Nevro SCS Lawsuits Warrant Centralization in New MDL: Motion

A separate petition is pending to centralize Abbott SCS lawsuits, while claims involving Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulators have already been consolidated in an MDL in the Central District of California.

A group of plaintiffs who say they suffered injuries due to the defective design of Nevro spinal cord stimulators have asked a panel of judges to consolidate the litigation in one federal district court for coordinated pretrial proceedings.

Nevro is just one of several manufacturers who make and distribute spinal cord stimulators, which are implantable devices used to treat chronic pain. They are composed of electrodes and a battery-powered pulse generator implanted under the skin near the spinal cord. A remote control is used to adjust the stimulation settings. These implants are designed to disrupt pain signals before they reach the brain in patients for whom other pain treatments have failed.

However, recent months have seen numerous lawsuits filed against manufacturers like Abbott Laboratories, Boston Scientific and Medtronic, with recipients telling similar stories of electric shocks, burning sensations, pieces of the device migrating and protruding from the skin and total device failures.

Nevro is one of the four major manufacturers of the chronic pain treatment implants facing a steady stream of spinal cord stimulator lawsuits. Those involving Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulators have already been consolidated, and a request to do the same with lawsuits involving Abbott Laboratories devices is pending.

Each of the spinal cord stimulator lawsuits filed against the companies raise allegations that the devices are defectively designed and caused more injury and pain than they alleviated. Many of the claims also include allegations that company sales representatives participated in unlicensed medical procedures and that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) failed to adequately enforce medical device safety laws.

Nevro Spinal Cord Stimulator MDL

The petition (PDF) was filed with the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) on June 26, by a group of eight plaintiffs with pending Nevro spinal cord stimulator lawsuits. They argue that all of the cases involve common questions of fact and law that would benefit from centralization before one federal judge during the pretrial proceedings.

Such consolidation is common when there are multiple similar claims involving a specific product or class of very similar products. Plaintiffs indicate that, in this case, such consolidation will prevent duplication of discovery efforts and contradictory rulings by different judges.

According to the petition, there are 17 similar Nevro spinal cord stimulator lawsuits filed in six different jurisdictions, nine of which also include the FDA as a defendant. The motion calls for all of the lawsuits to be transferred to the Central District of California.

Plaintiffs also ask that the Nevro cases be assigned to U.S. District Judge Josephine Staton, who is already overseeing the Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulator MDL in the Central District of California. The motion argues that, although the JPML declined to create one industry-wide SCS MDL, a separate Nevro MDL before the same judge would promote efficiency because the cases involve overlapping expert issues, regulatory questions, preemption defenses, device-risk evidence and sales-and-marketing allegations. 

If the panel agrees to form a Nevro spinal cord stimulator lawsuit MDL, all cases would remain individual claims despite going through the pretrial procedures together. Unlike a Nevro spinal cord stimulator class action, each plaintiff is still required to prove that their injuries were caused by the spine implant.

Following consolidation, if the panel approves, it is likely that the judge appointed to oversee the litigation would set the cases on a path toward bellwether trials that would give the parties the chance to see how juries respond to evidence and testimony repeated throughout the litigation.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuits

With the JPML already having consolidated Boston Scientific claims, it improves the chances of similar consolidation for other manufacturers. Spinal cord stimulator lawyers anticipate the litigation will continue to grow as they continue to review plaintiffs’ claims of complications 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.