Skip Navigation

Eligible for a Spinal Cord Stimulator lawsuit?

Medtronic Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit Alleges Device Worsened Pain

Medtronic Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit Alleges Device Worsened Pain

A Kentucky woman has filed a product liability lawsuit claiming that a Medtronic spinal cord stimulator caused her to suffer intense burning sensations, erratic shocks and worsened her pain shortly after it was implanted in her body.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Angela Yates in the U.S. District Court for Minnesota on April 18, naming Medtronic, Inc., Medtronic USA, Inc., and The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as defendants.

Spinal cord stimulators (SCS) are implantable neuromodulation devices that send mild electrical pulses to the spinal cord to disrupt pain signals before they reach the brain.

The Medtronic system was originally approved by the FDA in 1984 under Premarket Approval (PMA) No. P840001. Since that time, however, the device has undergone hundreds of design changes and functional upgrades, including new waveforms, rechargeable batteries, firmware updates and MRI compatibility.

According to the lawsuit, these cumulative changes have dramatically altered the device’s safety profile and therapeutic mechanism. Despite this, the FDA never required Medtronic to seek a new PMA or conduct updated clinical trials, allowing substantially modified devices to enter the market under the original 1984 approval.

Yatesโ€™ complaint argues that these unvalidated changes introduced previously unknown risks that were not disclosed to her or her physician.

A series of Medtronic spinal cord stimulator lawsuits, as well as complaints against other manufacturers, claim such alterations were marketed or cleared by regulators without adequate testing of long-term performance, and have been linked to complications like worsening pain, electric shocks and additional surgeries.

Spinal-Cord-Stimulation-Lawsuit
Spinal-Cord-Stimulation-Lawsuit

The lawsuit contends that neither Yates nor her doctors could have reasonably understood or anticipated the risks associated with the redesigned spinal stimulators, since Medtronic failed to update its labeling, risk disclosures or training materials. Yates claims the company continued marketing its stimulators as โ€œFDA-approvedโ€ despite the fact that the implanted device bore little resemblance to the original design and had never undergone independent evaluation in its current form.

โ€œIn many cases, Medtronic introduced entirely new generations of neurostimulators, functionally distinct from the original system, without obtaining a new PMA or undertaking the clinical validation required for first-time approvals,โ€ Yates said.

Due to the numerous design changes over the years, the spinal cord stimulator lawsuit claims that the device implanted in Yates was fundamentally different from products originally approved by the FDA 41 years earlier. Rather than relieving her chronic pain, the modified device allegedly intensified her symptoms, causing burning sensations and unpredictable electric shocks.

As a result of the persistent complications and side effects from her spinal cord stimulator, doctors eventually recommended the device be turned off. However, Yates still experiences pain and discomfort related to it and worries about having it implanted in her body.

Neither Yates nor her doctor were made aware of the many changes and complications that had arisen as a result of Medtronicโ€™s alterations to their SCS device. In fact, the FDA accepted all of Medtronicโ€™s modifications without requiring a reevaluation of any new designs, which Yates alleges was not in accordance with the FDAโ€™s mandate under federal law.

โ€œMedtronicโ€™s conduct deprived physicians of accurate safety information and misled patients into accepting implantation of devices that had never undergone independent evaluation in their current form,โ€ Yates said. โ€œThe companyโ€™s failure to provide adequate post-market risk management violated both federal regulations and parallel state law duties.โ€

Yates is raising allegations against Medtronic of manufacturing defect, failure to warn, negligence per se and breach of federal regulatory duties, breach of implied warranty, fraudulent misrepresentation, deceptive trade practices and consumer protection violations, and unauthorized practice of medicine. At the same time, she is raising allegations against the FDA of violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

She is seeking compensatory, statutory and punitive damages, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief.

Medtronic Recalls Over Medical Device Problems 

Yatesโ€™ lawsuit over the spinal cord stimulator is one of several product safety issues Medtronic has faced in recent years. Federal regulators have announced multiple recalls involving Medtronic medical devices, highlighting ongoing concerns about the companyโ€™s quality control and post-market risk management.

In March 2024, the FDA announced a Class I recall for Medtronic MiniMed 600 series insulin pumps due to battery cap defects that could lead to unexpected power loss and insulin delivery interruptions, posing a risk of severe hyperglycemia or diabetic ketoacidosis. 

Just two months earlier, in January 2024, a separate Class I recall was issued for the same line of insulin pumps due to air pressure sensitivity, which may result in overdelivery of insulin and dangerously low blood sugar levels.

In addition, Medtronic recalled its Pipeline Flex Embolization Devices in July 2023 after multiple reports of device fractures during procedures to treat brain aneurysms, some of which resulted in serious injury or death. That same month, the company issued a Class I recall for a cardiopulmonary bypass heat exchanger used during open-heart surgeries, after discovering loose particulate matter in the sealed system that could enter a patientโ€™s bloodstream.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuits

Individuals who received a spinal cord stimulator from manufacturers such as Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, or others and later experienced serious complications may be eligible to pursue a product liability lawsuit. Lawsuits may involve claims related to:

  • Revision surgery to reposition or replace device components
  • Complete removal (explant) of a spinal cord stimulator
  • Permanent nerve damage or neurological injury
  • Worsening or uncontrolled pain after implantation
  • Infections or other serious post-surgical complications
  • Device failures involving leads, batteries, charging, or power delivery
  • Long-term disability or loss of quality of life
  • Deaths potentially linked to complications from implanted spinal cord stimulators

Spinal cord stimulator lawsuits are typically handled on a contingency-fee basis, meaning there are no upfront costs and attorney fees are paid only if compensation is recovered through a settlement or trial verdict.

To find out if you qualify for a claim, contact a spinal cord stimulator lawyer to find out if you may be eligible for a spinal cord stimulator lawsuit settlement.

Image Credit: Shutterstock – Sundry Photography
Written By: Michael Adams

Senior Editor & Journalist

Michael Adams is a senior editor and legal journalist at AboutLawsuits.com with over 20 years of experience covering financial, legal, and consumer protection issues. He previously held editorial leadership roles at Forbes Advisor and contributes original reporting on class actions, cybersecurity litigation, and emerging lawsuits impacting consumers.



6 Comments


Teresa
I had to have mine taken out because of burning then it started busting through skin with green drainage & finally you could see the device sticking out the skin

Patti
I have just had my medtronic implant taken out a week ago. It worked well initially but the leads slipped and I had to have it revised. After that it was a downhill trajectory for my back pain and the mentioning device. The last time I tried to charge the battery the internal battery got hot. Felt like a sunburn on the inside. So I was afraid to use it again. I did go in for an adjustment of my device but the programming wasn’t effective so I did all the adjusting of voltage levels manually. That was scary enough, then it got hot and I was done messing with it and possibly injuring my spinal column.

troy
I had a Medtronic electronic device installed in me 2019 here in Wichita Kansas May 15th of this year I started getting sick thinking that I had a a virus I was taken to the hospital and pretty much instantly put in the hospital my spinal cord stimulator had developed a bacteria that had caused a blood poisoning and it also got into my central nervous system it caused a bacterial infection called streptococcus group g I was in the hospital for 9 days I was told if I would have got there 12 to 24 hours later I might not be here still and I’m taking a total of eight weeks of infusion antibiotics through my arm to kill the bacteria after I was released from the hospital having a hard time finding anybody who wants to help me with this as far as attorneys go but the thing tried to kill me and it never did work like it was supposed to to begin with it never did Target my lower back like they told me it would it would just work on my legs and nothing above them and then the thing tried to kill me this year

Benjamin
I had a device installed in my back over a decade ago due to CRPS that I earned from injuries sustained in the Armyโ€ฆI was told by my doctors that this was going to be the only way that I was going to get my life back. When this originally started I only had symptoms in my right knee. Since then I now have CRPS in the entire right side of my body largely thanks to this device which I was told โ€œcouldnโ€™t possibly be shocking me or causing all the discomfort that Iโ€™m claimingโ€โ€ฆthey made me sound like I was insaneโ€ฆ.now my mental state has deteriorated to the point that I am a shell of a manโ€ฆI risked my life for my country so the I could be discarded and left to die and sufferโ€ฆit doesnโ€™t seem rightโ€ฆ

Linda
I have a Medtronic spinal stimulator which was implanted in 2016. I am on my 4th battery/generator(3 were Medtronic devices) I was told each time that these devices should last approximately 10 yrs). In 2023 my current pain management provider replaced the battery/generator with an Abbott device after the 3rd Medtronics device died. I have had no battery/generator issues with the Abbott device. If I had it to do over, I never would have agreed to the original implant.

Lisa
My husband had a metronic penial implant installed a few years later it malfunctioned and had to be removed. When it was removed It caused permanent damage so now he canโ€™t get a eraction no matter how much we try. This has really effected him mentally and emotionally, he gets so frustrated over the fact that no attorney will make a case for him. And weโ€™re sure heโ€™s not the only man that is going through this so any help would be appreciated.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Share Your Comments

This field is hidden when viewing the form
I authorize the above comments be posted on this page
Post Comment
Weekly Digest Opt-In

Want your comments reviewed by a lawyer?

To have an attorney review your comments and contact you about a potential case, provide your contact information below. This will not be published.

NOTE: Providing information for review by an attorney does not form an attorney-client relationship.

MORE TOP STORIES

An Illinois man alleges he was implanted with a defectively designed Medtronic spinal cord stimulator that was later adjusted by company sales representatives who were not medically trained.
A Pennsylvania woman says she suffered hearing loss and other long-term Depo-Provera side effects after receiving the birth control injections for nearly 20 years.
A federal judge has put in place additional procedures to address the deaths of women suffering from cancer who are pursuing hair relaxer lawsuits, allowing estates and families to take up their claims.

About the writer

Michael Adams

Michael Adams

Michael Adams is a senior editor and legal journalist at AboutLawsuits.com with over 20 years of experience covering financial, legal, and consumer protection issues. He previously held editorial leadership roles at Forbes Advisor and contributes original reporting on class actions, cybersecurity litigation, and emerging lawsuits impacting consumers.