems, which include spinal cord, dorsal root ganglion and deep brain stimulation. Patients who could not exit MRI mode had therapy disabled. An additional surgery may be needed.
Abbott told patients not to delete the paired Bluetooth link while in MRI mode. It also told them to use the latest app version. The recall is separate from the suits and does not establish liability.
The FDA’s 2020 letter to health care providers also asked them to confirm pain relief before permanent implantation of a device.
Evidence to Preserve
Keep these records and items, because they may show which device you have and what happened after. Do not throw anything away, even if it seems minor:
- Device make, model and serial number, found on your patient ID card or in your implant record
- Operative and implant reports from your surgeon or hospital
- Medical records and scans that show lead migration, infection, or revision or removal surgery
- Any removed device, kept as your surgeon directs
- Programmer or remote-control records, plus battery or charging logs
- Pain diaries and photographs of any injury or scars
- Messages with the maker’s representative or your clinic
- Bills and records of lost work
Filing Deadlines
Time limits for filing an injury claim come from state law. They depend on where you live and on when the injury and its cause were discovered or diagnosed.
Missing a deadline can end a claim even when the facts are strong, so speak to a lawyer promptly about your own situation.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who Is Being Sued in the Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit?
The defendants in the spinal cord stimulator lawsuit include Boston Scientific, Boston Scientific Neuromodulation, Abbott, Nevro, Globus Medical and Medtronic. The FDA is also named in some suits.
Is There a Spinal Cord Stimulator MDL?
There is a spinal cord stimulator MDL for Boston Scientific cases, numbered MDL No. 3181. Before that order, parties reported related cases: twelve naming Boston Scientific, nine naming Abbott and seventeen naming Nevro and Globus Medical.
Why Is the FDA Named in Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuits?
The FDA is named as a defendant in more than 30 spinal cord stimulator actions, and it states that it is improperly named. The suits challenge how the devices won approval through the premarket approval process.
What Are the Long-Term Effects of a Spinal Cord Stimulator?
The effects of a spinal cord stimulator include uncommon complications, according to Johns Hopkins Medicine. A small share of patients may have infection, bleeding, lead migration, device damage or, extremely rarely, nerve injury. Most can be managed with prompt care.
How Do You Qualify for a Spinal Cord Stimulator?
To qualify for a spinal cord stimulator, a pain specialist first reviews past treatments, imaging and an assessment. The assessment may include psychological screening, Johns Hopkins Medicine says. A trial of several days comes first, and success is often about 50% or greater pain reduction.
What Does the Research Say About Spinal Cord Stimulators?
Research on spinal cord stimulators includes a Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews analysis of more than a dozen studies. It suggests the therapy probably does not have sustained clinical benefits that outweigh the costs and risks, the Minnesota Star Tribune reported.
How Many FDA Reports Cited Unsatisfactory Pain Relief?
FDA reports citing unsatisfactory pain relief numbered 30,321 in the FDA’s review of spinal cord stimulator reports. Such reports often lack enough information to establish that the device caused the event.