FIND OUT IF YOUR CASE QUALIFIES
Free Confidential Consultation
Spinal Cord Stimulator — Free Case Review
Medtronic stimulator problems?
These cases are harder — and case selection matters more. Get an honest answer in two minutes.
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.
Medtronic — the original spinal cord stimulator manufacturer — faces individual lawsuits alleging its Intellis, Vanta, and Restore stimulators shock patients, migrate, and fail, forcing revision and removal surgeries. And its litigation picture just changed: on August 4, 2026, a federal jury ordered Medtronic’s Covidien unit to pay $88 million in the first Covidien hernia mesh bellwether — a different product and different claims, but the backdrop against which Medtronic now defends its stimulator docket.
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
Marin & Murphy Law Firm · Free & confidential · Stop messages anytime
Marin & Murphy Law Firm is currently accepting spinal cord stimulator cases. Free, confidential case reviews: (888) 348-2735, available 24/7.
The number that defines this case: 607 and 1
FDA’s public database for Medtronic’s flagship stimulator system (PMA P840001, first approved 1984) records 607 supplements — post-approval modifications — of which exactly one was a panel-track supplement requiring new clinical-trial review. Four decades of changes; one new clinical trial. Plaintiffs allege today’s devices are generations removed from anything meaningfully tested in humans.
Litigation updates
August 4, 2026: $88M Covidien verdict against Medtronic’s mesh unit (separate litigation). April 2026: a federal appeals court affirmed dismissal of one Medtronic stimulator case on federal preemption grounds — a reminder that these are contested cases, not automatic ones; plaintiffs’ counsel nationwide are framing claims (manufacturing defects, sales-rep conduct) designed to proceed despite preemption.
An honest note for Medtronic patients
Courts have dismissed some Medtronic stimulator cases on preemption grounds — we tell you that because you’ll find it if you look, and because it shapes how strong cases are built: documented hardware failure, revision surgery, and manufacturing-defect evidence matter more against Medtronic than against any other defendant. If that’s your fact pattern, it deserves a real review.
Devices involved
Intellis™ (the most-reported stimulator in FDA’s database, with over 41,000 adverse event reports) · Inceptiv™ · Vanta™ · RestoreUltra™/RestoreSensor™ · legacy Itrel/Synergy systems. Since 2020, MAUDE contains roughly 56,000 reports naming Medtronic neurostimulation devices (reports are not verified causation).
Do you qualify?
You may qualify if you received one of these devices and experienced 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”? Alone, generally not enough — paired with any additional procedure, it is. Many people disqualify themselves wrongly; the review is free.
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
Sources (4)
- FDA PMA database, P840001 supplement records (607 supplements; 1 panel-track).
- FDA MAUDE database, product code LGW (reports are not verified causation).
- Patterson v. Covidien, No. 1:22-cv-10153 (S.D. Ohio, MDL 3029), verdict Aug. 4, 2026.
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, affirmance of preemption dismissal (April 2026).
Read next
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).