Lawsuit Claims Airport Body Scanner Destroyed Woman’s Spinal Cord Stimulator, Requiring Surgical Removal

Although travelers with implanted medical devices are advised to alert airport security due to potential electromagnetic interference risks, the lawsuit alleges TSA agents ignored the woman’s medical ID.

A Georgia woman has filed a lawsuit alleging that Transportation Security Administration (TSA) agents required her to pass through an airport body scanner even after she informed them she had a spinal cord stimulator implant, resulting in a device malfunction.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Kerri Thomas in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on February 18. It names the United States of America as the defendant under the Federal Tort Claims Act, indicating that TSA agents ignored mandatory screening policies and her repeated requests for a pat-down.

Spinal cord stimulators are surgically implanted devices designed to manage chronic pain by delivering electrical impulses to the spinal cord. The systems rely on internal wiring and electronic components that can be sensitive to external electromagnetic fields, and patients are typically advised to notify airport security before screening due to the risk of interference, unexpected stimulation or temporary device disruption.

In addition to electromagnetic risks during travel, a growing number of spinal cord stimulator lawsuits filed in recent months allege that certain models are prone to device malfunctions, including lead breakage or migration, unintended electrical shocks, loss of therapeutic benefit and other neurological complications allegedly linked to inadequately tested design changes.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Airport Screening Incident

In her lawsuit, Thomas alleges that on May 21, 2024, at approximately 5 a.m., she arrived at the North Security checkpoint at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport and informed a TSA employee that she had a spinal cord stimulator implant. She claims she presented her medical identification card and repeatedly requested a private pat-down screening rather than passing through a metal detector or advanced imaging technology scanner.

The complaint alleges that TSA agents ignored her medical ID and requests, telling her “the only way you are getting on the plane is to go through the machine.” When Thomas again alerted an agent about her implant near the scanner, she was allegedly told the machine had been “adjusted” or “recalibrated” to avoid harming her device.

Despite her objections, the lawsuit claims TSA personnel required her to enter the advanced imaging technology scanner and activated the machine. Thomas alleges she immediately felt a shock and intense pain, which she contends destroyed her spinal cord stimulator.

The complaint alleges that TSA policies require a pat-down screening when a passenger cannot or declines to undergo advanced imaging or metal detector screening. The lawsuit claims agents violated those mandatory procedures by refusing to accommodate Thomas’s medical condition and directing her into the scanner anyway.

The filing further alleges TSA agents knew or should have known that the machine had not been properly recalibrated to avoid interfering with her implanted device and failed to warn her of the potential risk.

“Defendant’s negligence, through the Transportation Security Administration and its employees or agents, constitutes the direct and proximate cause of the injuries and damages that Plaintiff suffered.”

— Kerri Thomas v. United States of America

Due to the alleged incident, Thomas claims she suffered serious bodily injury and damages, including the destruction of her spinal cord stimulator, requiring medical treatment and additional surgery. 

Her complaint seeks compensation for past and future medical expenses, physical pain and suffering, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, lost earnings and permanent injuries.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuits

Separate from the incident Thomas experienced, some individuals implanted with spinal cord stimulators have reported a series of device problems, often leading to painful revision or removal surgeries.

As a result, a growing number of spinal cord stimulator lawsuits are being filed against manufacturers, including Medtronic, Abbott Laboratories and Boston Scientific. 

In each of the lawsuits, plaintiffs allege that over time the companies introduced design changes that made the devices materially different from their original versions, without subjecting the updated systems to the same level of regulatory review required for entirely new medical devices.

Given common questions of fact and law raised in many of these spinal cord stimulator lawsuits, several plaintiffs have petitioned the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) to transfer and consolidate all federal spinal cord stimulator lawsuits involving Abbott and Boston Scientific before a single U.S. District Judge in the Northern District of Illinois for coordinated pretrial proceedings as part of a multidistrict litigation.

If the cases are centralized, the assigned court would oversee consolidated discovery, rule on pretrial motions, and potentially conduct representative bellwether trials to evaluate recurring claims and defenses. 

Spinal cord stimulator injury lawyers are offering free case evaluations and handling claims on a contingency fee basis, which means there are no upfront legal costs and attorneys are paid only if compensation is recovered through a settlement or verdict.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.