FIND OUT IF YOUR CASE QUALIFIES
Free Confidential Consultation
Spinal Cord Stimulator — Free Case Review
Charleston-area stimulator patients: now reviewing cases.
Implanted at MUSC or anywhere in South Carolina — two minutes tells you if 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.
Or talk to a person now: (888) 348-2735 — answered 24/7
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.
Charleston is one of the most stimulator-dense metros in America — and the litigation has already arrived in its federal courthouse. Medicare data shows 10 area physicians billed 451 trial procedures and 10 billed 285 implant procedures in CY2024 — the highest metro volumes across every market we analyzed. The District of South Carolina already has stimulator product cases on its docket, including cases against Nevro and Abbott. Marin & Murphy Law Firm — headquartered on Morrison Drive in Charleston — is currently accepting spinal cord stimulator injury claims from South Carolina patients.
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
Marin & Murphy Law Firm · Free & confidential · Stop messages anytime
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 (843) 642-2449 — available 24/7, a person answers.
Where Charleston-area patients were implanted
MUSC Medical Center posts 115 trial-level neurostimulator procedure services in CY2024 — the highest single-hospital volume in any metro we analyzed — followed by Trident Medical Center (27 trial-level/53 implant-level), East Cooper Medical Center, Mount Pleasant (21/54), Bon Secours St. Francis (18/28), and Roper Hospital (22 trial-level). (Medicare FFS floors.) If your device was implanted or revised at any of these facilities, your records are straightforward to obtain — and we obtain them for you.
The court that matters for your case
A Charleston-area case would proceed in the District of South Carolina — which already hosts stimulator product cases against Nevro (4:26-cv-00867) and Abbott (4:26-cv-03174, filed July 31, 2026). Federal Boston Scientific cases consolidate in MDL 3181; the JPML centralized the Abbott cases as MDL 3194 and the Nevro cases as MDL 3195 on October 2, 2026.
It sounds like you’ve been told this is normal
Maybe the trial worked and the permanent one never did. Maybe you’ve been through a dozen reprogrammings. Maybe you finally just turned it off and left it where it is.
You’re probably thinking this was your own fault for agreeing to it. You may be worried that asking questions could cost you your pain doctor. And you may not be someone who sues anybody, ever.
None of that has to change for you to find out what happened. The FDA has logged more than 372,000 adverse event reports on spinal cord stimulators, including more than 1,800 deaths. In South Carolina, Medicare alone paid for 762 people to have a stimulator generator implanted in 2024 — and 233 people to have their leads surgically removed or revised in the same year. You didn’t miss something that everyone else caught. Most people were introduced to this device the same way you were.
The question isn’t whether you’re the kind of person who files a lawsuit. It’s what happened to you, and whether anyone has ever told you the truth about it.
→ What the Medicare record shows about spinal cord stimulators in South Carolina
If it just stopped working, is that enough?
This is the question that stops most people, and the honest answer has changed.
For years the standard answer was no — that a device which simply stopped relieving pain, with no revision surgery and no hardware failure, was not the basis for a claim. Search for it today and that is still roughly what you will be told.
What has changed is that the filed cases are increasingly not about how the device performed. They are about how it was sold: what patients were told it would do, who told them, and what those people were paid. On that theory the events that matter happened before the device was ever implanted — which means a stimulator that never worked well is not a weaker set of facts. It is a different set of facts.
That is why attorneys reviewing these cases are looking at people whose devices simply stopped helping, and not only at people who have had revision surgery.
How these devices were sold
The filed complaints describe a sales process with recurring features, and it is worth knowing what they allege.
A pain physician raises the stimulator — often as a suggestion to learn more, sometimes by speaking with a representative from the device company.
Some filed complaints allege that a representative of the device manufacturer took part in those conversations. That is an allegation, not an established fact. What patients say they were told — about the device’s benefits and about the trial period — is among the questions the litigation raises.
Many patients also describe a trial period that went well, followed by a permanent implant that did not perform the same way. Whether and why that happened is another question the filed cases raise.
Why so many people were offered one after 2013
In September 2013 the FDA required class-wide safety labeling changes for extended-release and long-acting opioids. In 2016 the CDC issued prescribing guidelines that accelerated tapering nationwide. Many chronic pain patients were moved off medication they had taken for years, and spinal cord stimulation was among the alternatives offered.
In a 2018 investigation by the Associated Press and NBC, more than half of the injured patients interviewed said they felt pressured to get a stimulator because they feared their doctors would cut off their pain medication.
If that is how you ended up with one, your experience was a common one.
The South Carolina record
Medicare publishes what it pays for, procedure by procedure, state by state. Here is what that record shows for spinal cord stimulators in South Carolina.
In 2024, Medicare paid for 762 people in South Carolina to receive a stimulator pulse generator, and 233 people to have stimulator leads surgically removed or revised.
That is 233 lead removals or revisions against 762 implants — a ratio of 31 per 100. Nationally the figure is 31 per 100. South Carolina removes and revises these devices at about the national rate.
The other thing the record shows is when this happened. In 2013, Medicare paid for 542 generator implants in South Carolina. By 2019 that number had reached 1,000 — up 85% in six years. The national figure followed the same curve, from 15,275 to 30,432.
Those are the same six years in which chronic pain patients across the country were being tapered off opioid medication.
| Medicare Part B beneficiaries | 2013 | 2019 | 2024 | National 2024 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Generator implants (CPT 63685) | 542 | 1,000 | 762 | 27,107 |
| Lead removals + revisions (CPT 63661–63664) | 198 | 277 | 233 | 8,523 |
These figures count Medicare patients only — roughly a third of everyone who receives one of these devices — so they are a floor, not a total. Removals in a given year are of devices implanted in earlier years, so this is a running rate, not a failure rate for any one year’s implants. Medicare does not publish counts below 11 patients; cells marked —* fall below that threshold. Implant volumes and opioid prescribing are shown together because they happened together; that is not by itself proof that one caused the other.
Source: CMS, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners — by Geography and Service, 2013–2024. CPT 63685 (generator insertion/replacement), 63661 and 63662 (lead removal), 63663 and 63664 (lead revision/replacement). Retrieved August 15, 2026.
How these figures were computed — sources, methods, and limitations
Which stimulator do I have?
Most patients don’t know, and that is normal — the surgeon chose it. Four companies make nearly all of them: Boston Scientific, Abbott (formerly St. Jude Medical), Medtronic, and Nevro, which Globus Medical acquired in April 2025.
Four places to look:
- The patient identification card you were given after implantation. It lists the manufacturer and model.
- The charger or the remote. The brand is printed on it.
- The phone app, if you were set up with one.
- Your operative report. Your surgeon’s office is required to provide your records on request. The implant is listed by manufacturer, model, and serial number.
If none of those are available, the manufacturer is recorded in the implant log of the hospital or surgery center where the procedure was done.
Do you qualify?
- ✓ Revision, replacement, or removal (explant) surgery — the most common allegation in filed cases
- ✓ Electrical shocks or burns
- ✓ Lead migration or fracture on imaging
- ✓ Infection requiring treatment
- ✓ New weakness, numbness, or bowel/bladder problems
“It just stopped working” alone is one of the most common complications reviewed in this litigation, with or without a follow-up procedure. Many people rule themselves out when they should not.
Free Confidential Evaluation — No Fee Unless There Is a Recovery
Call (843) 642-2449 — 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
If you’re reading this for someone else
A lot of people reach this page on behalf of a parent or a spouse — usually the person who drove them to the appointments and watched what happened afterward.
You may be carrying some guilt about having encouraged the surgery. What you are describing — a device presented as the last option that works, sold by someone whose job was to sell it — is the ordinary story here, not the exception.
You are also usually the only person who can answer the questions that end up mattering most: what they could do before, what they can do now, how far they can walk, how many days they do not get out of bed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Sources (3)
- CMS Medicare Outpatient Hospitals by Provider and Service, CY2024 (APC 5464/5465; Medicare fee-for-service floors; small counts suppressed).
- U.S. District Court dockets via PACER/RECAP (MDL 3181; district filings as cited).
- FDA MAUDE and Recall databases, product code LGW.
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).