Contact Marin & Murphy
Marin & Murphy is licensed in South Carolina, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut, and works with lawyers licensed across the country.
Marin & Murphy is not licensed in Hawaii; a matter there would be handled with, or referred to, a lawyer licensed in that state.
Spinal Cord Stimulator — Device Litigation
The Spinal Cord Stimulator Litigation, Explained
Federal cases are consolidated in MDL 3181, most cases are in their earliest stages, and no settlement exists. Here is what is publicly known.
ACTIVE LITIGATION — NO SETTLEMENT. MDL 3181 underway · deadlines vary by state.
Marin & Murphy is not licensed in Hawaii; details below.
Partners
Stefanie A. Murphy & Matthew T. Marin
Super Lawyers® honorees · members of the American Association for Justice · concentrating in personal injury and mass-tort litigation.
No settlement has been reached in the spinal cord stimulator litigation, and most cases are in their earliest stages. Every case must be proven on its own facts. Whether any individual has a claim depends on their medical records and the law of their state. The information below covers the litigation itself.
Yes — Hawaii patients injured by a defective spinal cord stimulator can file a product liability lawsuit in Hawaii state or federal court. Hawaii’s injury period is two years under Haw. Rev. Stat. § 657-7, with discovery-based accrual for late-discovered injuries.
Latest update: October 2, 2026 — The JPML centralized the federal Abbott cases as MDL 3194 (N.D. Ill.) and the Nevro cases as MDL 3195 (N.D. Cal.); Boston Scientific cases remain in MDL 3181.
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 Hawaii, Medicare alone paid for 16 people to have a stimulator generator implanted in 2024; the number who had leads removed or revised falls below Medicare’s public reporting threshold. 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 Hawaii
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 Hawaii record
Medicare publishes what it pays for, procedure by procedure, state by state. Here is what that record shows for spinal cord stimulators in Hawaii.
In 2024, Medicare paid for 16 people in Hawaii to receive a stimulator pulse generator. Lead removal and revision counts in Hawaii fall below Medicare’s public reporting threshold — a floor, not a count.
| Medicare Part B beneficiaries | 2013 | 2019 | 2024 | National 2024 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Generator implants (CPT 63685) | —* | 29 | 16 | 27,107 |
| Lead removals + revisions (CPT 63661–63664) | —* | —* | —* | 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. Counts this small sit near the reporting threshold and should be read as floors.
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.
Why timing matters in Hawaii
In July 2026, a federal court dismissed three of four spinal cord stimulator plaintiffs for filing too late — an illustration of why filing deadlines matter in this litigation.
Hawaii allows two years for injury claims under Haw. Rev. Stat. § 657-7, with accrual delayed until the patient discovered — or reasonably should have discovered — the injury, its cause, and the connection between them. No product-liability statute of repose has been identified in Hawaii law. Wrongful-death claims run two years under § 663-3, brought by the personal representative or the statutory beneficiaries. Hawaii stimulator cases would proceed in the District of Hawaii or, under Pretrial Order No. 4, by direct filing into MDL 3181 in California — which stops the limitations clock the day the case is filed. Whether a particular Hawaii timeline fits inside these rules is what the case review determines.
Where the litigation stands
On June 5, 2026, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated the federal Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulator cases into MDL 3181 in the Central District of California (Dkt. 2:26-ml-03181). The Panel centralized the Abbott cases as MDL 3194 and the Nevro cases as MDL 3195 on October 2, 2026. The FDA has received more than 372,000 adverse event reports for these devices, including over 11,000 describing electric shocks (reports are not verified causation). These claims target the manufacturers — not your doctor, and not your pain clinic.
A Hawaii case would typically be filed in the District of Hawaii (or Hawaii state court), and qualifying federal cases may be transferred to the MDL for coordinated proceedings. In Hawaii, Medicare alone paid for 16 permanent stimulator implants and 11 trials in 2024 — and Medicare is only part of the picture. (CMS Medicare fee-for-service data, CY2024; a floor, not total volume.)
Where Hawaii Stands in MDL 3181
We reviewed the publicly available member-case record and found no filing we could verify as brought by a Hawaii resident — a fact this page states rather than papers over. It is the normal condition of a young MDL: the consolidation dates to June 2026, new cases arrive monthly, and states join as they file, not in alphabetical order. Nothing about an empty Hawaii column changes the law above or the path in: under Pretrial Order No. 4, direct filing into MDL 3181 is open to a Hawaii claim and freezes its limitations clock the day it is filed. The MDL 3181 tracker logs the docket as it grows.
Who is included in the filed cases?
Plaintiffs in the pending cases commonly received a spinal cord stimulator from one of the four manufacturers — Boston Scientific, Abbott (St. Jude), Medtronic, or Nevro — and experienced one or more 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 or bladder problems
- A device that simply stopped relieving pain — with or without a follow-up procedure
Revision surgery is not required for a case to be reviewed in the filed litigation, and the filed cases are not limited to any one failure type. An attorney licensed in Hawaii can evaluate whether a particular experience supports a claim.
What information matters in these cases
- Find your device ID card — it names the manufacturer and model; the charger, patient app, or operative report also identifies it.
- Note your dates — implant, any revision or removal, and when you first believed the device was the problem.
- Don’t wait on records — medical records can be gathered after an initial evaluation and their absence does not prevent one.
- Speak with a licensed attorney — an attorney licensed in Hawaii can evaluate whether a claim is timely.
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)
- JPML, Transfer Order, MDL No. 3181 (June 5, 2026); C.D. Cal. Dkt. 2:26-ml-03181.
- FDA MAUDE database, product code LGW (reports are not verified causation).
- CMS Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners data, CY2024 (state utilization).
Some matters may be referred to other lawyers.
Attorney Advertising. Marin & Murphy Law Firm is licensed only in Rhode Island, South Carolina, Connecticut, and Massachusetts, and is not licensed to practice law in Hawaii. This page is provided for general informational purposes only. It is not legal advice, does not create an attorney-client relationship, and does not constitute an offer to represent any Hawaii resident. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Where we practice
Marin & Murphy Law Firm attorneys are licensed in Rhode Island, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and South Carolina. We are not licensed in Hawaii. The firm does not accept Hawaii legal matters; inquiries from Hawaii residents are referred to attorneys licensed in Hawaii. This page is attorney advertising and is provided for general information; it is not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney–client relationship.