FIND OUT IF YOUR CASE QUALIFIES
Free Confidential Consultation
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. MDLs 3181, 3194 and 3195 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.
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 381,000 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.
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
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.
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.
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 October 14, 2026: 29 federal member cases indexed, 4 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? (October 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; the Panel centralized both as MDL 3194 and MDL 3195 on October 2, 2026.
June 5, 2026: The JPML created MDL 3181, consolidating federal Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulator cases (Dkt. 2:26-ml-03181).
MDL 3181 also carries Administrative Procedure Act claims against the FDA, which the court placed on a procedural track of their own on September 23, 2026, with a consolidated complaint due October 23, 2026.
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 381,000 adverse event reports for these devices, including over 99,000 reports of inadequate pain relief, roughly 39,600 involving lead migration, more than 11,000 describing electric shocks, and over 1,900 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; MDL 3194, N.D. Ill.) · Medtronic (Intellis, Inceptiv, Vanta, Restore family) · Nevro (Senza, HF10, HFX iQ — MDL 3195, N.D. Cal.).
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 October 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
Sources (8)
- JPML, Transfer Order, In re: Boston Scientific Corp. Spinal Cord Stimulator Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3181 (June 5, 2026).
- U.S. District Court, C.D. Cal., Dkt. 2:26-ml-03181-JLS-E.
- FDA MAUDE database, product code LGW (counts as of October 2026; reports are not verified causation).
- FDA Letter to Health Care Providers regarding spinal cord stimulators (2020).
- FDA Recall database, Abbott Proclaim/Infinity Class I recall (2023) and Recall Z-2879-2026, Boston Scientific Infinion CX leads (posted Aug. 5, 2026).
- Therapeutic Goods Administration (Australia), post-market review of spinal cord stimulation devices (2024).
- Neuromodulation (2026), 38-study meta-analysis of long-term SCS outcomes and explantation.
- JPML docket, petitions for centralization (Abbott, June 29, 2026; Nevro, July 8, 2026).
This section describes the public court docket and public FDA records as of October 23, 2026. It is general information, not legal or medical advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Litigation deadlines move.
The three spinal cord stimulator MDLs, and which is which
A multidistrict litigation, or MDL, is a federal procedure that gathers similar cases before one judge for pretrial handling. Spinal cord stimulator cases are not one MDL. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation created three on October 2, 2026, each for a different manufacturer.
| MDL 3181 | The federal proceeding for claims against Boston Scientific. Central District of California, Judge Josephine L. Staton. |
| MDL 3194 | The federal proceeding for claims against Abbott. Northern District of Illinois, Judge Lindsay C. Jenkins. |
| MDL 3195 | The federal proceeding for claims against Nevro. Northern District of California, Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. |
Each has its own schedule and its own orders, and a ruling in one does not automatically decide another. As of October 23, 2026 there was no MDL and no pending centralization petition for Medtronic devices; that is a fact about federal case consolidation and says nothing about whether any particular claim exists.
What the Boston Scientific master complaint says
On October 23, 2026, plaintiffs filed a Master Personal Injury Complaint in MDL 3181. It runs 164 pages and sets out 27 counts. It names two defendants: Boston Scientific Corporation, and Boston Scientific Neuromodulation Corporation, which is the entity registered with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as the developer of these devices’ specifications.
The complaint names nine Boston Scientific systems, all of which it says trace back to a single premarket approval, P030017, first granted in 2004. Premarket approval, or PMA, is the FDA’s most demanding review pathway, used for the highest-risk category of device.
- Precision Spinal Cord Stimulator System
- Precision Plus
- Precision Spectra
- Precision Montage
- Precision Montage MRI
- Precision Spectra WaveWriter
- Precision Novi
- WaveWriter Alpha
- WaveWriter Alpha Prime
A filed complaint sets out allegations. It does not establish liability, and it does not establish that any particular person has a claim.
What the complaint alleges goes wrong
The complaint describes these alleged failures: total device failure, inconsistent therapy, device and lead migration, lead breakage, lead insulation failure, battery failure, pulse generator overheating, excessive electrical stimulation, and unintended electrical stimulation.
It alleges these injuries follow: worsening pain, burns, fainting, unexpected shocking, disruption of automatic body functions, and nerve and neurological injuries including pins-and-needles sensations, nerve pain, urinary and bowel incontinence, urinary retention, difficulty swallowing, delayed stomach emptying, irregular heartbeat, and paralysis.
Seeing a symptom on this list does not mean a person has a claim. Whether a device caused any particular symptom is a medical question for that person’s own doctors, and a legal question no court has yet decided here. This page gives no guidance about any device that is currently implanted; those decisions belong to the patient and their physician.
Figures cited in the complaint
The complaint cites published sources rather than relying only on its own allegations. The figures below are those sources as the complaint reports them. They cover spinal cord stimulators across the industry and across manufacturers, not Boston Scientific devices alone, and they are not findings by any court.
- Lead migration and fracture reported in 13.2% to 22.6% of implanted patients, citing the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and a 2006 paper in Neurosurgery.
- A 2025 study cited for the finding that up to 40% of patients experience complications, whether from hardware failure, from biological complications such as infection or bleeding around the spine, or from other causes.
- Device removal, called explant, reported at rates up to 38%.
- A 2020 report by Public Citizen, an advocacy organization, stating that between 2004 and 2019 the FDA received 220,374 adverse event reports for spinal cord stimulator devices, including 156,817 reports of injury and 931 reports of death. Adverse event reports are submitted accounts; they are not verified by the FDA and do not by themselves establish that a device caused any outcome.
Why preemption is the central question in these cases
Spinal cord stimulators are Class III devices, the FDA’s highest-risk category, cleared through premarket approval. In Riegel v. Medtronic, the Supreme Court held that federal law can displace, or preempt, some state-law claims against devices approved that way. How far that reaches is the contested question in MDL 3181, and it is why the master complaint is pleaded as it is.
The complaint answers it by pleading two separate categories. The first covers conduct federal rules already govern, pleaded only where a state-law duty runs parallel to a federal requirement — for example, an allegation that a device was manufactured differently from the specifications the FDA approved.
The second category covers conduct the complaint says no federal requirement reaches, and concerns sales representatives rather than the device. The complaint alleges that Boston Scientific representatives, who it says needed only a bachelor’s degree or equivalent and two years of sales or clinical experience, programmed devices in operating rooms, assessed whether a patient’s symptoms were caused by the device, decided whether a lead had failed, advised patients for or against removal, and told patients their devices were working properly. It alleges this amounted to practicing medicine without a license under state law. Boston Scientific has not yet responded to these allegations on the docket.
How spinal cord stimulation works
A spinal cord stimulator has two parts: thin wires called leads, placed in the space just outside the spinal cord known as the epidural space, and a battery-powered pulse generator implanted under the skin. The generator sends electrical pulses along the leads, intended to interrupt pain signals before they reach the brain.
Patients do not usually go straight to a permanent implant. The complaint describes a temporary trial first, of roughly seven to fourteen days, using temporary leads connected to an external generator worn outside the body, and alleges that company representatives programmed and adjusted that trial device.
The approval history of these devices
The nine systems named in the complaint are not nine separate approvals. The complaint alleges they descend from the single 2004 premarket approval P030017, and that the devices were changed afterwards through supplements — the process by which a manufacturer seeks FDA sign-off for changes to an approved device.
It identifies five of those as Special, or Immediate Track, supplements: S004 (November 2004), S019 (February 2007), S024 (April 2007), S090 (November 2008) and S203 (September 2014). Separately, the complaint states that the FDA reserves the Immediate Track route for situations involving significant risk to health, and that the subject matter of these five supplements is not publicly available. What each one actually changed is therefore not known from the public record.
A 2024 field action on the WaveWriter Alpha
In July 2024 Boston Scientific issued an Urgent Medical Device Advisory, Field Action 97178176B-FA, advising that WaveWriter Alpha rechargeable pulse generators could have stimulation therapy suspended for roughly ten to fifteen seconds while the device was charging, because the device reset. The complaint cites this advisory as an acknowledgment by the manufacturer that the device could fail during charging.
The 2026 Infinion CX lead recall
Separately from the litigation, the FDA posted a Class I recall in September 2026 covering Boston Scientific Infinion CX leads, models SC-2317-50 and SC-2317-70. The stated cause was mechanical stress where the lead body is anchored, which could produce high electrical resistance or lead fracture, inadequate stimulation, and further intervention including removal and replacement. Boston Scientific reported 1,081 serious injuries as of May 27, 2026, and no reported deaths.
Two limits on that recall are worth stating plainly, because it is often reported loosely. The recall removed unused inventory — 1,079 devices — from distribution. The FDA stated that it does not affect devices already implanted and that no additional patient monitoring was recommended. Boston Scientific described the action as part of a planned move to a next-generation lead. The Infinion CX lead is also not among the nine systems named in the October 2026 master complaint. Anyone who has this lead should ask their own physician about follow-up care.
What claims the master complaint brings
The complaint pleads 27 counts: strict liability for design defect, manufacturing defect and failure to warn; the negligence equivalents of each; negligence, negligent undertaking and negligence per se; breach of express and implied warranty; negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment; vicarious liability, meaning a company’s responsibility for its employees’ conduct; negligent hiring, training, supervision and retention; violation of state consumer protection and unfair trade practice statutes; unjust enrichment; wrongful death; survival actions; loss of consortium; and punitive damages.
The counts concerning hiring, training, supervision, retention and vicarious liability are directed at the conduct of sales representatives rather than at the device, and are the part the complaint says preemption does not reach.
What happens next in MDL 3181
Pretrial Order No. 6, entered October 20, 2026, set the schedule below. These dates are as recorded on the docket on October 23, 2026 and are deadlines for the parties, not for anyone reading this page.
| October 26, 2026 | Parties’ proposed schedule for briefing motions to dismiss |
| October 30, 2026 | Proposed short-form complaint order, joint status report and conference agenda |
| November 2, 2026 | Revised proposed common benefit order |
| November 6, 2026 | Status conference (further conferences December 4, 2026; February 5, March 5 and April 9, 2027) |
| November 20, 2026 | Motions to dismiss due |
The motions due November 20, 2026 are where the preemption question described above is expected to be argued. The order also requires each filing by the parties to state whether it belongs to the personal injury track or to a separate track under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the federal statute governing challenges to agency action — in this instance, challenges directed at the FDA rather than at the manufacturer.
How individual cases relate to the master complaint
A master complaint is not a case brought by any one person. It sets out allegations and legal theories common to the litigation. Under the court’s orders, individual plaintiffs join by filing a short-form complaint identifying which products and defendants their own case concerns, along with the facts specific to them. A proposed order governing that short form is due October 30, 2026.
The existence of a master complaint does not mean any particular person has a claim. This page does not track any reader’s deadlines and is not a substitute for advice from a lawyer in the reader’s own state.
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.
- Alabama
- Alaska
- Arizona
- Arkansas
- California
- Colorado
- Connecticut
- Delaware
- Georgia
- Hawaii
- Idaho
- Illinois
- Indiana
- Iowa
- Kansas
- Kentucky
- Maine
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Michigan
- Minnesota
- Mississippi
- Montana
- Nebraska
- Nevada
- New Hampshire
- New Mexico
- New York
- North Carolina
- North Dakota
- Ohio
- Oklahoma
- Oregon
- Pennsylvania
- Rhode Island
- South Carolina
- South Dakota
- Tennessee
- Utah
- Vermont
- Virginia
- Washington
- West Virginia
- Wisconsin
- Wyoming
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.
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).