Abbott and Nevro Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuits Centralized in New Federal MDLs

Lawsuits raise similar allegations that the devices can malfunction, migrate, cause painful shocks, nerve damage and require revision or removal surgery.

A panel of federal judges has ordered lawsuits against Abbott Laboratories and Nevro over allegedly defective spinal cord stimulators to be consolidated for coordinated pretrial proceedings.

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) issued separate transfer orders on October 2, sending Abbott claims (PDF) to the Northern District of Illinois and Nevro claims (PDF) to the Northern District of California for coordinated pretrial proceedings.

The orders come amid a growing number of spinal cord stimulator lawsuits alleging manufacturers repeatedly modified the implants through FDA premarket approval supplements without conducting adequate safety testing.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Defects

Spinal cord stimulators (SCS) are medical implants designed to treat chronic pain. They consist of a battery-powered pulse generator and electrodes that are implanted under the skin near the spine, as well as an external remote control. Intended to be permanent implants, the systems use electric stimulation to disrupt pain signals on the way to the brain.

However, individuals say the devices are poorly designed and deceptively marketed, indicating that they are prone to migrating out of position under the skin, breaking through the skin, causing painful electric shocks, increased pain, nerve damage and total device failure.

Recipients argue that the problem is compounded by manufacturers deploying sales representatives, who are unlicensed and not trained to conduct medical procedures, yet are the only ones allowed to program the devices to fine tune their effectiveness.

Lawsuits accuse the reps of often telling patients that problems with the devices are due to programming, when in actuality they suffered some kind of mechanical failure. Individuals allege this has led to delayed removals of failed devices and potentially unnecessary nerve damage.

In addition to spinal cord stimulator lawsuits filed against Abbott and Nevro, similar claims have been brought against Boston Scientific and Medtronic.

Spinal Cord Stimulator MDLs

Plaintiffs initially asked the JPML to place claims involving Abbott, Nevro and Boston Scientific before a single federal judge earlier this year. However, the panel rejected that approach, finding that differences between the manufacturers, devices and alleged defects made one combined proceeding inappropriate.

Instead, Boston Scientific lawsuits were centralized in the Central District of California earlier this summer in June. Plaintiffs pursuing claims against Abbott and Nevro later filed separate requests for their own coordinated proceedings, arguing that centralization would reduce duplicate discovery and help avoid conflicting pretrial rulings.

Following oral arguments held late last month over whether the Abbott and Nevro claims should be consolidated, the JPML agreed on October 2, ordering Abbott cases to proceed in the Northern District of Illinois before U.S. District Judge Lindsay C. Jenkins and Nevro cases in the Northern District of California before U.S. District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr.

However, the panel again declined to place all three proceedings before the same judge, explaining that little efficiency would be gained by combining litigation involving different manufacturers.

“We are not persuaded, as several parties suggest, that the litigation should be assigned to the same judge in the Central District of California who is presiding over the MDL involving Boston Scientific SCS devices. Little efficiency will be gained by placing SCS device MDLs against multiple manufacturers before one judge.”

— U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

According to the transfer orders, Abbott currently faces 26 pending lawsuits across 13 federal district courts, while Nevro faces 23 claims filed in 10 different districts.

Centralization allows lawsuits involving the same manufacturer to move through discovery and other pretrial proceedings together, while still remaining individual claims. Each plaintiff will still be required to prove that problems with their specific spinal cord stimulator caused their injuries.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuits

With three separate federal proceedings now underway, attention will eventually turn to the selection of bellwether cases for early trial dates.

Bellwether trials involve representative claims selected to help the parties evaluate how juries may respond to evidence and arguments that are likely to be repeated throughout the litigation. While the outcomes are not binding on other plaintiffs, they can influence settlement discussions and help both sides assess the potential value of remaining claims.

In the interim, spinal cord stimulator lawyers will continue to review claims of injuries caused by implant system problems, including:

Individuals who believe they may qualify for a spinal cord stimulator lawsuit can request a free case evaluation. Attorneys handling these claims work on a contingency fee basis, meaning there are no upfront costs and fees are only collected if compensation is recovered.

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