Nevro Stimulator Lawsuit Alleges SCS Lead Failure Caused Nerve Damage

Lawsuit indicates the removal of failed SCS implants was delayed after sales representatives claimed the problem was with the programming.

Medical device manufacturer Nevro Corporation is the latest target in a string of spinal cord stimulator lawsuits alleging the devices are defectively designed and prone to failure, lead fractures, worsening pain and other complications.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Paul Pospisil against Nevro and its parent company, Globus Medical Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on April 24.

Pospisil claims he suffered injuries from a Nevro spinal cord stimulator (SCS) implant that was allegedly defective and was programmed and managed by company sales representatives who had no license to perform medicine.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Risks

Spinal cord stimulators are medical implants consisting of a small, battery-powered pulse generator placed beneath the skin, thin electricity-conducting leads placed near the spinal cord and a handheld remote control that allows stimulation levels to be adjusted. Made by several medical device manufacturers, they are typically prescribed for patients suffering from chronic back, leg or nerve pain after other treatments have proven ineffective.

However, despite the devices being designed to be permanently implanted in the body, a growing number of spinal cord stimulator lawsuits have been filed in recent months, primarily against Abbott Laboratories and Boston Scientific. Plaintiffs say they suffered increased pain, permanent injuries and the need for additional surgeries due to design changes made after pre-market approval (PMA), as well as the participation of unlicensed company representatives in the systems’ programming.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Injury Allegations

Pospisil, of Ohio, was implanted with a Nevro SCS Senza HFX iQ implant in July 2024. He was then implanted with an identical device on a different part of his spine in January 2025.

The filing indicates that two sales representatives from Nevro were involved in the selection and implantation process, and then participated in the intraoperative programming of the device.

“Prior to implantation, the Representative(s) represented to Plaintiff that the Devices would provide reliable, long-term pain relief; that the Devices was safe for long-term implantation; and that any initial adjustments or reprogramming would optimize therapeutic outcomes. The Representative(s) failed to advise Plaintiff of the known risk of lead failure, the risk of permanent nerve damage resulting from device failure, and the risk that complications would not be resolvable through reprogramming alone.”

– Paul Pospisil v. Nevro Corporation et al

Less than a month after each device was implanted, both in July 2024 and January 2025, Pospisil began experiencing burning pain, irregular electric shocking sensations, numbness and weakness in his lower extremities. In addition, he claims the pain reduction benefits disappeared. However, Pospisil was assured multiple times by Nevro representatives that the problem was in the implant’s settings instead of device failure. They made alterations to the programming in response to his complaints, sometimes without a treating physician present.

According to the lawsuit, the longer the devices have been implanted, the worse the discomfort and side effects have become. Pospisil indicates that the delays in removing the implant, encouraged by the sales representatives, have left him in a worse condition than had the devices been removed earlier. The lawsuit says he has suffered permanent nerve damage as a result.

Pospisil still has both Nevro SCS devices implanted in his back and has been unable to have surgery to remove them. He presents claims of manufacturing defect, design defect, failure to warn, failure to conform to representations, corporate negligence, vicarious liability, negligence per se, negligent supervision, negligent training, negligent retention, fraudulent concealment, fraudulent misrepresentation, and negligent misrepresentation. He seeks both punitive and compensatory damages.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuits

The complaint joins a growing number of similar spinal cord stimulator lawsuits brought against other manufacturers for the same problems. Last month, a group of plaintiffs involved in similar claims against Boston Scientific and Abbott Laboratories filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML), requesting all federal lawsuits over devices from those manufacturers be consolidated in the Northern District of Illinois for coordinated pretrial proceedings and discovery in the form of a multidistrict litigation (MDL) before one judge.

However, the two defendants have asked the JPML to reject the motion for transfer, arguing that the cases involve different products and lack a common defect that would justify consolidation. They also indicate many of the lawsuits are fairly advanced and that consolidation would not offer any increase in efficiency. 

In addition, Boston Scientific claims the lawsuits will likely be dismissed because they are preempted by federal law. The JPML is expected to schedule oral arguments on the issue sometime this summer.

As more claims are filed, spinal cord stimulator attorneys are continuing to evaluate potential lawsuits on behalf of individuals who experienced adverse outcomes following implantation of these kinds of devices.

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