Spinal Cord Stimulator Claims Gain Momentum as Device Identification Becomes Critical

Spinal cord stimulators are implanted to help manage chronic pain. Lawsuits now allege that certain devices caused new or worsening pain, electrical shock sensations, lead migration, and injuries requiring additional surgery. These claims remain in active litigation, and causation must be evaluated based on the facts of each case.

Federal lawsuits involving Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulators have been centralized in the Central District of California as MDL No. 3181 before U.S. District Judge Josephine Staton. Plaintiffs have separately asked the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to centralize claims involving Abbott Laboratories and Nevro before the same judge. Both manufacturers oppose centralization, and the FDA—named as a defendant in some cases—has taken no position on consolidation while seeking dismissal from the litigation.

The centralization requests come against a mixed procedural backdrop. As reported by Law360, courts have already reached different outcomes on dismissal motions: a Minnesota federal judge dismissed claims against the FDA and Medtronic, while a Maryland federal judge allowed most claims against Nevro to proceed. Plaintiffs’ counsel has characterized dismissal briefing as a threshold issue likely to recur across these cases.

This fragmented landscape makes early identification of the manufacturer, model, implant history, and alleged complication especially important. Those details may affect where a claim proceeds, which defenses apply, and what records counsel will need to evaluate causation and damages.

In September 2026, the FDA announced a recall of unused Boston Scientific Infinion CX Leads. The agency reported that mechanical stress near the anchor site may cause high impedance or lead fractures, potentially leading to inadequate stimulation or an intervention to remove or replace the lead. As of May 27, 2026, Boston Scientific had reported 1,081 serious injuries and no deaths associated with the issue.

The FDA advises facilities to remove unused affected leads from inventory. The recall does not apply to devices that have already been implanted and should not be described as a directive for patients to have implanted devices removed.

As these cases develop, firms need a reliable process for connecting each claimant’s medical history to the correct device and alleged complication. Essential documentation may include:

• Implant records and device identifiers
• Programming history and symptom timelines
• Imaging and records of revision procedures
• Explant records

Verus helps law firms turn complex claimant information into an organized, actionable record. Our mass tort case management services support intake, document collection, medical record tracking, claimant engagement, and data analysis throughout the litigation lifecycle. If your firm is evaluating spinal cord stimulator claims or managing a growing medical device inventory, request mass tort case management support.