Published
July 6, 2026
Updated
October 13, 2026
Lawsuits allege that spinal cord stimulators made by Boston Scientific, Abbott and Nevro failed the patients they were implanted in, through shocks, burns, migrating leads, lost pain relief and revision surgery. The cases now sit in three separate federal MDLs; no manufacturer has been found liable, and there is no settlement or claim form.
Allegations Only · No Settlement Yet
This article describes ongoing lawsuits. The statements below are unproven allegations. No manufacturer has been found liable, no class has been certified, and there is no settlement or claim form at this time. This page is informational and is not legal or medical advice.
What Is This About?
A spinal cord stimulator (SCS) is a small device surgically implanted near the spine to treat chronic pain by delivering mild electrical pulses through thin wires called leads. For some patients they provide real relief. A growing number of lawsuits allege that these devices can fail in ways that cause serious harm, and in 2026 the federal courts grouped those cases by manufacturer into three multidistrict litigations (MDLs).The first came on June 5, 2026, when the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation created MDL No. 3181, In re Boston Scientific Corporation Spinal Cord Stimulator Products Liability Litigation, centralizing ten Boston Scientific cases from four districts before U.S. District Judge Josephine L. Staton in the Central District of California. Some plaintiffs had asked for one industrywide MDL covering several manufacturers; the panel refused, finding that each company's devices have their own regulatory history and that discovery would not overlap. By October 1, 2026, the panel's own report listed 41 actions pending in MDL 3181.
On October 2, 2026, the panel created the other two: MDL No. 3194 for lawsuits against Abbott Laboratories, assigned to Judge Lindsay C. Jenkins in the Northern District of Illinois, and MDL No. 3195 for lawsuits against Nevro, assigned to Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr. in the Northern District of California. No manufacturer has been found liable, and the allegations remain unproven.
Status
Litigation Ongoing · Three Separate MDLs
MDL 3181 Boston Scientific (C.D. Cal., Judge Staton, 41 cases as of Oct 1, 2026) · MDL 3194 Abbott (N.D. Ill., Judge Jenkins) · MDL 3195 Nevro (N.D. Cal., Judge Gilliam)
Allegation
Implanted pain devices can fail — shocks, burns, lead migration, revision surgery
Complaints allege devices reached market through premarket-approval supplements without adequate clinical evaluation and failure to warn of risks
Can I Claim?
No online claim form
These are individual injury lawsuits, not a class action with a claim form
What the Lawsuits Allege
The lawsuits allege that spinal cord stimulators can malfunction and injure the patients they were meant to help. According to the panel's June order, the injuries plaintiffs describe include unsatisfactory pain relief, shocking and burning sensations, leads that migrate out of position, autonomic dysfunction and neurological injury, and the need for additional surgery to revise, reposition or remove the device. Because the leads sit near the spinal cord, complications and corrective surgeries carry real risk.The complaints also make regulatory allegations. According to the panel's June order, plaintiffs allege the FDA approved the Boston Scientific and Abbott devices based on published literature about other companies' systems rather than the manufacturers' own clinical data, and that later models and modifications reached the market through a series of premarket-approval (PMA) supplements without adequate evaluation of their safety. Boston Scientific plaintiffs further allege that company sales representatives routinely took part in implant surgeries and device programming, which they claim amounted to practicing medicine without a license. More than 30 cases also named the FDA itself, alleging it failed to review the approvals meaningfully; the FDA says it was improperly named.
As with any complaint, these are allegations only. No court has found that any manufacturer's devices are defective or that any company or the FDA did anything wrong.
Free settlement alerts
Get notified when new class actions open to claims
Join thousands of readers who get the latest class action settlements you may qualify for — delivered straight to your inbox.
What an MDL Is — and Isn't
A multidistrict litigation gathers many similar individual lawsuits from around the country before a single federal judge to handle pretrial matters — things like document discovery, expert issues, and bellwether trials — efficiently and consistently. It is not a class action: each plaintiff keeps their own separate case and their own alleged injuries, and there is no single class or online claim form to join.Creating an MDL is a case-management step. It reflects that enough similar cases exist to justify coordination; it is not a ruling that the devices are defective or that any company is liable. Those questions are decided later, through motions, bellwether trials, or a potential global settlement.
Which Manufacturers Are Involved?
Spinal cord stimulators are made by several major medical-device companies, and the cases against each now follow a separate track:- Boston Scientific — MDL 3181, Central District of California, Judge Josephine L. Staton (created June 5, 2026)
- Abbott Laboratories, which acquired St. Jude Medical — MDL 3194, Northern District of Illinois, Judge Lindsay C. Jenkins (created October 2, 2026)
- Nevro, now owned by Globus Medical — MDL 3195, Northern District of California, Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr. (created October 2, 2026)
- Medtronic — not centralized; the cases proceed individually in the courts where they were filed
When the panel ruled in June, the parties had told it about 46 related cases in fourteen districts: twelve naming Boston Scientific, nine naming Abbott, seventeen naming Nevro and Globus Medical, six naming Medtronic, and two naming more than one manufacturer. Which company made a given device determines which MDL, if any, a case would fall into.
Is There a Settlement Yet?
No. This is active litigation, not a settlement.That means there is no settlement fund, no class-action claim form, and no deadline to file a claim online. These are individual personal-injury cases. Someone who believes a spinal cord stimulator injured them would pursue their own lawsuit with an attorney. No court has approved any spinal cord stimulator payout, so a website promising a guaranteed payment in exchange for a fee or bank details is not connected to these cases.
Who Might Be Affected?
The litigation generally involves people who were implanted with a spinal cord stimulator and then experienced device failure or complications that required additional medical care or surgery. Whether any particular person has a viable claim depends on their specific device, their injuries, and the timeline — medical and legal questions that a qualified attorney and treating physicians evaluate individually. This page cannot assess an individual claim.Device problems themselves are a medical matter for the patient's doctor. The records that any later review of a claim relies on are the device's manufacturer and model, the implant and any revision dates, and the medical records of the complications.
What Happens Next?
The three MDLs move forward separately, before three judges. Each typically proceeds through the appointment of plaintiffs' leadership, a master complaint, motions to dismiss, document and expert discovery, and eventually the selection of bellwether cases whose outcomes shape how the rest of the litigation is valued. New Abbott and Nevro cases filed in other federal courts are transferred into their MDLs as tag-along actions. Medtronic cases continue on their own.Because these devices went through the FDA's premarket-approval process, the manufacturers are expected to argue that many state-law claims are preempted under the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in Riegel v. Medtronic, which limits such claims against PMA-approved devices. How each judge rules on that question could narrow the cases considerably. Any of these tracks could take years and could be narrowed, tried, or resolved through settlement along the way.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is there a spinal cord stimulator settlement yet?
No. These are ongoing individual lawsuits, now coordinated in three MDLs, not a settlement. There is no fund and no online claim form.What is MDL 3181?
A multidistrict litigation created on June 5, 2026 to centralize spinal cord stimulator lawsuits against Boston Scientific before Judge Josephine L. Staton in the Central District of California. It had 41 pending actions as of October 1, 2026. It coordinates individual cases; it is not a class action.What are MDL 3194 and MDL 3195?
Two spinal cord stimulator MDLs created on October 2, 2026: MDL 3194 for Abbott cases, in the Northern District of Illinois before Judge Lindsay C. Jenkins, and MDL 3195 for Nevro cases, in the Northern District of California before Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr.Which companies are being sued?
Boston Scientific, Abbott (which acquired St. Jude Medical), Nevro (now owned by Globus Medical) and Medtronic have all faced SCS lawsuits. The first three each have their own MDL; Medtronic cases proceed individually.Sources
• U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation — MDL No. 3181 transfer order, June 5, 2026: JPML Transfer Order (PDF)• U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation — pending MDL dockets by actions pending, October 1, 2026: JPML Pending MDL Report (PDF)
• U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation — September 24, 2026 hearing session listing MDL Nos. 3194 and 3195: JPML Hearing Session Order (PDF)
• Law360 — JPML creates separate MDLs for Nevro and Abbott spinal cord stimulator suits, October 7, 2026: Law360
• Bloomberg Law — Abbott and Nevro spinal cord stimulator lawsuits consolidated before Judges Jenkins and Gilliam, October 5, 2026: Bloomberg Law
• Mealey's — panel centralizes Nevro and Globus Medical spinal cord stimulator cases before Judge Gilliam, October 6, 2026: Mealey's
• U.S. FDA — spinal cord stimulator information and device safety communications: FDA — Medical Devices
• U.S. District Court, Central District of California — MDL No. 3181 docket, via CourtListener: CourtListener Docket Search
For more class actions keep scrolling below.
Status
Litigation Ongoing — Three Separate MDLs
Boston Scientific
MDL No. 3181 — C.D. Cal., Hon. Josephine L. Staton (transfer order June 5, 2026; 41 actions pending Oct 1, 2026)
Abbott
MDL No. 3194 — N.D. Ill., Hon. Lindsay C. Jenkins (created Oct 2, 2026)
Nevro
MDL No. 3195 — N.D. Cal., Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam Jr. (created Oct 2, 2026)
Medtronic
Not centralized — individual cases
Official Court Page
CourtListener Docket
