---

Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit Overview

Spinal cord stimulator lawsuits are being filed after implanted pain devices allegedly malfunctioned once placed in the body, leading to complications such as lead migration, lead fractures, device failure, unpredictable stimulation, worsening pain, and the need for revision or removal surgery.

Commonly referred to as an SCS, spinal cord stimulators are implantable medical devices used to treat chronic back pain, nerve pain, and conditions such as failed back surgery syndrome. They work by delivering electrical impulses to the spinal cord in an attempt to block pain signals, and are often promoted as long-term alternatives to medication or repeated procedures.

A series of spinal cord stimulator lawsuits now claim that manufacturers made repeated changes to SCS devices over time, including updates to software, electrical output, batteries, and internal components. These changes allegedly altered how the devices functioned inside the body, without clearly informing individuals that newer systems differed in meaningful ways from earlier versions or that long-term performance data was limited.

As a result, financial compensation is being pursued from the device manufacturers through spinal cord stimulator lawsuits, involving allegations that these defective devices were not as safe, stable, or reliable as represented. Manufacturers also face claims that they failed to provide adequate warnings about long-term risks associated with SCS, device limitations, and the likelihood of needing revision or removal surgery.

Who Can File a Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit?

Individuals may be eligible to pursue a lawsuit if they had a spinal cord stimulator implanted and later experienced serious complications such as:

• Electrical shocks or burning sensations linked to stimulation or device wiring
• Device migration or lead movement after implantation
• Tissue burns or localized injury near leads or the generator
• Neurological symptoms associated with lead position or electrical output
• Revision surgery or planned explant surgery due to device complications

Spinal cord stimulator injury lawyers seek to hold manufacturers accountable for injuries linked to device failures, inadequate warnings, and long-term risks that individuals say were not fully disclosed before implantation.

---

2026 Spinal Cord Stimulators Lawsuit Updates

• February 2, 2026 Update: A new SCS lawsuit was filed alleging a Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulator battery malfunctioned and required surgical removal after the device failed. The complaint claims the battery issues caused worsening pain and complications, adding to litigation over implanted neuromodulation devices.

---

What Are Spinal Cord Stimulators?

Spinal cord stimulation is a form of pain treatment that uses electrical signals to interfere with nerve activity in the spine. The goal is not to cure the underlying condition, but to reduce how pain signals are perceived by the brain.

A spinal cord stimulator system typically includes thin wires, called leads, that are placed near the spinal cord, along with a small battery-powered generator implanted under the skin. The generator sends electrical pulses through the leads, targeting specific areas of the spine associated with pain.

These electrical signals are intended to disrupt or mask pain messages before they reach the brain. Instead of feeling sharp, burning, or persistent pain, individuals may feel a tingling sensation or reduced pain intensity. The system can be adjusted wirelessly, allowing settings to be modified based on how the stimulation feels or whether pain relief changes over time.

Spinal cord stimulators are generally recommended only after other treatments, such as surgery, physical therapy, or medication, have failed to provide adequate relief. Because the device is implanted and intended for long-term use, its performance depends on stable hardware placement, consistent electrical output, and predictable interaction with the body over time.

Types of Spinal Cord Stimulators

Spinal cord stimulators vary based on how they deliver electrical signals, how they are powered, and how stimulation is adjusted over time. While the core purpose is the same, different systems use different technologies that can affect performance, longevity, and complication risk.

Common types of spinal cord stimulators include:

• Rechargeable spinal cord stimulators: These systems use an implanted battery that must be recharged regularly through an external charging device worn over the skin. Rechargeable models are often marketed as longer-lasting, but rely on consistent charging and stable battery performance to function properly.
• Non-rechargeable spinal cord stimulators: Non-rechargeable devices use a fixed battery with a limited lifespan. Once the battery is depleted, surgical replacement is required. These systems eliminate the need for daily charging but may require additional procedures over time.
• Traditional stimulation systems: Older or conventional spinal cord stimulators deliver low-frequency electrical signals that often produce a tingling sensation intended to mask pain. These systems typically require careful positioning and ongoing adjustments to maintain effectiveness.
• High-frequency stimulation systems: Some newer devices use high-frequency electrical signals designed to reduce pain without producing noticeable tingling. These systems rely heavily on precise programming and consistent electrical output to function as intended.
• Closed-loop or adaptive stimulation systems: Certain spinal cord stimulators are designed to automatically adjust stimulation based on movement or changes in body position. While intended to improve comfort, these systems introduce additional software and sensor complexity.

Each type of spinal cord stimulator comes with trade-offs related to complexity, durability, and long-term reliability. As devices become more technologically advanced, consistent performance over years of implantation becomes increasingly important.

---

Spinal Cord Stimulator Problems

Spinal cord stimulators are complex implantable devices that rely on precise electrical output, stable hardware placement, and long-term performance inside the body. When any part of that system breaks down, the device may stop working as intended, even if it initially appeared successful.

SCS lawsuits and adverse event reports suggest several recurring reasons why spinal cord stimulators can fail after implantation, including:

• Design changes over time: Manufacturers introduced newer versions of spinal cord stimulators with updated software, stimulation modes, batteries, and internal components without clear evidence that long-term performance remained predictable.
• Software-controlled stimulation: Modern spinal cord stimulators rely on software to manage electrical signals. Errors in programming, firmware limitations, or unintended interactions between stimulation modes can lead to inconsistent or unstable performance that cannot be corrected through simple adjustments.
• Hardware instability inside the body: Leads and generators are subject to movement, scar tissue formation, and physical stress over time. Even small shifts or wear can interfere with how stimulation is delivered, reducing effectiveness or creating unwanted effects.
• Battery and power delivery issues: Spinal cord stimulators depend on consistent power output. Battery degradation, charging problems, or communication failures between components can disrupt stimulation and cause devices to stop working as expected.
• Limits of reprogramming: When problems arise, individuals are often told the device needs to be reprogrammed. In some cases, reprogramming does not resolve the underlying issue because the problem is rooted in device design, hardware failure, or long-term changes inside the body.

Together, these issues help explain why some spinal cord stimulators perform well initially but later fail to deliver consistent or reliable results once permanently implanted.

---

Injuries Linked to Spinal Cord Stimulator Complications

Many reports to the FDA have involved complications tied to device wiring, electrical output, or movement of leads after implantation, which have resulted in serious injuries and deaths over time.

According to a review of more than 107,000 medical device reports, regulators identified nearly 500 deaths, approximately 80,000 injury reports, and more than 30,000 device malfunctions linked to spinal cord stimulator implantation and use. Reported complications linked to spinal cord stimulators include:

Pain and Sensory Changes

• Ongoing pain at or near the implant site
• Sharp or sudden pain, including pain triggered by movement
• Burning sensations near the battery pack or leads
• Pain that remains unchanged or worsens after implantation
• Pain spreading to new areas of the body

Abnormal Electrical Sensations

• Unexpected tingling sensations
• Twitching or muscle jolts
• Shock-like electrical feelings
• Painful or uncomfortable stimulation during normal activity
• Sudden loss or surges of stimulation

Neurological and Motor Issues

• Numbness or altered sensation
• Muscle weakness
• Difficulty with balance or coordination
• Changes in movement control
• Nerve compression or irritation

Mechanical and Device-Related Failures

• Lead migration
• Lead fracture or breakage
• Device shifting or rotation under the skin
• Loss of proper lead positioning
• Device malfunction or failure to operate

Battery and Power Problems

• Battery failure or premature depletion
• Charging malfunctions
• Overheating near the implant site
• Sudden loss of stimulation due to power interruption

Surgical and Inflammatory Complications

• Swelling, redness, or drainage near incision sites
• Persistent tenderness around implanted components
• Fluid leakage, including cerebrospinal fluid leaks
• Headaches linked to spinal fluid changes
• Fever or chills that may signal infection

Infections and Serious Medical Events

• Deep tissue or spinal infections
• Abscess formation
• Sepsis or systemic infection
• Hospitalization due to device-related complications

Need for Additional Surgery

• Revision surgery to reposition or replace components
• Replacement surgery due to device failure
• Explant (removal) surgery
• Multiple follow-up procedures

Some individuals report that these problems began immediately after implantation, while others experienced delayed complications weeks or months later. Because spinal cord stimulators are intended to remain in the body long term, new or worsening symptoms may indicate device malfunction, lead movement, or other complications that require medical evaluation.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Recalls and Safety Alerts

Certain spinal cord stimulator systems have been the subject of official safety notices and recalls after reports that some implanted devices did not work as intended.

FDA Warns Doctors to Use Trial Stimulation Before Permanent Implantation

In response to these reports, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a safety communication in September 2020, urging doctors to conduct a trial stimulation period before implanting a permanent spinal cord stimulator. The warning followed reports of hundreds of deaths and tens of thousands of injuries linked to complications involving the devices.

According to the FDA, trial stimulation is intended to determine whether a spinal cord stimulator provides meaningful pain relief and to reduce the risk of serious side effects once a permanent device is implanted. Trial periods typically last several days, and success is generally defined as a significant reduction in pain symptoms.

The FDA also warned that spinal cord stimulators have been linked to problems such as persistent pain, infections, device migration, charging failures, and battery issues. Regulators emphasized that permanent implantation should only occur after a successful trial and that individuals should be fully informed about potential risks, device limitations, and alternative treatment options before moving forward.

Abbott Proclaim and Infinity Systems Recall

In 2023, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration classified a recall of certain Abbott Proclaim and Infinity spinal cord stimulator systems as a Class I recall, the most serious category issued by the agency.

The recall was issued after reports that some implanted devices could become stuck in MRI mode and fail to resume normal operation after an MRI scan. When this occurred, the spinal cord stimulator stopped delivering pain therapy, and some individuals were unable to restore device function without additional medical intervention. In certain cases, revision surgery was required to replace the device.

The recall applies to multiple implantable pulse generator (IPG) models manufactured and distributed between 2015 and 2023, including:

• Proclaim XR 5 IPG Model 3660 (previously known as the ‘Proclaim 5 Elite IPG Model 3660’)
• Proclaim XR 7 IPG Model 3662 (Previously known as the ‘Proclaim 7 Elite IPG Model 3662’)
• Proclaim Plus 5 IPG Model 3670
• Proclaim Plus 7 IPG Model 3672
• Proclaim DRG IPG Model 3664
• Infinity 5 IPG Model 6660
• Infinity 7 IPG Model 6662

According to the FDA, individuals affected by the MRI mode issue may require surgical replacement of the device if normal stimulation cannot be restored.

---

Spinal Cord Stimulator Brands Named In Lawsuits

Spinal cord stimulator lawsuits have named several major medical device manufacturers over allegations that certain implanted pain devices malfunctioned, failed to deliver consistent therapy, or required additional surgery after implantation.

• Abbott (formerly St. Jude Medical): Abbott spinal cord stimulators, including the Proclaim and Infinity systems, are under investigation following reports that some devices may stop functioning properly after being placed in MRI mode. Additional concerns involve battery, charging, and power-related issues that may result in loss of therapy or the need for device replacement.

• Boston Scientific: Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulators are being evaluated over reports that certain devices may unexpectedly stop delivering stimulation or reset during normal use. Investigations have also focused on whether software-related risks and performance limitations were adequately disclosed prior to implantation.

• Medtronic: Medtronic spinal cord stimulators are under investigation over allegations that changes in device design or internal components may affect long-term performance once implanted. Reported issues include hardware or software problems that could contribute to device failure or the need for revision surgery.

• Nevro Corp.: Nevro spinal cord stimulators, including high-frequency stimulation systems, are being reviewed following reports of lead movement, lead damage, and device reliability concerns. Some patients have reported that these issues interfered with stimulation effectiveness and required corrective procedures.

• Other Manufacturers: Other spinal cord stimulator manufacturers are also being investigated based on adverse event reports and patient complaints involving newer or specialized stimulation systems. These reviews often focus on long-term reliability, device durability, and whether individuals were adequately warned about potential limitations and complications.

---

Allegations Raised in Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuits

Spinal cord stimulator lawsuits raise a series of product liability allegations against medical device manufacturers, centered on claims that certain implanted pain devices were not as safe, reliable, or predictable as represented. According to allegations raised in these lawsuits, manufacturers:

• Failed to adequately test and evaluate design changes made to spinal cord stimulators over time, including updates to software, electrical output, batteries, and internal components, before implanting those devices in individuals.
• Used regulatory pathways intended for minor device modifications to bring substantially altered spinal cord stimulator systems to market without full review of how those changes would affect long-term performance.
• Marketed spinal cord stimulators as safe and effective long-term pain treatments despite growing reports that some devices malfunctioned, delivered unpredictable stimulation, or failed after permanent implantation.
• Failed to adequately warn doctors and individuals about known risks such as lead migration, device instability, unpredictable stimulation, and the likelihood of needing revision or removal surgery.
• Represented trial stimulation as a reliable predictor of long-term outcomes even though permanent implants allegedly performed differently once placed in the body.
• Downplayed or mischaracterized post-implantation problems as programming or adjustment issues rather than disclosing that those issues may reflect device malfunction or design defects.
• Failed to update warnings, labeling, and patient disclosures as adverse event reports and post-market data revealed recurring safety concerns associated with spinal cord stimulator use.
• Continued selling and implanting spinal cord stimulators despite reports of serious injuries, repeat surgeries, and long-term complications linked to device performance.

These allegations form the basis of spinal cord stimulator lawsuits seeking compensation for medical treatment, revision and removal surgeries, long-term health consequences, and other losses allegedly caused by defective device design and inadequate risk disclosure.

---

Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit Examples

Medtronic Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit – Nerve Injury and Device Failure

On April 18, 2025, Angela Yates filed a lawsuit against Medtronic, Inc. and Medtronic USA, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, alleging that a Medtronic spinal cord stimulator implanted to treat chronic pain malfunctioned and caused serious injuries.

According to the complaint, Yates received a Medtronic-manufactured spinal cord stimulator in June 2015, relying on representations that the device was safe and effective for long-term pain management. The lawsuit alleges that Medtronic repeatedly modified the design, software, and components of its spinal cord stimulator systems through regulatory pathways intended for minor changes, without adequately testing how those changes would affect performance once implanted.

The complaint further alleges that the device failed after implantation, leading to worsening pain, neurological symptoms, and the need for additional medical intervention.

Boston Scientific WaveWriter Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit – Device Malfunction and Revision Surgery

On October 17, 2025, Ollie Wilson filed a lawsuit against Boston Scientific Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleging injuries caused by a Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulator, including devices marketed under the WaveWriter platform.

The lawsuit alleges that Wilson was implanted with a Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulator that later malfunctioned and failed to perform as represented. According to the complaint, the device relied heavily on software-controlled stimulation and design features that were changed over time without adequate testing of long-term safety and reliability.

The complaint further alleges that Boston Scientific failed to adequately warn about risks such as device instability, lead-related problems, and loss of therapeutic benefit, and that post-implantation problems were not resolved through reprogramming. As a result, the lawsuit claims Wilson suffered ongoing complications and required additional medical treatment, including revision surgery.

---

What Information Do I Need to Start a Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit?

To pursue a spinal cord stimulator lawsuit, certain information about the implant, the injuries that followed, and the medical care received may be reviewed to determine whether the device contributed to the harm. An attorney can help obtain records and fill in missing details as part of the case evaluation process.

Information commonly reviewed in spinal cord stimulator cases may include:

• The date and location of the spinal cord stimulator implantation
• Complications experienced after implantation, including electrical shocks, burns, or device migration
• Medical providers or facilities that diagnosed or treated spinal cord stimulator-related injuries
• Any hospitalizations, revision procedures, or explant surgery connected to the device

Spinal cord stimulator lawsuits are handled on a contingency fee basis, meaning there are no upfront legal costs and no attorney fees unless compensation is recovered through settlement or trial.

---

Contact a Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawyer

Individuals who had a spinal cord stimulator implanted and later experienced any of the following complications may be eligible to pursue a product liability lawsuit:

• Revision surgery to reposition or replace device components
• Complete removal (explant) of a spinal cord stimulator
• Permanent nerve damage or neurological injury
• Worsening or uncontrolled pain after implantation
• Infections or other serious post-surgical complications
• Device failures involving leads, batteries, charging, or power delivery
• Long-term disability or loss of quality of life
• Deaths potentially linked to complications from implanted spinal cord stimulators

Spinal cord stimulator lawsuits are generally handled on a contingency fee basis, meaning there are no upfront legal costs and no attorney fees unless compensation is recovered through settlement or trial.

Frequently Asked Questions About Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuits

• What qualifies someone for a spinal cord stimulator lawsuit?
  Individuals may qualify if they had a spinal cord stimulator implanted and later experienced complications such as device migration, electrical shocks, burns, or wiring-related injuries, especially if revision or removal surgery was required.

• Can I file a lawsuit if my spinal cord stimulator migrated?
  Yes. Device migration or lead movement after implantation is one of the most common issues cited in spinal cord stimulator lawsuits and may support a claim if it caused injury or required additional treatment.

• Are electrical shocks or burns from a spinal cord stimulator grounds for a lawsuit?
  They can be. Reports of electrical shocks, burning sensations, or tissue injury linked to stimulation or device wiring are frequently reviewed in spinal cord stimulator injury claims.

• Do I need to have my spinal cord stimulator removed to file a lawsuit?
  Not always. While explant (removal) surgery can strengthen a claim, lawsuits may still be pursued if revision surgery was required or if removal has been recommended but not yet performed.

• What if I only had revision surgery and not full removal?
  Revision surgery to reposition leads, replace components, or address device failure may still qualify, particularly if the procedure was needed due to device malfunction or migration.

• Does it matter when my spinal cord stimulator was implanted?
  Yes. The date of implantation can be important, as it helps determine which device model was used and whether the claim falls within applicable legal deadlines.

• What medical records are needed for a spinal cord stimulator lawsuit?
  Records related to implantation, diagnosis of complications, treatment received, hospitalizations, and any revision or removal surgeries are commonly reviewed. An attorney can help gather these records.

• Can I file a lawsuit if my doctor said the problem was “programming” at first?
  Possibly. Many lawsuits allege that device failures were initially attributed to programming issues before later being linked to device malfunction or lead problems.

• Do conversations with device sales representatives matter in these cases?
  They can. Some lawsuits raise questions about what information was provided by device sales representatives before implantation, including statements about safety, risks, or long-term performance.

• Is there a deadline to file a spinal cord stimulator lawsuit?
  Yes. Time limits vary by state and are often based on when an individual discovered that the spinal cord stimulator may be connected to their injuries. Speaking with an attorney can help clarify deadlines.

Find Out If You Qualify for Spinal Cord Stimulator Compensation