Boston Scientific Spine Stimulator Lawsuit Filed Over Numbness, Incontinence, Erectile Dysfunction

Lawsuit alleges Boston Scientific failed to adequately warn about spinal cord stimulator risks and made substantial device changes without sufficiently testing clinical safety.

A Texas man has filed a lawsuit alleging a Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulator failed to provide lasting pain relief, despite repeated programming adjustments, ultimately forcing him to undergo another surgery to have the device removed.

Patrick Miller brought the complaint (PDF) in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on September 10, naming Boston Scientific Corporation and Boston Scientific Neuromodulation Corporation as defendants.

Miller alleges Boston Scientific promoted its spinal cord stimulators as a safe and effective treatment for chronic pain while failing to adequately disclose known risks, limitations and the potential for the devices to malfunction or stop providing meaningful relief. He also claims the company made substantial changes to the devices over the years without conducting sufficient clinical testing to determine whether those modifications affected safety or performance.

Spine Stimulator Problems

Spinal cord stimulators are implanted devices that use electrical impulses to interfere with pain signals traveling along the spinal cord before they reach the brain. The systems generally include a pulse generator implanted beneath the skin, leads positioned near the spinal cord and an external controller used to adjust stimulation.

However, users have reported a range of problems and complications, including lead migration and fractures, battery failures, infections, painful stimulation, loss of therapy and the need for revision or removal surgery.

Those reports have led to a growing number of spinal cord stimulator lawsuits, with plaintiffs alleging manufacturers repeatedly modified the devices through FDA regulatory pathways without conducting extensive clinical testing on each new version.

Many Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulator lawsuits also allege doctors and patients were not adequately warned about device failures and other risks. Some complaints further challenge the role of company representatives in patient care, claiming they overstated the expected benefits, downplayed known problems and made programming changes despite lacking the medical qualifications required to provide clinical treatment.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Injury Allegations

According to the complaint, Miller received a permanent Boston Scientific Spectra WaveWriter spine stimulator, model SC-1160, in Texas on July 8, 2020. He says he did not experience the expected pain relief after implantation and instead developed numbness and loss of feeling in his extremities, bowel incontinence, erectile dysfunction and new or worsening pain, also describing the device as extremely uncomfortable and cumbersome.

The filing indicates Boston Scientific representative Morgan Yarborough met privately with Miller during the implant procedure to discuss the device while Miller was allegedly too impaired to comprehend the information. Yarborough allegedly later responded to complaints about his symptoms by saying they would “work through the situation.” His treating physician reprogrammed the device once, but Miller alleges it still failed to provide meaningful relief.

Miller claims he underwent a sacroiliac joint nerve block in January 2023 and sacroiliac joint injections in June and December 2023 as his pain continued. He eventually underwent surgery to remove the SCS system on September 10, 2024. The lawsuit indicates he continues to suffer chronic back pain and abnormal gait and was diagnosed with severe depression. He requires ongoing pain management and medications.

“Plaintiff did not know, and in the exercise of reasonable diligence could not have known, that the Defendant’s device’s failure to perform was the result of a defect in its design, manufacture, or warnings, as opposed to an ordinary and expected limitation of SCS therapy for his particular condition.”

— Patrick Miller v. Boston Scientific Corporation et al.

The complaint alleges Boston Scientific knew or should have known about risks involving stimulation failure, neurological injury, autonomic dysfunction, lead migration, battery problems and therapy failure, but failed to adequately communicate material safety information to doctors and patients. It specifically identifies autonomic problems such as urinary incontinence among risks Miller says should have been disclosed.

Miller also argues that the Spectra WaveWriter and related systems evolved substantially from the original FDA-approved Precision platform through numerous PMA supplements involving multiwaveform stimulation, wireless programming, battery architecture and lead configurations. The lawsuit maintains those cumulative modifications changed the devices’ performance and risk profile without adequate clinical validation or warnings.

The complaint raises allegations of manufacturing defect, failure to warn, negligence, breach of express and implied warranties, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment and consumer protection violations. It also includes a negligence-per-se claim alleging unauthorized practice of medicine related to Boston Scientific’s involvement in programming and controlling SCS therapy.

Miller seeks compensatory and potentially punitive damages for his injuries, medical expenses, pain and suffering, emotional distress and loss of enjoyment of life.

Spine Stimulator Lawsuits

Miller’s lawsuit will proceed alongside other Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulator lawsuits centralized before U.S. District Judge Josephine L. Staton in the Central District of California, where the parties are coordinating discovery and addressing common pretrial issues.

As the cases progress, Judge Staton is expected to establish a bellwether process that selects representative lawsuits for a series of early trial dates. While those verdicts will not determine the outcome of remaining claims, they may help the parties gauge how juries respond to recurring evidence and allegations and potentially guide future settlement discussions.

Abbott Laboratories, Medtronic and Nevro are each facing similar allegations being raised in SCS implant lawsuits involving device failures and serious complications. Plaintiffs have asked the federal court system to establish an Abbott spinal cord stimulator MDL and Nevro spinal cord stimulator MDL as well, which would each centralize claims against those manufacturers before one judge for coordinated discovery and other pretrial proceedings.

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation is scheduled to hear arguments on September 24, 2026, over whether the Abbott and Nevro cases should be consolidated.

Spinal cord stimulator attorneys are continuing to investigate potential claims involving spinal cord stimulator devices for patients who experienced complications such as:

Individuals who suffered complications following implantation of an SCS device may be eligible to pursue a spinal cord stimulator lawsuit. Case evaluations are available free of charge. Attorneys handle the claims on a contingency fee basis, collecting legal fees only if compensation is obtained.

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