Nevro Stimulator Lawsuit MDL Request Opposed by Manufacturer

Company argues consolidation of Nevro spinal cord stimulator lawsuits would not increase the efficiency of the litigation, despite a growing number of claims being filed throughout the federal court system in recent months.

Nevro Corporation wants a panel of federal judges to reject a petition calling for the creation of a multidistrict litigation (MDL) for all lawsuits being pursued in U.S. District Courts nationwide over problems with its spinal cord stimulators, which have been linked to an alarming number of patient injuries and the need for revision surgery.

The company is only one of several medical device manufacturers facing a growing number of spinal cord stimulator lawsuits, each involving claims that the companies failed to properly test the devices or warn medical personnel and patients about the potential health risks and failure rates. Additionally, many claims argue the manufacturers allowed sales representatives without medical licenses to program the devices, sometimes causing patients to suffer severe pain.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Risks

Spinal cord stimulators are implants designed to treat chronic pain after other options have failed. They consist of electrodes and a battery-powered pulse generator placed under the skin, near the spine, plus an external remote control. The electrical pulses are meant to interrupt pain signals before they reach the brain. The system is designed to be implanted permanently.

In recent months, Nevro and other spinal cord manufacturers, such as Boston Scientific, Medtronic and Abbott Laboratories, have received numerous reports of patients saying that not only did the treatments fail, but the devices frequently failed or caused medical complications requiring surgical removal.

Patients report experiencing unexpected and painful electric shocks, burning sensations, lead migration and total device failures. They also report incidents where the electrodes or battery pierced the skin and incidents where the device increased their level of chronic pain and caused additional nerve damage, worsening their situation.

In February, a group of plaintiffs petitioned the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) to consolidate all federal spinal cord stimulator lawsuits before one judge for coordinated pretrial proceedings regardless of manufacturer. However, given the involvement of several different manufacturers, the MDL panel refused to create one industry-wide consolidation. Instead, it 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. Lawsuits involving Nevro and Abbott were left to proceed as individual claims.

Since then, plaintiffs have filed separate motions calling for Nevro stimulator lawsuit consolidation and Abbott stimulator lawsuit consolidation, with both asking for cases to be centralized in the same district as separate proceedings.

On August 6, Nevro filed a motion in opposition (PDF) to the plaintiffs’ petition for the creation of a Nevro MDL, arguing that the plaintiffs are trying to perform an end-run around the previous JPML ruling to get the same results. Additionally, Nevro claims plaintiffs lack common product defect allegations, meaning no one can point to a part of the devices and identify it as a defectively designed part.

The company also claims the injuries are only loosely associated, with some varying quite differently from patient to patient, leaving little commonality to justify consolidation. Abbott Laboratories recently filed a similar opposition brief, also calling for its own MDL petition to be rejected.

When and if the JPML will hear oral arguments over the petitions has not yet been announced, but if the JPML sides with the plaintiffs and agrees to form a Nevro spinal cord stimulator lawsuit MDL, 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.

If the panel does deem the cases would benefit from consolidation, the presiding U.S. District Judge would be expected to instruct the parties to begin preparing a group of representative claims for bellwether trials. These early test trials would give plaintiffs and defendants a look at how juries nationwide could interpret evidence and testimony that may be repeated throughout the litigation.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuits

The previous determination that Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulator lawsuits would benefit from centralization may significantly improve the chances of Abbott and Nevro SCS lawsuit consolidation.

Meanwhile, spinal cord stimulator lawyers continue to review plaintiffs’ 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.