Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit: Boston Scientific MDL 3181, Abbott and Nevro Claims

A spinal cord stimulator (SCS) is an implanted medical device with thin leads placed near the spinal cord and a battery-powered generator under the skin. It sends electrical pulses meant to block chronic pain signals. Patients usually try a temporary system first, then get a permanent implant.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation summarized the claims in its June 5, 2026 order. Plaintiffs allege the FDA granted premarket approval of each manufacturer's original stimulator based on published literature about other companies' systems, without independent clinical data, and that the companies then introduced numerous new devices with significant modifications through PMA supplements. They allege this deprived physicians, patients, and the FDA of complete information about the risks, and that the manufacturers failed to warn of and concealed known risks.

Reported injuries include unsatisfactory pain relief, shocking, burning, lead migration, autonomic dysfunction, and neurological injuries. Some plaintiffs also sued the FDA itself, claiming it failed to meaningfully review the approvals; the FDA says it is improperly named.

The manufacturers opposed centralization and deny the claims. No court has found any stimulator defective.

Many patients choose a stimulator after back surgery or years of nerve pain, and a trial period is meant to show whether it helps before a permanent implant. Plaintiffs say problems often appear after the permanent device is placed. The JPML noted that the FDA was named as a defendant in more than 30 actions and potential tag-alongs, an unusual feature of this litigation. If you are not sure whether attorneys are still reviewing claims for your device, our guide to what a lawsuit investigation is explains the stages.

Boston Scientific: MDL 3181

The motion originally sought one MDL covering Boston Scientific and Abbott. By the time the panel ruled, it had been told of 46 related actions in fourteen districts, naming Boston Scientific, Abbott, Nevro (with Globus Medical), and Medtronic. The panel rejected an industry-wide MDL, noting that each manufacturer has its own devices and regulatory history and that plaintiffs did not allege the companies acted together. It centralized only the Boston Scientific cases, renamed the proceeding In re: Boston Scientific Corporation Spinal Cord Stimulator Products Liability Litigation, and assigned it to Judge Josephine L. Staton, docket 2:26-ml-3181. The JPML listed 29 pending cases on September 1, 2026.

Abbott and Nevro: separate MDL requests

The panel could not create an Abbott-only MDL in June because all four Abbott cases on the original motion were in one district, and it said its ruling did not foreclose centralization later. New motions followed: MDL No. 3194, In re: Abbott Laboratories Spinal Cord Stimulator Products Liability Litigation, and MDL No. 3195, In re: Nevro Corporation Spinal Cord Stimulator Products Liability Litigation, were set for oral argument at the panel's September 24, 2026 hearing session in Chicago. Rulings typically follow within weeks.

Attorneys generally look for:

• The manufacturer and model. Boston Scientific cases go to MDL 3181. Abbott and Nevro cases proceed separately for now.
• A serious problem after implant: painful shocks or burning, lead migration or fracture, nerve or autonomic injury, or lack of pain relief that doctors attribute to the device.
• Additional surgery to revise leads or remove the system.
• Timing within your state's deadline.

Claims are weaker where the device simply did not relieve pain without any injury, since that outcome can happen with a properly working device. Documentation from your pain management doctor about device malfunction strengthens a claim.

Some plaintiffs have had devices from more than one company over time. The JPML noted that such multi-manufacturer cases appear to be rare, but if that is your situation, each company's device may need to be pursued in a different proceeding.

The Boston Scientific MDL is only months old, and no stimulator case in these proceedings has settled or gone to trial, so there are no payout figures. If cases move forward, value would depend on:

• the number of surgeries, including explant and any replacement;
• lasting nerve injury, burns, or loss of function;
• medical costs and lost wages;
• pain and suffering compared with your condition before the implant.

Because many patients got a stimulator after years of chronic pain, defendants will argue ongoing pain reflects the underlying condition, not the device, so records showing a specific malfunction matter. Attorneys in device cases typically work on contingency. See class action vs. mass tort.

Some related cases also named the FDA under the Administrative Procedure Act. Those claims seek different relief than money damages from manufacturers, and the JPML noted plaintiffs in five actions had already dropped their FDA claims, so they are unlikely to be a source of compensation.

Spinal cord stimulators are Class III devices that go through the FDA's premarket approval (PMA) process. Under Riegel v. Medtronic (2008), many state-law claims against PMA devices are preempted when they would impose requirements different from or in addition to federal ones. That is why plaintiffs frame their claims around alleged violations of federal requirements, such as the PMA supplement process and reporting duties.

The JPML noted that the manufacturers argued these PMA allegations are an attempt to avoid a preemption defense, but said judging the merits of that theory is beyond its authority. Judge Staton will decide how much of the Boston Scientific litigation survives preemption. See what an MDL is for how these early rulings shape a case.

Each case is governed by your state's statute of limitations, commonly two or three years, usually running from the injury or from when you knew or should have known the device caused it. An explant or revision surgery date, or a doctor's note that a lead migrated or fractured, is often treated as the discovery date. Some states also have statutes of repose tied to when the device was sold or implanted.

With MDL decisions for Abbott and Nevro pending, do not wait for a ruling to check your own deadline.

For people who had a stimulator removed years ago, a statute of repose may be the bigger obstacle than the statute of limitations. Some states bar product claims a fixed number of years after the device was first sold, regardless of when the injury was discovered.

Keep the explant date handy.

The June 5, 2026 order explains a lot about how these cases will be handled.

Who was in the cases before the panel

The motion came from plaintiffs in twelve actions: ten against Boston Scientific in four districts and four against Abbott, all in one district. By the ruling, the panel knew of 46 related actions in fourteen districts. Of those related cases, 12 named Boston Scientific, 9 named Abbott, 1 named both, 17 named Nevro and Globus Medical, 1 named Nevro and Boston Scientific, and 6 named Medtronic. The FDA was named as a defendant in more than 30 actions and potential tag-alongs, though plaintiffs in five actions later dropped their claims against it.

Why there is no single stimulator MDL

The panel said each manufacturer has its own line of devices with its own regulatory history, discovery would not overlap across companies, and an industry-wide MDL could complicate trade secret protection and require separate tracks and more bellwether trials. It added that it is typically hesitant to combine cases against competing companies that sold similar products.

Why Boston Scientific was centralized in Los Angeles

Boston Scientific opposed centralization but suggested the Central District of California or the District of Minnesota if the panel went ahead. Most Boston Scientific cases were already being coordinated in the Central District of California. The panel found common questions about whether Boston Scientific sought approval based on other companies' literature and whether it used successive PMA supplements to introduce significantly modified devices without heightened scrutiny.

What this means for you

• If you have a Boston Scientific device, a new federal case will likely be transferred into MDL 3181.
• If you have an Abbott or Nevro device, watch for the JPML's ruling on MDL 3194 and MDL 3195.
• If you have a Medtronic device, cases are proceeding individually.

In every case, your device's model and its approval history will matter, so get the implant record first.

The panel also said an industry-wide MDL is typically disfavored because of the need to protect each competitor's trade secrets, and noted that a later request to centralize cases against a single manufacturer can succeed when enough cases build up, as happened in the Covidien hernia mesh litigation.

1. See your pain management doctor and have device problems documented, including programming visits.
2. Find your device ID card or request the operative report naming the manufacturer and model.
3. Ask the hospital to preserve any explanted device or leads if you have removal surgery.
4. Keep a symptom log of shocks, burns, and changes in pain.
5. Do not sign releases from a manufacturer representative without advice.

In a case review, expect questions about the manufacturer and model, the dates of the trial and permanent implant, what went wrong (shocks, burns, lead movement, loss of relief), how many programming visits you had, and whether the device was revised or removed. With your permission, an attorney can request the operative reports and device records.

Independent attorneys who handle stimulator cases can check your device, injury, and deadline. A free case review takes about two minutes. Related: the hernia mesh lawsuit, the port catheter lawsuit, and the Cartiva implant lawsuit.