Abbott Continues to Oppose Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit MDL, Despite Mounting Claims

Federal MDL panel has already established similar consolidated pretrial proceedings for a growing number of spinal cord stimulator lawsuits brought over Boston Scientific devices.

Although there are a rapidly growing number of spinal cord stimulator lawsuits being brought throughout the federal court system, Abbott Laboratories has told a panel of judges that claims involving its products should not be consolidated for pretrial proceedings, opposing a motion brought by a group of plaintiffs to establish an MDL (multidistrict litigation).

There are currently about two dozen product liability lawsuits filed against Abbott Laboratories, which are pending in various different U.S. District Courts, each raising similar allegations that widely sold spine stimulators contain dangerous defects.

Each lawsuit claims that the manufacturer failed to properly test the devices or provide adequate warnings about the potential problems patients may experience. In addition, many of the plaintiffs also accuse Abbott sales representatives of changing spinal cord stimulator settings without the guidance or authorizations of treating physicians.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Concerns

Spinal cord stimulators are implants used to treat chronic pain. They consist of electrodes and a battery-powered pulse generator placed under the skin, near the spine, plus an external remote control. The implants are designed to block pain signals before they reach the brain, and are supposed to be permanent implants.

However, Abbott Laboratories and other spinal cord stimulator manufacturers, including Boston Scientific, Medtronic and Nevro, have recently faced increasing reports of problems and complications experienced by patients implanted with the devices. These include unnecessary electric shocks, burning sensations, lead migration and total device failures.

The manufacturers are now facing a series of spinal cord stimulator lawsuits filed in federal courts nationwide. All of the complaints allege that the companies were aware of problems with their spine implants and withheld information about the risks from patients and medical professionals, as a ploy to keep sales and profits high.

In early June, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) established a Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulator lawsuit MDL in the Central District of California, centralizing all claims brought against that manufacturer before U.S. District Judge Josephine L. Staton for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings. The order came after the JPML rejected a request to create one industry-wide MDL for claims brought against various different manufacturers.

Weeks later, two plaintiffs with pending Abbott spinal cord stimulator lawsuits filed a motion to transfer with the JPML, asking that the court establish a separate MDL for products manufactured by Abbott, but assign the claims to the same federal district.

MDL consolidation is common in complex litigation where the same medical device or product is linked to injuries affecting numerous patients. Plaintiffs argue that Abbott spinal cord stimulator lawsuit consolidation would serve the convenience of the parties, witnesses and the court, as well as likely eliminate contradictory rulings and prevent duplicate discovery efforts.

Abbott Opposes Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit MDL

In a response (PDF) to the motion filed on August 4, Abbott urged the JPML to reject the plaintiffs’ request, claiming that there was not enough in common for consolidation to provide increased efficiency.

Abbott argues that the cases are “highly individualized” and “plaintiff-specific” with various injuries and no common claim of a specific device defect common to all of the lawsuits. According to the response, Abbott currently faces about 23 spinal cord stimulator claims.

“Abbott does not shy away from MDL consolidation when it is necessary for the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. But centralization is not warranted here, where Plaintiffs’ cases share no common theory of defect and where Plaintiffs allege no common injury. The Panel should deny Plaintiffs’ Motion.”

-Abbott Laboratories, Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Transfer of Actions

If the JPML sides with the plaintiffs and agrees to form an Abbott Laboratories spinal cord stimulator MDL, all cases would remain individual claims even as they go through pretrial proceedings together. This means plaintiffs will still have to individually prove that their injuries were caused by the spinal implant.

Once consolidated, the presiding U.S. District Judge would be expected to instruct the parties to begin preparing a group of representative claims for bellwether trials. These early test trials would give plaintiffs and defendants a look at how juries nationwide could interpret evidence and testimony that may be repeated throughout the litigation.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuits

In addition to the petition by Abbott plaintiffs, a similar request has been filed calling for a Nevro spinal cord stimulator lawsuit MDL as well, also in the Central District of California.

Since one MDL has already been justified for Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulator lawsuits, the chances of Abbott and Nevro SCS multidistrict litigations are significantly improved. In the interim, spinal cord stimulator lawyers continue to review plaintiffs’ claims of injuries caused by spinal cord stimulator 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.