JPML Sets Hearing Over Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit Consolidation for May 28

Hundreds of people are expected to file additional spinal cord stimulator lawsuits in the coming months.

A panel of federal judges will hear arguments late next month over whether a growing number of spinal cord stimulator lawsuits should be consolidated before a single judge, who would move them collectively through their pretrial phase.

The decision on whether to centralize the claims follows the filing of 14 spinal cord stimulator lawsuits involving Boston Scientific and Abbott that are currently pending across five federal jurisdictions. These include seven cases in the Central District of California, five in the Northern District of Illinois, and one each in the Northern and Southern Districts of Mississippi. 

The lawsuits raise similar allegations, claiming the devices differ materially from their originally approved versions due to insufficiently tested modifications, resulting in dangerous performance issues. Plaintiffs allege these problems have caused complications such as electric shocks, ineffective pain relief and worsening symptoms. They also contend that federal regulators should have required more rigorous review before allowing the devices to remain on the market.

Hundreds of other individuals have reportedly retained counsel and are having their cases reviewed by spinal cord stimulator lawyers. As a result, the litigation could continue to increase in size for months or years.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuits

Spinal cord stimulators (SCS) are medical devices surgically implanted into a patient’s back. They consist of a battery-powered pulse generator implanted under the skin, thin electrical leads positioned along the spinal cord and an external controller that allows doctors or patients to adjust stimulation levels. The device uses small electrical pulses to interrupt pain signals before they reach the brain, and they are often marketed to individuals suffering persistent lower back pain, nerve damage or other long-term injuries after other pain treatments have failed.

Over the last several months, individuals have begun filing product liability claims indicating that their SCS systems either stopped working altogether, began delivering painful and unexpected shocks, worsened their underlying pain, or experienced lead migration that in some cases punctured the skin. Many of these complications have required surgical removal of the devices, despite being intended for long-term implantation.

According to the spinal cord stimulator lawsuits, Abbott, Boston Scientific and other manufacturers have continued to introduce new versions of the devices through the FDA’s 510(k) clearance process, which allows approval based on similarity to existing products rather than extensive clinical testing. Plaintiffs allege this pathway allowed increasingly different devices to reach the market without sufficient safety evaluation.

Spinal Cord Stimulator MDL

A group of plaintiffs filed a motion to transfer with the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) in February. The motion calls for all current and future federal Abbott and Boston Scientific SCS claims to be consolidated into one spinal cord stimulator multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the Northern District of Illinois. If the motion is approved, the cases would be centralized before one U.S. District Judge for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

The plaintiffs say that consolidation would eliminate the risk of contradictory rulings by different judges while avoiding duplication of discovery and other efforts, particularly since federal regulatory issues may be a factor cutting across the litigation. Placing all of the lawsuits in one centralized location would also serve the convenience of the court system, parties on both sides and witnesses.

On April 16, the JPML issued a Notice of Hearing Session (PDF) indicating it would hear oral arguments on consolidating these spinal cord stimulator lawsuits on May 28, in the United States Courthouse and Federal Building in Milwaukee.

If consolidated, it is likely that the presiding judge would have the parties select several cases seen as representative of the litigation as a whole to be prepared for early test trials. These “bellwether” trials would give the parties the opportunity to see how juries weigh the strengths and weaknesses of their evidence and testimony. That information could be vital to negotiating a spinal cord stimulator lawsuit settlement agreement.

However, if the cases are combined and the bellwether trials and pretrial proceedings end with the cases unresolved, the presiding judge would then likely begin remanding the cases back to the federal court where they originated for individual trial dates.

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