1612 K St NW Suite 1101, Washington, DC 20006
1612 K St NW Suite 1101, Washington, DC 20006
Lawsuits against Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Abbott/St. Jude, and Nevro are multiplying across federal and state courts. National mass-tort trackers list SCS litigation as "pending consolidation," with MDL formation expected. Cornerstone Law is reviewing cases nationwide — with no upfront cost to you.
Named Defendants
Lawsuits have been filed against all four major spinal cord stimulator manufacturers. Plaintiffs allege defective leads, battery failures, generator malfunctions, and inadequate warnings across product lines sold under several brand names.
What Plaintiffs Allege
Plaintiffs allege a pattern of device defects and corporate failures that left patients with injuries far worse than the chronic pain the devices were meant to treat.
Lead wires allegedly fracture, migrate, or degrade, delivering uncontrolled electrical impulses or failing to deliver therapy, causing nerve damage and requiring removal surgery.
Patients report sudden, painful shocks and tissue burns from malfunctioning devices, including during sleep or routine activity.
Stimulator leads allegedly shift from their implanted position, reducing effectiveness and causing new areas of pain or neurological injury.
Premature battery depletion and generator malfunctions require additional surgeries to replace components, each procedure carrying its own risk of complications.
Implant-site infections linked to device failure or inadequate device materials have required antibiotic treatment, surgical debridement, or full device removal.
Plaintiffs allege manufacturers were aware of failure rates through internal complaint data and FDA MAUDE reports but failed to update labeling or warn surgeons and patients.
Procedural Posture, 2025–2026
SCS litigation is in the pre-MDL growth phase, with consolidation efforts and common-issue discovery ramping up across multiple federal districts. National mass-tort trackers list the litigation as "pending" for MDL centralization, a status that reflects overlapping federal filings and growing pressure for formal coordination.
Early-stage discovery underway in scattered federal and state cases. Plaintiffs are building individual case records while simultaneously pushing for common-issue discovery protocols.
Plaintiffs are seeking design files, internal complaint data, MAUDE adverse-event reports, and manufacturer training materials, even before formal MDL creation.
Thousands of adverse-event reports in the FDA's MAUDE database are cited in complaints to establish product defect and manufacturer notice.
With multiple overlapping federal filings and growing case volume, a JPML petition for MDL centralization is widely anticipated among mass-tort practitioners.
Eligibility
You may qualify if you received a spinal cord stimulator from one of the named manufacturers and subsequently experienced complications requiring additional medical treatment.
Common Questions
No. Filing during the pre-MDL phase often gets your case more individual attention and can position it as a bellwether candidate once consolidation happens.
We handle spinal cord stimulator cases on contingency — no upfront fee, and we only get paid if we recover compensation for you.
Yes. Device removal doesn't disqualify a claim, and the complications that led to removal are often central to the case.
These four make up the vast majority of the market, but reach out with your device details and we can confirm whether your manufacturer is involved.
We represent patients harmed by defective spinal cord stimulators and pursue compensation for medical costs, revision surgeries, pain, and disability. Find out whether your device and complications qualify for a claim.
Get a Free Case ReviewNo fee unless we recover compensation for you. Call 1-800-928-9445.