Boston Scientific Stimulator Lawsuits Centralized in Federal MDL

At least 23 individuals have filed Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulator lawsuits, alleging that the company’s devices can deliver painful electric shocks, experience lead migration and fail to help manage chronic pain.

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) has announced that all Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulator lawsuits brought throughout the federal court system wil be centralized before one judge for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings. However, similar claims brought against other stimulator manufacturers will not be included in the new MDL.

Spinal cord stimulators (SCS) are widly used medical devices, which are surgically implanted to treat chronic and hard-to-manage pain by sending mild electrical pulses to the spinal cord, where they are intended to interrupt pain signals before they reach the brain.

Boston Scientific is one of the most prominent manufacturers in the spinal cord stimulation market, offering several popular systems including the WaveWriter Alpha, Precision Montage and Spectra WaveWriter models. The devices are advertised for patients with conditions such as failed back surgery syndrome, complex regional pain syndrome, chronic low back pain, leg pain, diabetic peripheral neuropathy and other nerve-related pain disorders.

Despite the widespread adoption within the pain management community, serious questions have emerged over the past decade about the safety and long-term reliability of spinal cord stimulators, with tens of thousands of adverse event reports submitted to the FDA, including problems where the devices failed to provide pain relief, caused unnecessary electric shocks or otherwise malfunctioned, often resulting in the need for revision surgery.

In recent months, a growing number of individuals have begun filing spinal cord stimulator lawsuits against Boston Scientific, as well as other leading manufacturers, including Abbott, Medtronic and Nevro.

Each of the claims raises similar allegations that the manufacturers relied on decades-old FDA premarket approvals while continuing to make substantial changes to the design, components and programming of their spinal cord stimulators. Plaintiffs claim those modifications were not adequately tested, and that patients and doctors were not properly warned about the new risks before the devices were implanted.

Many of these complications have allegedly required patients to undergo additional surgery to remove the spinal cord stimulators from their spines, despite them being designed for permanent implantation.

Due to the common questions of fact and law raised in complaints brought throughout the federal court system, a group of plaintiffs filed a motion to establish a spinal cord stimulator MDL (multidistrict litigation) in February 2026, calling for the consolidated management of all current and future claims filed against Boston Scientific and Abbott.

The plaintiffs argued that consolidation is necessary to eliminate the risk of contradictory rulings from different judges and avoid duplication of discovery into common issues, while serving the convenience of the parties, witnesses and the court.

In subsequent filings, some plaintiffs called for the creation of an industry-wide MDL, which would also include lawsuits against Medtronic and Nevro.

Manufacturers of the devices opposed consolidation, arguing that the lawsuits involve different products, different alleged defects and that several cases are already at varying stages of litigation.

Boston Scientific Stimulator Lawsuits Consolidation

Following oral arguments held at the end of May, the JPML issued a transfer order (PDF) on June 5, consolidating the Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulator lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. However, the panel determined that claims against Abbott, Medtronic and Nevro will not be included in the MDL.

At the time the original motion was filed, there were at least 10 Boston Scientific stimulator lawsuits and four Abbott stimulator lawsuits. However, the parties notified the Panel that the litigation has grown to include at least 46 related spinal cord stimulator actions pending in 14 federal districts.

By the time the JPML issued its order, there were 23 cases pending against Boston Scientific in nine districts, which the Panel found were similar enough to warrant centralization.

The Panel found that the Boston Scientific lawsuits share common factual questions involving allegations that the company:

• Relied on literature concerning competitors’ devices instead of independent clinical studies
• Used the FDA’s PMA supplement process to introduce substantially modified stimulators without additional testing
• Failed to adequately disclose risks associated with the devices

The JPML also pointed to shared allegations involving Boston Scientific sales representatives, who plaintiffs claim routinely participated in implantation procedures, advised surgical staff on lead positioning and stimulation testing, and helped program device settings. The lawsuits allege that this conduct amounted to the unauthorized practice of medicine, although the Panel acknowledged that the specific interactions may vary from case to case.

The Panel further stated that the FDA has been named as a defendant in more than 30 actions and potential tag-along claims involving spinal cord stimulators. However, the agency took no position on centralization and stated that it was improperly named as a defendant.

The litigation has been centralized before U.S. District Judge Josephine L. Staton, who will preside over coordinated pretrial proceedings and discovery. As the cases move forward, the parties will likely identify a small group of representative claims to prepare for early bellwether trials, which are commonly used in mass tort litigation to help gauge how juries may respond to key evidence and testimony.

While the results of any bellwether trials would not be binding on other plaintiffs, they could play an important role in shaping the litigation. The outcomes may help the parties evaluate the strength of the claims, potential liability and the range of damages juries may award, which could eventually support settlement negotiations aimed at resolving large numbers of cases without the need for dozens of individual trials.

Why Abbott, Nevro and Medtronic Stimulator Lawsuits Were Excluded

Although plaintiffs had sought broader coordination involving multiple spinal cord stimulator manufacturers, the JPML found that an industry-wide MDL was not warranted because the cases did not involve coordinated conduct among the different companies.

“Proponents of an industry-wide MDL have failed to meet their burden of demonstrating that creating an MDL with such a wide scope is appropriate here. While plaintiffs allege similar conduct on the part of each manufacturer, they do not allege the manufacturers acted in concert.”

– U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

The Panel explained that each manufacturer has its own line of spinal cord stimulators and a separate regulatory history, which would limit overlap in discovery. It also declined to create an Abbott-only MDL at this stage, finding that the four Abbott cases included in the original motion were all pending in the Northern District of Illinois.

Since Section 1407 centralization requires actions pending in different federal districts, the JPML denied centralization of the Abbott claims, but indicated those lawsuits could still be centralized later if the litigation grows.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Injury Lawyers

As the JPML moves forward with centralizing Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulator lawsuits, cases are still being pursued by spinal cord stimulator lawyers for individuals who received a Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Abbott or Nevro device, and suffered any of the following injuries:

To find out whether you or a loved one may qualify for a spinal cord stimulator lawsuit, submit information to receive a free case review by a lawyer. All cases are handled on a contingency fee basis, which means there are no fees or expenses unless a recovery is obtained in your case.

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