“The Trial Worked — Then the Permanent Implant Didn’t.” You’re Not Alone, and It’s Not Your Fault.

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

Spinal Cord Stimulator — Free Case Review

The trial worked — the implant didn’t?

That is the most common story in this litigation. 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.

The single most common story spinal cord stimulator patients tell — in support groups, in FDA reports, and in lawsuits — is the same one: near-total relief during the week-long trial, followed by a permanent implant that delivered little, nothing, or worse. If this is your story, this page is for you: how common it really is, why the trial so often over-promises, and when the pattern becomes a legal claim.

Marin & Murphy Law Firm is currently accepting spinal cord stimulator cases. Free, confidential case reviews: (888) 348-2735, available 24/7.

How common is it, really?

A 2026 meta-analysis of 38 studies found roughly 1 in 4 patients gets less than 50% pain relief by year two, and 44.7% of implanted patients were explanted or failing at three years. Published reoperation data show 25–33% of patients need another surgery; Australia’s regulator found about 4 in 10 devices required reintervention within three years.

The FDA’s database contains over 97,000 reports of inadequate pain relief — the single largest patient-problem category (reports are not verified causation). The trial’s promise and the implant’s reality diverge often enough that the pattern itself is now part of the litigation.

Why the trial so often over-promises

Different hardware: trial leads are placed differently and are not the implanted system. The honeymoon window: trials run days, not years — before scar tissue forms, leads settle or migrate, and tolerance develops. Selection and expectation effects: you were hopeful, monitored daily, and adjusting activity — none of which lasts. The incentive structure: the trial is the sales gate, and plaintiffs allege patients were told trial success predicted long-term success when manufacturers’ own data showed relief commonly fades.

None of this was your fault — you made a reasonable decision on the information you were given. The question the lawsuits ask is whether the information was complete.

When the pattern becomes a legal claim

Disappointment alone isn’t a lawsuit — courts require more than “it didn’t work.” The pattern becomes a claim when it led to consequences you can document: reprogramming after reprogramming and then a revision surgery; an explant; hardware findings (migrated leads, failed batteries); shocks or injuries along the way. If your path ran trial → implant → failure → another procedure, you fit the fact pattern at the center of the current litigation against Boston Scientific (MDL 3181), Abbott, Medtronic, and Nevro. The claim targets the manufacturer — not your doctor.

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

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).