Updated August 2026 by Matthew T. Marin, Esq. (Super Lawyers, 2019–2022, and Rising Stars, 2014–2018, selected by Thomson Reuters using its published selection process; member of the American Association for Justice, and Mass Torts Made Perfect (MTMP) speaker) — a personal-injury and mass-tort trial attorney.

Matt Marin, Founding Partner, Marin & Murphy Law Firm
FIND OUT IF YOUR CASE QUALIFIES
Free Confidential Consultation

No fee unless there is a recovery. Court costs and litigation expenses are advanced by counsel and repaid from the recovery. You are not responsible for court costs or litigation expenses if there is no recovery, unless a court directs otherwise. The attorney’s fee is a percentage of the gross recovery, calculated before expenses are deducted.

Super Lawyers® 2014–2024CALL 24/7(888) 348-2735

Spinal Cord Stimulator — Free Case Review

Is your spinal cord stimulator the problem?

Shocks, burns, failed relief, another surgery — two minutes tells you whether your case qualifies.

ACTIVE LITIGATION — NO SETTLEMENT. MDL 3181 underway · deadlines vary by state.

Do you — or someone you love — have a spinal cord stimulator that caused problems?

Check if my case qualifiesfree · takes 2 minutes
I’m not sure it was the device →

No documents needed · an answer either way · no fee unless there is a recovery. Court costs and litigation expenses are advanced by counsel and repaid from the recovery. You are not responsible for court costs or litigation expenses if there is no recovery, unless a court directs otherwise. The attorney’s fee is a percentage of the gross recovery, calculated before expenses are deducted.

Attorney Matthew T. MarinOr talk to a person now: (888) 348-2735 — answered 24/7

Attorneys Stefanie A. Murphy and Matthew T. Marin of Marin & Murphy Law Firm

Stefanie A. Murphy & Matthew T. Marin

Partners

Every spinal cord stimulator inquiry gets a personal review — and an honest answer either way, free and without obligation.

Claims target the device manufacturers — not your doctor. Some matters may be referred to other lawyers. No settlement has been reached, and most cases are in their earliest stages; every case must be proven on its own facts. Attorney Advertising.

Updated August 2026 by Matthew T. Marin, Esq. (Super Lawyers, 2019–2022, and Rising Stars, 2014–2018, selected by Thomson Reuters using its published selection process; member of the American Association for Justice, and Mass Torts Made Perfect (MTMP) speaker) — a personal-injury and mass-tort trial attorney.

Spinal cord stimulator (SCS) lawsuits are active product liability cases against the four major manufacturers — Boston Scientific, Abbott (including St. Jude), Medtronic, and Nevro. Plaintiffs allege the devices shock patients, migrate, burn, and fail at rates reflected in more than 370,000 FDA adverse event reports, forcing revision or removal surgeries — and that manufacturers modified the devices hundreds of times after FDA approval without new clinical testing.

On June 5, 2026, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated the federal Boston Scientific cases into MDL 3181 (Central District of California, Judge Josephine L. Staton). No settlement exists yet; the litigation is in its earliest phase.

372,958Adverse event reports in FDA’s database (MAUDE, product code LGW)
1,876Death reports filed with the FDA (reports are not verified causation)
44.7%Implanted patients explanted or failing at 3 years (2026 meta-analysis, 38 studies)
~155,000U.S. Abbott devices in the 2023 Class I recall

Marin & Murphy Law Firm is currently accepting spinal cord stimulator cases. Free, confidential case reviews: (888) 348-2735.

Free Confidential Evaluation — No Fee Unless There Is a Recovery Court costs and litigation expenses are advanced by counsel and repaid from the recovery. You are not responsible for court costs or litigation expenses if there is no recovery, unless a court directs otherwise. The attorney’s fee is a percentage of the gross recovery, calculated before expenses are deducted.

Call (888) 348-2735 — available 24/7, a person answers.

⚖️

See if you qualify

A few quick questions about your spinal cord stimulator, the problems you experienced, and any revision or removal surgery. This is the initial intake screening, not a full case review. Most people finish in about two minutes.

  • 🔒 Confidential
  • No obligation
  • ⏱ ~2 minutes

Get started

Marin & Murphy Law Firm · Free & confidential · Stop messages anytime

Important: your doctor is not the defendant. These claims target the device manufacturers — not your surgeon, and not your pain clinic. Your ongoing medical care is not the subject of the claim.

As of August 31, 2026: 24 federal member cases indexed, 0 filed in the last 30 days. See the member-case ledger on the MDL 3181 tracker.

What’s happening in the spinal cord stimulator litigation? (August 2026)

August 5, 2026: The FDA posted a Class I recall of Boston Scientific’s Infinion CX stimulator leads (Recall Z-2879-2026) over fracture risk at the anchor site — and the court held the initial status conference in MDL 3181 the same week.

July 8 / June 29, 2026: Petitions were filed asking the JPML to centralize the federal Nevro and Abbott cases; decisions are expected in fall 2026.

June 5, 2026: The JPML created MDL 3181, consolidating federal Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulator cases (Dkt. 2:26-ml-03181).

Why are patients suing?

The most common story in this litigation is the same one told across patient communities: the trial worked — the permanent implant didn’t. The FDA’s database contains more than 372,000 adverse event reports for these devices, including over 97,000 reports of inadequate pain relief, roughly 38,000 involving lead migration, more than 11,000 describing electric shocks, and over 1,800 deaths (reports are not verified causation).

In 2020 the FDA formally warned that stimulators were among the most injury-reported devices it regulates. Published research shows roughly 1 in 4 to 1 in 3 patients requires reoperation, and a 2026 meta-analysis found 44.7% of implanted patients explanted or failing at three years. Abbott issued a Class I recall covering roughly 155,000 U.S. devices in 2023, and Australia’s regulator cancelled 12 stimulator models from its market in 2024.

Which spinal cord stimulators are involved?

Boston Scientific (WaveWriter Alpha, Precision family — MDL 3181) · Abbott / St. Jude (Proclaim XR, Proclaim Plus, Proclaim DRG, Infinity, Eterna, Eon — 2023 Class I recall; JPML petition pending) · Medtronic (Intellis, Inceptiv, Vanta, Restore family) · Nevro (Senza, HF10, HFX iQ — JPML petition pending).

Don’t know which device you have? Most patients were never clearly told. Your patient ID card, charger, or phone app identifies it in under two minutes — and if none of those are handy, your operative report names it and we obtain it for you.

Do you qualify for a spinal cord stimulator lawsuit?

You may qualify if you received a permanent spinal cord stimulator implant — not just the trial — in 2013 or later and experienced any complication with the device, including any of the following:

  • ✓ Revision, replacement, or removal (explant) surgery
  • ✓ Electrical shocks, jolts, or burning at the battery site
  • ✓ Lead migration or fracture shown on imaging
  • ✓ Infection requiring treatment or surgery
  • ✓ New weakness, numbness, paralysis, or bowel/bladder problems

“It just stopped working”? A device that stopped relieving pain is one of the most common complications reviewed in this litigation, and revision surgery is not required to have a claim reviewed. Many people rule themselves out when they should not.

What compensation could look like

Honestly: no spinal cord stimulator settlement exists as of August 2026, and any site quoting you a specific number is projecting. Projections from comparable medical device litigation range from roughly $25,000 for straightforward revision claims to over $250,000 for severe, well-documented injuries — if the litigation resolves favorably, and $0 if it does not.

Deadlines are real — and already being enforced

Limitations periods run from when you knew or should have known the device caused your injury — as short as one to two years in some states. In July 2026, a federal court dismissed three of four spinal cord stimulator plaintiffs for filing too late.

Free Confidential Evaluation — No Fee Unless There Is a Recovery

Call (888) 348-2735 — available 24/7, a person answers.

Matthew T. Marin, J.D. — Admitted in Rhode Island, South Carolina, Connecticut, and Massachusetts

Stefanie A. Murphy, J.D. — Admitted in Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Massachusetts

Frequently Asked Questions

Is there a spinal cord stimulator class action?
Not a class action — consolidated individual lawsuits. Federal Boston Scientific cases are centralized in MDL 3181 in the Central District of California; each plaintiff’s case remains individual, which means compensation depends on individual injuries.
Is there an MDL for Abbott or Nevro stimulators?
Not yet. Petitions were filed with the JPML in June and July 2026; decisions are expected in fall 2026.
Will suing affect my relationship with my doctor or pain clinic?
The lawsuits target device manufacturers, not physicians. Your ongoing care is not the subject of the claim.
I don’t know what brand my stimulator is. Can I still file?
Yes. Your patient ID card, charger, phone app, or operative report identifies it — and we do that work for you.
What is the average spinal cord stimulator settlement?
There is none yet — no settlement exists in this litigation as of August 2026. Projections from comparable device litigation range from roughly $25,000 for straightforward revision claims to over $250,000 for severe injuries, if the litigation succeeds.
How long do I have to file?
It depends on your state and when you learned the device caused your injury — in some states as little as one year. In July 2026 a federal court dismissed three of four stimulator plaintiffs for filing too late.
Can I file for a family member who died?
Potentially, yes — wrongful death claims have been filed in this litigation. Deadlines for wrongful death can be shorter; call promptly.
Sources (8)
  1. JPML, Transfer Order, In re: Boston Scientific Corp. Spinal Cord Stimulator Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3181 (June 5, 2026).
  2. U.S. District Court, C.D. Cal., Dkt. 2:26-ml-03181-JLS-E.
  3. FDA MAUDE database, product code LGW (counts as of August 2026; reports are not verified causation).
  4. FDA Letter to Health Care Providers regarding spinal cord stimulators (2020).
  5. FDA Recall database, Abbott Proclaim/Infinity Class I recall (2023) and Recall Z-2879-2026, Boston Scientific Infinion CX leads (posted Aug. 5, 2026).
  6. Therapeutic Goods Administration (Australia), post-market review of spinal cord stimulation devices (2024).
  7. Neuromodulation (2026), 38-study meta-analysis of long-term SCS outcomes and explantation.
  8. JPML docket, petitions for centralization (Abbott, June 29, 2026; Nevro, July 8, 2026).

The spinal cord stimulator lawsuit, state by state

What the litigation, the deadlines, and the federal Medicare record look like where you live. Every Medicare figure follows our published methodology.

Metro guides: Boston · Charleston · Columbia, SC · Hartford · Los Angeles · Providence

Model-specific pages: Boston Scientific Precision, WaveWriter, Medtronic Intellis, Nevro Senza/HFX, Abbott Proclaim XR, Eterna, Infinity, and Eon Mini — each covers that device’s reported problems and where it stands in the litigation.

For families and caregivers: the caregiver checklist, documenting a loved one’s device injuries, signing for a loved one with power of attorney, and wrongful-death claims.

Patients also ask about the manufacturer’s representative in the operating room and devices too encapsulated in scar tissue to remove.

Explore the Spinal Cord Stimulator resources

Attorney Advertising. This page is general information, not legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship — that relationship is formed only by a signed written agreement. The attorneys of Marin & Murphy Law Firm are licensed in Rhode Island, South Carolina, Connecticut, and Massachusetts. We evaluate potential claims nationwide; for matters arising in states where our attorneys are not admitted, we associate with or refer to locally licensed co-counsel and do not ourselves practice law in those jurisdictions. Submitting the contact form or contacting the firm does not create an attorney-client relationship. Representation is offered on a contingent-fee basis: no fee unless there is a recovery, though a client may be responsible for case costs and expenses. The statute of limitations may sharply limit the time to file a claim. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome, and no outcome is guaranteed. Responsible attorney: Matthew T. Marin, Marin & Murphy Law Firm (South Carolina).