Boston Scientific Stimulator Lawsuit Alleges Spine Implant Caused Nerve Damage, Shocks

Lawsuit claims manufacturers know the devices have “unacceptably high failure rates” but continue to promote them without adequate warnings.

A Kentucky man has filed a product liability lawsuit claiming he was told a Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulator would alleviate his chronic pain, but instead caused unexpected electric shocks and permanent nerve damage.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Jeffrey Fields in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on August 11, naming Boston Scientific Corporation and Boston Scientific Neuromodulation Corporation as defendants.

Fields claims Boston Scientific’s spinal cord stimulators are “chronically dangerous and defective,” alleging that the manufacturers knew about the problems but continued aggressively marketing the devices to patients seeking pain relief while overstating their safety and effectiveness.

Spinal Cord Stimulators

Designed to treat chronic pain after other options fail, spinal cord stimulators are medical implants that attempt to disrupt pain signals on the way to the brain. They consist of electrodes and a battery-powered implantable pulse generator (IPG), both of which are placed under the skin near the spine, and an external remote control to alter modulation. It is designed to be a permanent implant.

In recent years, Boston Scientific, Abbott Laboratories, Medtronic and Nevro have faced growing reports involving spinal cord stimulators that allegedly failed, worsened pain or caused complications requiring surgical removal.

Those problems have led to a growing number of spinal cord stimulator lawsuits alleging patients experienced unexpected and painful shocks, burning sensations, migrating electrodes, pulse generators that eroded through the skin and complete device failures.

All Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulator lawsuits are currently consolidated in the Central District of California as part of a multidistrict litigation (MDL) before U.S. District Judge Josephine L. Staton, who is overseeing coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

Plaintiffs have also asked for similar Nevro stimulator lawsuit consolidation and Abbott stimulator lawsuit consolidation, seeking separate MDL proceedings in the same federal district. The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation is scheduled to hear arguments on September 24 over whether those cases should also be centralized.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Defect Allegations

According to the complaint, Fields was implanted with a Boston Scientific SCS system in 2017 for the treatment of chronic pain syndrome. He only agreed to the procedure after undergoing a trial period with a temporary model that appeared to provide him with pain relief.

However, the lawsuit indicates that the permanent implant he received was substantially different from the trial version and did not provide the same results. Instead, Fields states that he suffered unexpected shocks and pain in his left shoulder. In addition, the original pain the device was meant to address went unalleviated.

This led to doctors surgically removing the implant in December 2021. Surgeons told Fields they had to leave some wires inside of his body after they became fused to his bones due to calcification.

Fields indicates he suffered permanent nerve damage as a result but argues his injuries could have been avoided if Boston Scientific had been transparent about the actual risks, and had adequately designed, tested and manufactured the devices.

“The Boston Scientific SCS Products are chronically and dangerously defective. Specifically, the electrical leads and implantable pulse generators integral to these devices have an unacceptably high rate of failure, including but not limited to lead fracture, insulation breach, lead migration, and IPG/battery malfunction – resulting in permanent neurological injury, including nerve damage, to implanted patients.”

– Jeffery Fields v. Boston Scientific Corporation et al.

The lawsuit presents claims of manufacturing defect, failure to warn, negligence per se, breach of warranty, fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, fraudulent concealment, negligence per se for practicing medicine without a license and violations of the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act and California Unfair Competition Law.

Fields is seeking compensatory damages for physical injuries, emotional distress, pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and past and future medical expenses, in addition to punitive damages and other expenses.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuits

As the Boston Scientific MDL moves forward, Judge Staton is expected to order attorneys representing plaintiffs and defendants to select a small group of representative claims to serve as early test trials. These “bellwether” trials will help gauge how juries may respond to evidence, testimony and arguments that are likely to be central to many spinal cord stimulator claims.

Although the outcomes of those trials will not be binding on other claims, the results could be a key factor in Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulator lawsuit settlement negotiations. However, if no settlement is reached, it is likely that Judge Staton would begin remanding cases back to their originating federal district to be slated for individual trials.

Spinal cord stimulator lawyers continue to review plaintiffs’ claims of spinal cord stimulator injuries and complications, 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.