Hearing on Abbott, Nevro SCS Lawsuit MDL Centralization Set for September 2026

Similar multidistrict litigation was formed for Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulator lawsuits in California in June.

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) scheduled oral arguments for late next month, to decide whether all Abbott spinal cord stimulator lawsuits and Nevro spinal cord stimulator lawsuits will be consolidated into two separate multidistrict litigations (MDLs) in the federal court system.

Spinal cord stimulators (SCS) are medical implants designed to treat chronic back pain after other treatments have failed. They consist of a battery-powered pulse generator and electrodes, which are implanted under the skin, and an external remote control.

Although SCS are designed to be permanent implants, interrupting pain signals before they reach the brain, reports that many patients require additional surgery to remove the devices have resulted in a growing number of spinal cord stimulator lawsuits being pursued against various different manufacturers in recent months.

Reports and legal claims from patients indicate the devices not only failed to provide effective pain relief, but were also plagued by malfunctions and medical complications. These problems allegedly included random and painful electric shocks, pulse generators and electrodes migrating out of position and sometimes piercing the skin, as well as permanent nerve damage that worsened patients’ pain.

As the litigation began to explode, plaintiffs originally filed a petition with the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) in February 2026, requesting that all spinal cord stimulator lawsuits be consolidated as one, unified MDL. However, the panel disagreed and instead ordered the creation of a Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulator multidistrict litigation (MDL) in June in the Central District of California before U.S. District Judge Josephine L. Staton, indicating that there were not enough claims involving other manufacturers to warrant centralized management. 

This left a number of lawsuits over Abbott and Nevro SCS devices moving forward in different U.S. District Courts nationwide, and dozens of additional claims have been brought against those two manufacturers in recent months.

As a result, plaintiffs filed separate motions for Nevro SCS lawsuit consolidation and Abbott SCS lawsuit consolidation last month, asking that the cases be centralized in the same California district, but as separate MDL proceedings.

Plaintiffs argue that consolidation would avoid duplicate discovery and contradictory rulings by different judges, as well as serve the convenience of plaintiffs, defendants, witnesses and the court.

Spinal Cord Stimulator MDL Hearing

On August 14, the JPML issued a Notice of Hearing Session (PDF) indicating it will hear oral arguments on both Abbott and Nevro SCS lawsuit consolidation on September 24, 2026, at the Northwestern Pritzker School of Law in Chicago, Illinois.

According to the order, there are currently 15 Abbott SCS lawsuits, spread across seven different U.S. District Courts. Another 17 Nevro SCS lawsuits are filed in six different districts.

The manufacturers have opposed the motions, claiming that the lawsuits lack indications of a specific defect, a common injury and the numbers to make consolidation efficient.

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

Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuits

Since the panel has already consolidated all federal Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulator lawsuits, the likelihood that it may agree to further consolidation is significantly increased.

In the interim, spinal cord stimulator lawyers continue to review 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.