Boston Scientific Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawyers to Meet With MDL Judge for Initial Conference Aug. 5

Initial conference in the Boston Scientific litigation comes as a panel of federal judges considers whether to consolidate similar spinal cord stimulator lawsuits filed against Abbott and Nevro into separate MDLs.

The U.S. District Judge recently assigned to oversee all federal Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulator lawsuits will meet next month for the first time with attorneys representing parties involved in a growing number of claims alleging that the implants are prone to failure, can cause serious injuries and are defectively designed.

Spinal cord stimulators (SCS) are medical implants marketed as a treatment for chronic and hard-to-manage pain by using mild pulses of electricity to disrupt pain signals before they reach the brain. They consist of electrodes and a battery-powered pulse generator implanted under the skin and near the spine, as well as a remote controller for adjusting the stimulation levels.

Boston Scientific is one of several medical device manufacturers selling the devices, which have become increasingly popular in recent years. Its own line includes the WaveWriter Alpha, Precision Montage and Spectra WaveWriter models. The manufacturer promotes the implants as potential treatments for failed back surgery syndrome, complex regional pain syndrome, chronic low back pain, leg pain, diabetic peripheral neuropathy and other nerve-related pain disorders.

However, Boston Scientific’s SCS devices, as well as those of other manufacturers, have been linked to increasing reports of spinal cord stimulator problems. Patients indicate the devices failed to provide pain relief, caused unnecessary electric shocks or otherwise malfunctioned, often resulting in the need for revision surgery. In some cases, the electrodes or the pulse generator have migrated out of position and protruded out of the skin.

In addition to claims against Boston Scientific, a wave of spinal cord stimulator lawsuits have been also been filed against manufacturers of similar devices, including Abbott Laboratories, Medtronic and Nevro. Each of the claims raises similar allegations, indicating that the manufacturers relied on the FDA’s substantial-equivalence clearance process to bring the devices to market, then made significant design changes over time without adequate clinical testing or regulatory review.

Plaintiffs claim those practices allowed defective spinal cord stimulators to reach patients while the manufacturers withheld known risks from doctors and consumers.

Boston Scientific Spinal Cord Stimulator MDL

On June 5, following a request by plaintiffs, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) issued an order consolidating all federal claims over Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulators into a multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the Central District of California before U.S. District Judge Josephine L. Staton, who will preside over coordinated pretrial proceedings and discovery.

At that time, there were nearly two dozen product liability lawsuits against the manufacturer’s spinal implants. However, spinal cord stimulator lawyers widely anticipate that number will grow dramatically in the coming weeks and months, as more patients discover that complications experienced in recent years may be linked to problems with the devices.

Judge Staton is expected to organize the litigation in preparation for a series of bellwether trials. These early test cases take claims that are representative of the litigation as a whole and put them before several juries, which weigh the evidence and testimony. This process can help the parties decide if the trials can form the basis of a settlement agreement.

Boston Scientific SCS Lawsuit Initial Conference

In a pretrial order (PDF) issued on June 23, Judge Staton called for counsel for all parties to appear for an initial scheduling conference on August 5, 2026. The judge indicates the conference will address the leadership structure and the appointment of Plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel.

Such appointments involve selecting several plaintiffs’ attorneys to serve in MDL leadership roles and represent the interests of everyone with a pending claim. This structure is common in mass tort litigation, helping ensure plaintiffs are represented consistently while channeling key information and decisions through a small group of lawyers rather than every firm involved nationwide.

The judge appointed two attorneys to arrange the initial status conferences but called for all plaintiffs’ counsel to meet and confer by July 24, and propose a leadership structure for the course of the MDL, including positions such as Lead Counsel, Liaison Counsel and a proposed Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee. July 24 is also the deadline for applications for plaintiffs lead and liaison counsel positions.

The order also calls for the parties to prepare a joint preliminary report on the litigation by the July 24 date, which should be limited to no more than 25 pages. Additionally, Judge Staton indicates the conference will cover any outstanding motions, preliminary case management issues, set a schedule of regular status conferences, and address any other issues “requiring prompt resolution.”

Abbott and Nevro Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuits

Abbott Laboratories and Nevro are also facing a growing number of spinal cord stimulator lawsuits, leading to separate requests for consolidation in federal court.

On June 22, two plaintiffs asked the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) to centralize Abbott spinal cord stimulator lawsuits in the Central District of California. The petition identified 15 pending cases, along with 12 similar lawsuits involving 33 plaintiffs across six federal districts.

A separate petition filed on June 26 seeks consolidation of Nevro spinal cord stimulator lawsuits in the same district. That motion identified 17 similar cases pending across six jurisdictions and asked that the litigation be assigned to U.S. District Judge Josephine Staton, who is overseeing the Boston Scientific proceedings.

Both requests seek separate manufacturer-specific MDLs that would move forward on parallel tracks. If approved, the courts would coordinate discovery and pretrial motions before selecting representative cases for bellwether trials.

Those verdicts would not bind other claims, but they could help the parties evaluate how juries may respond to common evidence and arguments, potentially influencing settlement negotiations.

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