Updated August 2026 by Matthew T. Marin, Esq. (Super Lawyers, 2019–2022, and Rising Stars, 2014–2018, selected by Thomson Reuters using its published selection process; member of the American Association for Justice, and Mass Torts Made Perfect (MTMP) speaker) — a personal-injury and mass-tort trial attorney.

Matt Marin, Founding Partner, Marin & Murphy Law Firm
FIND OUT IF YOUR CASE QUALIFIES
Free Confidential Consultation

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.

Super Lawyers® 2014–2024CALL 24/7(888) 348-2735

Spinal Cord Stimulator — Free Case Review

Verdicts are starting to land.

Every case still must be proven on its own facts — find out in two minutes if yours 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.

Attorney Matthew T. MarinOr talk to a person now: (888) 348-2735 — answered 24/7

Attorneys Stefanie A. Murphy and Matthew T. Marin of Marin & Murphy Law Firm

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.

Updated August 2026 by Matthew T. Marin, Esq. (Super Lawyers, 2019–2022, and Rising Stars, 2014–2018, selected by Thomson Reuters using its published selection process; member of the American Association for Justice, and Mass Torts Made Perfect (MTMP) speaker) — a personal-injury and mass-tort trial attorney.

The one-line truth as of August 2026: no manufacturer has settled or lost a spinal cord stimulator products case at trial — yet. What exists today is a documented record of adjacent verdicts, quiet resolutions, and a litigation posture forming fast. This ledger keeps all of it in one dated place, updated the day any verdict or settlement is reported.

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

Get started

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 ledger — dated and sourced

Aug. 4, 2026 — Patterson v. Covidien (D. Mass.): $88 million compensatory verdict against Medtronic’s Covidien unit in the first hernia mesh bellwether — a different product line; context for Medtronic’s device docket, not a stimulator result.

  • June 5, 2026 — MDL 3181 created (C.D. Cal.) procedural consolidation of federal Boston Scientific stimulator cases; no money event.
  • 2026 — an individual Boston Scientific stimulator case resolved confidentially before discovery — terms undisclosed; a posture signal, not a benchmark.
  • 2024 — Chatham County, Georgia $4.5 million verdict in a stimulator medical malpractice case (physician defendant — a different legal theory than the manufacturer claims).
  • 2023 — Abbott Class I recall roughly 155,000 U.S. devices; regulatory action with no compensation program attached.

How to read the numbers you see elsewhere

Sites advertise “$150K–$2M,” “$250K–$600K,” “$300K+.” Every such figure is a projection or a different claim type — workers’ compensation awards, malpractice verdicts, or analogies to other device litigation. When a real manufacturer settlement or bellwether verdict happens, it will be in this ledger, dated and cited, the day it’s reported. The verdicts summarized on this page were obtained by the trial counsel in those cases — not by Marin & Murphy Law Firm, which had no role in them; they are cited as public-record context only. The $4.5 million Georgia verdict was affirmed on appeal in 2024. Results vary, and no outcome in another case predicts or guarantees a similar result in any other matter.

What would create real settlement numbers

Bellwether verdicts (none scheduled yet) → settlement frameworks → injury-tiered grids. Comparable device litigation most recently paid roughly $25,000 quick-pay to $60,000–$70,000 complex tiers, with severe-injury cases negotiated above the grid. Our full projection math is on the settlement-amounts page.

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

Has anyone won a spinal cord stimulator lawsuit against a manufacturer?

Not at trial as of August 2026 — no manufacturer verdict or settlement exists yet. Malpractice verdicts against physicians ($4.5M Georgia) involve different defendants and theories.

What was the $88 million Medtronic verdict?

A hernia mesh bellwether against Medtronic’s Covidien unit — not a stimulator case, but relevant context for Medtronic’s overall device litigation posture.

When will this ledger change?

The day a bellwether verdict, settlement program, or significant confidential-resolution report occurs. Bookmark it — that’s what it’s for.

Is the Georgia verdict on the ledger a manufacturer case?

No, that verdict was a medical malpractice case, not a claim against a device manufacturer. No manufacturer settlement currently exists in the active litigation against Boston Scientific, Abbott, Medtronic, or Nevro, though lawsuits are proceeding and most cases remain in early stages.

What is the current status of the manufacturer litigation?

Boston Scientific federal cases are consolidated in MDL 3181 in the Central District of California, while consolidation petitions against Abbott and Nevro are pending, with a decision expected in fall 2026. Most cases remain in early stages, proven on their own facts.
Sources (4)
  1. Patterson v. Covidien, No. 1:22-cv-10153 (D. Mass., MDL 3029), verdict Aug. 4, 2026.
  2. JPML, Transfer Order, MDL No. 3181 (June 5, 2026).
  3. Chatham County, Ga., verdict reporting (2024).
  4. FDA Recall database, Abbott Class I (2023).

Read next

Related on Spinal Cord Stimulator claims

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).