Nevro SCS Implant Lawsuit Alleges Sales Rep Programming Led to Permanent Nerve Damage

Lawsuit claims Nevro sales reps kept reprogramming SCS implant, ultimately delaying the diagnosis of lead migration and need for surgical removal.

An Oklahoma man has filed a product liability lawsuit alleging Nevro’s policy of allowing unlicensed sales representatives to practice medicine on spinal cord stimulator (SCS) implant recipients contributed to the failure of his treatment and resulted in injuries he will carry for life.

Anthony Stewart brought the complaint (PDF) in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma on September 11, naming Nevro Corporation and Globus Medical Inc. as defendants.

Stewart indicates that Nevro compounded problems with an already defective design by allowing sales representatives, who lack medical training, to reprogram the devices in an effort to find settings that may deliver the promised pain relief. He claims those adjustments may instead contribute to the devices’ already unacceptably high failure rate.

SCS Implant Injuries

Spinal cord stimulators are medical implants designed to provide long-term relief from chronic pain, usually back pain, by sending electrical pulses to the spine that disrupt pain signals before they reach the brain. The systems typically include a battery-powered pulse generator connected to electrode leads positioned along the spine, with both components implanted beneath the skin and controlled through an external device.

However, the devices have been increasingly linked to a range of problems and complications, including lead migration and fractures, battery failures, infections, painful stimulation, loss of therapy and the need for revision or removal surgery.

Nevro is one of several manufacturers now facing spinal cord stimulator lawsuits involving allegations that manufacturing and design changes made over the years introduced defects that were not adequately tested before being incorporated into the devices.

Many of the claims also allege sales representatives attempted to reprogram the devices themselves, despite lacking medical licenses or clinical training. Plaintiffs say repeated programming changes sometimes caused severe electrical shocks, increased pain or delayed recognition that the underlying problem was actually a device failure, such as lead migration, fracture or another malfunction.

Nevro SCS Implant Injury Allegations

According to the lawsuit, Stewart was implanted with a Nevro SCS trial device in September 2025, before agreeing to receive a permanent Nevro HFX SCS implant. While he initially experienced pain relief, he soon began suffering from painful electric shocks and burning sensations at the implant site. Over time, that pain spread to his neck.

Stewart indicates that when he reported the complications, Nevro sales representatives intervened, indicating that they only needed to reprogram the device to the correct settings to resolve his problems. He claims they did not tell him that the problem might be the device itself.

“Plaintiff reasonably relied on the Representative(s)’ representations and delayed seeking removal of the Device. As a direct result of this delay, Plaintiff sustained worsening neurological injury. The longer the Device — which was failing to relieve Plaintiff’s pain and causing uncontrolled, injurious electrical stimulation — remained implanted, the more severe and permanent Plaintiff’s nerve damage became.”

– Anthony Stewart v. Nevro Corporation et al.

The lawsuit states Stewart eventually learned that the problem was not the programming. Instead, the leads had migrated out of position and the repeated reprogramming and shocks worsened the damage. Eventually, he had the SCS implant surgically removed.

Stewart alleges Nevro Corporation knew the devices were prone to failure. He notes that research on real-world SCS implants, including Nevro products, have a post-market lead migration rate of between 13.2% to 22.6%. This far exceeds the results from the Nevro-funded clinical trials, he states.

However, the lawsuit alleges Nevro never changed the design or provided adequate warnings about the risks of permanent nerve damage, and the company encouraged its sales representatives to conduct illegal medical care without a physician’s license.

The filing states that Stewart suffered numbness, shocking sensations, burning sensations, emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life and past and future medical expenses.

Stewart presents claims of manufacturing defect, design defect, failure to warn, failure to conform to representations, negligence, vicarious liability, negligence per se unauthorized practice of medicine, negligent supervision, negligent training, negligent retention, fraudulent concealment, fraudulent misrepresentation and negligent misrepresentation. He seeks both compensatory and punitive damages.

SCS Implant Lawsuits

Similar spinal cord stimulator claims are being filed against several SCS implant manufacturers, including Nevro, Boston Scientific, Abbott Laboratories and Medtronic, in federal courts nationwide. Earlier this year, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) consolidated all Boston Scientific SCS implant lawsuits into a multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the Central District of California before U.S. District Judge Josephine L. Staton for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

Following the Boston Scientific consolidation, plaintiffs then filed additional motions seeking Nevro SCS lawsuit consolidation and Abbott SCS lawsuit consolidation, requesting that the JPML centralize those cases in the same California district, but as separate MDLs.

The JPML will meet to hear oral arguments on the proposals at a hearing scheduled for September 24.

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.

Meanwhile, 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.