Heninger Garrison Davis, LLC is Celebrating 20 Years of Excellence

Learn More

4.9 stars from 908 Google Reviews

(Opens in a new tab)

Client Portal

Referring Attorneys

Areas Served

Give Heninger Garrison Davis, LLC a phone call at (659) 222-4880

Give Heninger Garrison Davis, LLC a phone call at (659) 222-4880 Free Consultation

What Is a Spinal Cord Stimulator?

A spinal cord stimulator (SCS) is a surgically implanted device that delivers electrical pulses to the spinal cord to relieve chronic pain. Most systems include thin wires called leads placed near the spine and a battery-powered pulse generator implanted under the skin.

Before a permanent implant, providers are expected to conduct a trial. According to UW Health, a stimulation trial typically lasts 3 to 7 days, and success is usually defined as a 50 percent reduction in pain symptoms. The FDA has reminded providers to implant permanent devices only in patients who pass this trial.

What Do Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuits Allege?

Spinal cord stimulator lawsuits allege that certain manufacturers did not adequately demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of their devices.

According to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML), plaintiffs in the Boston Scientific cases make several common allegations, including:

  • The company sought FDA premarket approval based on published literature on other companies’ devices, rather than on its own clinical studies
  • New device models were introduced through successive PMA supplements with significant modifications, allegedly avoiding heightened scrutiny
  • The company failed to warn of, or concealed, known risks
  • Sales representatives allegedly participated in surgical and programming decisions in ways that constituted practicing medicine without a license

Lawsuits against Abbott and Nevro raise similar allegations about the PMA supplement process and the role of sales representatives in programming devices. These are allegations, not findings. Boston Scientific has opposed centralization and contends the claims are preempted, and the court has not decided their merits.

What Is the Status of Spinal Cord Stimulator Litigation?

Boston Scientific (MDL No. 3181)

On June 5, 2026, the JPML centralized spinal cord stimulator cases against Boston Scientific in MDL No. 3181 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The cases were assigned to Judge Josephine L. Staton. According to the Panel’s order, 23 cases against Boston Scientific were pending in nine districts at that time.

Since then, Judge Staton has appointed a plaintiffs’ leadership team (August 13, 2026) and entered an order allowing new Boston Scientific cases to be filed directly in the MDL court. According to the JPML, 41 actions were pending in MDL No. 3181 as of October 1, 2026.

Abbott (MDL No. 3194) and Nevro (MDL No. 3195)

The JPML declined to create an industrywide MDL, finding that each manufacturer has its own devices and regulatory history.

On October 2, 2026, the JPML created two additional manufacturer-specific MDLs. Abbott cases were centralized in MDL No. 3194 in the Northern District of Illinois before Judge Lindsay C. Jenkins. Nevro cases were centralized in MDL No. 3195 in the Northern District of California before Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr. Cases against Medtronic have not been centralized in a federal MDL.

A multidistrict litigation (MDL) consolidates cases for coordinated pretrial proceedings, such as discovery and motions, under 28 U.S.C. § 1407. It is not a class action, and each plaintiff’s claim is evaluated individually.

Background media

What Injuries Have Been Reported With Spinal Cord Stimulators?

The plaintiffs described in the JPML order allege a range of injuries. The order lists unsatisfactory pain relief, shocking, burning, lead migration, autonomic dysfunction, and neurological injuries. The FDA's own review of medical device reports also identified infection as a commonly reported patient problem.

In September 2026, the FDA classified Boston Scientific’s removal of certain Infinion CX spinal cord stimulator leads as a Class I recall, its most serious category, after reports of lead fractures. The recall covers unused leads still in distribution and does not call for removing leads that are already implanted.

Reports to the FDA do not establish that a device caused a particular injury, and many patients report benefit from these devices. Whether a complication is connected to a defect depends on the individual's medical history, device, and surgical records.

Who May Be Eligible to Pursue a Spinal Cord Stimulator Claim?

Eligibility depends on the facts of each case. A spinal cord stimulator attorney in Birmingham, Alabama, will typically look at several factors, including:

  • The manufacturer and model of the implanted device
  • The date of implantation and any later revision surgeries
  • The nature and timing of the complications
  • Whether a trial period preceded the permanent implant
  • Medical records documenting the injury and treatment

Having a complication does not, by itself, mean that a legal claim exists. An attorney can review the records and explain how the law may apply.

What Legal Challenges Do These Cases Face?

Manufacturers have argued that these claims are barred by federal preemption. In Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc., 552 U.S. 312 (2008), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Medical Device Amendments preempt certain state-law claims challenging the safety or effectiveness of devices approved through the FDA's premarket approval process.

Preemption does not necessarily end every claim, and courts examine each theory closely. The JPML expressly declined to decide the merits of this defense. It is a significant issue that may affect how these cases proceed, and outcomes are uncertain.

What Compensation May Be Available in a Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit?

Damages depend on the individual case, and no recovery is guaranteed. In product liability claims, plaintiffs may seek compensation for losses such as:

  • Past and future medical expenses, including revision or removal surgery
  • Lost wages and decreased earning capacity
  • Physical pain and suffering
  • Emotional distress and loss of enjoyment of life

Because MDL proceedings treat each plaintiff individually, the value of a claim generally reflects that person's specific injuries and circumstances.

What Is the Statute of Limitations for a Spinal Cord Stimulator Claim?

A statute of limitations sets the deadline for filing a lawsuit. In Alabama, the general period for personal injury claims is two years under Ala. Code § 6-2-38(l). Alabama generally does not apply a discovery rule to these claims, so the period usually runs from the date of injury, not the date a patient connects the injury to the device. Other states have different deadlines, and the date a claim begins to run can be a complex question.

Patients who have had complications should not assume they have more time than they do. An attorney can evaluate which state’s law applies and what deadline may govern.

A desk at HGD Law Firm

Why Choose Heninger Garrison Davis for a Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit?

HGD has been at the forefront of mass-tort and medical-device litigation for decades. The firm has helped resolve thousands of client cases involving defective medical devices and implants, and has recovered more than $3 billion for clients nationwide. HGD attorneys were recognized in the 2027 edition of The Best Lawyers in America. The firm’s Birmingham office was also recognized by the Birmingham Business Journal as one of the Best Places to Work in 2024.

W. Lewis Garrison Jr. was named to the Plaintiff Leadership team in the 3M Combat Arms Earplug litigation. Each client works with a dedicated case coordinator who provides updates by text and has access to an online client portal. HGD handles these cases on a contingency basis, so attorney's fees are charged only if the firm obtains a recovery through a settlement or verdict.

Steps to Take If You Have a Spinal Cord Stimulator Complication

  1. Talk to your doctor about your symptoms before making any changes to your device or treatment. Do not turn off, remove, or adjust a device without medical guidance.
  2. Keep your device identification card and any paperwork from the implant procedure.
  3. Request copies of your medical records, including trial results and any revision surgery notes.
  4. Write down your symptoms, when they began, and how they affect daily life.
  5. Report adverse events to the FDA through its MedWatch program.
  6. Speak with an attorney promptly, given the time limits that may apply.

Frequently Asked Questions About Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuits

Is there a spinal cord stimulator class action?

Spinal cord stimulator cases against Boston Scientific, Abbott, and Nevro are each part of a separate MDL, which is different from a class action. In an MDL, each plaintiff's case keeps its own identity and is valued on its own facts.

Is there a spinal cord stimulator settlement?

The JPML created MDL No. 3181 in June 2026, and MDL Nos. 3194 and 3195 in October 2026. The litigation is in its early stages. Whether a settlement or trial outcome will occur, and when, is not known.

Which spinal cord stimulator brands are involved?

Federal cases against Boston Scientific (MDL No. 3181), Abbott (MDL No. 3194), and Nevro (MDL No. 3195) are each centralized in their own MDL. Lawsuits involving Medtronic have also been filed but have not been centralized. A device's manufacturer and model can usually be found on the implant identification card.

How much does it cost to hire a spinal cord stimulator lawyer?

HGD does not charge attorney’s fees upfront and charges fees only if it obtains a recovery for the client through a settlement or verdict. Clients should review the fee agreement to understand how case costs and expenses are handled.

Do I need to stop using my stimulator to file a claim?

No decision about your device should be based on a potential lawsuit. Medical decisions should be made with your doctor.

Background media
Background media
Background media
Background media

Speak With a Spinal Cord Stimulator Attorney at HGD Today

Every spinal cord stimulator case turns on its own facts, and the litigation is still developing. HGD obtains roughly 95 percent of its cases as referrals from other attorneys, and the firm has the financial strength to carry complex cases through years of litigation.

If you or a loved one experienced complications after a spinal cord stimulator implant, contact HGD to schedule a case evaluation and learn how the law may apply to your situation.

Disclaimer: The information on this page is provided for general educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every case is different, and the law in this area is extremely nuanced, so each situation should be evaluated individually. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.

Sources

Doctor credentials
Doctor credentials
Doctor credentials
Doctor credentials
Doctor credentials
Doctor credentials
Doctor credentials
Doctor credentials
Doctor credentials
Doctor credentials
Doctor credentials
Doctor credentials
Doctor credentials

Ready to take the first step?

Our team of esteemed, dedicated attorneys is waiting to speak with you and support you on your journey toward a successful outcome.

Contact Us
Contact us media
Accessibility: If you are vision-impaired or have some other impairment covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act or a similar law, and you wish to discuss potential accommodations related to using this website, please contact our Accessibility Manager at (205) 326-3336.
Contact Us