MDL 3195: Nevro Spinal Cord Stimulator Cases Are Now Centralized in California

What the Panel decided

Plaintiffs in eight actions moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize the litigation in the Central District of California or, alternatively, the Northern District of California. At the time of the order the litigation consisted of seventeen actions pending in six districts, with the parties having notified the Panel of six additional related actions pending in five districts.

The named defendants are Nevro LLC, formerly known as Nevro Corporation, and Globus Medical, Inc.

The Panel found the actions share questions of fact arising from allegations that Nevro misused the premarket approval (PMA) supplement process. Plaintiffs allege the original PMA was granted not on Nevro-sponsored clinical trials but on published literature about similar systems made by other companies, and that Nevro has since introduced nearly 250 new stimulator devices under supplements to that original approval — major cumulative design changes made, plaintiffs say, to avoid the clinical evaluation a new PMA application would require.

Almost all of the actions also raise whether Nevro sales representatives engaged in the unlicensed practice of medicine — programming and reprogramming implanted devices, adjusting the physical position of implanted leads, and directing patients to change their own settings.

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

What Nevro argued, and what the Panel said

• That there is no common defect and the injuries vary. The movants grouped the injuries three ways: harm from the electrical impulses acting on nerves, harm from defective leads such as burning and lead migration, and failure of the device to relieve pain. The Panel centralized regardless, repeating that it has “rejected the argument that products liability actions must allege identical injuries to warrant centralization.”
• That three actions are unique and should be excluded. Not persuaded — and the Panel noted that eight other actions on the motion also name the FDA and seek similar relief.
• That one action is too far advanced and another has been dismissed. The Panel found the dismissed action remains open while a motion to amend is pending, and was not persuaded the advanced action is beyond benefiting from centralization.
• That twelve of the seventeen actions were already before the same judge, so informal coordination or § 1404 transfer would do. The Panel counted at least six firms representing plaintiffs in 23 actions in ten different districts and found universal agreement to transfer unrealistic. It also recorded that movants’ counsel states it represents 300 potential plaintiffs, more than 30 of whom would already have filed but for a tolling agreement with Nevro — circumstances the Panel said persuaded it that more actions are likely to be filed.

The claims against the FDA

Plaintiffs in nine actions and one potential tag-along action bring a claim against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration under the Administrative Procedure Act, and the order distinguishes two kinds. One plaintiff alleges the FDA’s approval of Nevro’s PMA supplements was arbitrary and capricious and seeks a declaration that the approval was deficient and that Nevro is therefore not entitled to preemption. The other eight seek something narrower — in the order’s words, relief “limited to unreasonable delay in processing mandatory safety submissions,” without asking the court to direct any particular regulatory outcome.

The FDA took no position on centralization and stated that the claims against it should be dismissed. The parallel APA track inside the Boston Scientific MDL is covered separately on the APA claims against the FDA.

Why it did not go to the Boston Scientific judge

As in the Abbott order issued the same day, the Panel refused to put this litigation before the judge already handling MDL 3181:

“Little efficiency will be gained by placing SCS device MDLs against multiple manufacturers before one judge.”

It chose the Northern District of California because Nevro is headquartered there and twelve of the actions plus one potential tag-along were already pending in the district, all twelve before Judge Gilliam, whom the order describes as an experienced transferee judge.

What this means if you have a Nevro stimulator

Centralization is a pretrial procedure. It does not decide liability, it does not create a settlement, and it does not change who can bring a claim or what that claim has to prove. State filing deadlines run on their own schedule and are not paused by anything on this page.

Five actions were transferred into the Northern District of California by the order; the rest were already there.

Correct scope, which is frequently reported wrong

There are now three separate spinal cord stimulator MDLs, not one. MDL 3181 covers Boston Scientific only, in the Central District of California. MDL 3195 covers Nevro, in the Northern District of California. MDL 3194 covers Abbott, in the Northern District of Illinois. The Panel has now declined three times to create a single industry-wide MDL. Medtronic is the subject of none of them.

Sources

• Transfer Order, In re: Nevro Corporation Spinal Cord Stimulator Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3195, Dkt. 44 (J.P.M.L. Oct. 2, 2026), signed by Karen K. Caldwell, Chair. Judge M. Casey Rodgers took no part in the decision.
• Transfer Order, In re: Abbott Labs. & Boston Scientific Corp. Spinal Cord Stimulator Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 3181 (J.P.M.L. June 5, 2026) — hosted on this site.

Questions about a Nevro spinal cord stimulator injury: call (888) 348-2735. No fee unless there is a recovery.

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