Master Complaint for Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuits Against Boston Scientific to Be Filed

Court calls for plaintiffs to submit a Master Personal Injury Complaint, allowing faster filing of new cases, by October 23.

A federal judge has been asked to approve a plan that would allow faster and more efficient filing of Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulator lawsuits, which is likely to be necessary as the litigation continues to grow.

Boston Scientific currently faces dozens of claims by individuals who were implanted with a spinal cord stimulator that was supposed to alleviate chronic pain. Most cases indicate the implants were defectively designed and have been linked to numerous complications, frequently requiring surgical removal, which can leave the patient in more pain than they were in before.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Problems

Spinal cord stimulators (SCS) consist of electrodes, lead wires and a battery-powered pulse generator implanted under the skin, along with an external remote control used to adjust stimulation. These devices are designed for long-term use, delivering electrical pulses intended to interrupt pain signals before they reach the brain.

However, many individuals report experiencing spinal cord stimulator implant problems and complications instead of lasting pain relief. Reported side effects include device failures, lead migration and fractures, painful electrical shocks, implants eroding through the skin and permanent nerve damage.

As a result, Boston Scientific and several other manufacturers face a growing number of spinal cord stimulator lawsuits, alleging they knew or should have known about these risks but failed to adequately warn consumers or make necessary design changes to prevent injuries.

Many complaints also raise concerns about the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) oversight of spinal cord stimulators, questioning whether changes to the devices underwent sufficient safety testing before being allowed on the market.

Boston Scientific Spinal Cord Stimulator MDL

As the number of claims rose, all Boston Scientific SCS implant lawsuits were consolidated into a multidistrict litigation (MDL) in June, and were centralized in the Central District of California before U.S. District Judge Josephine L. Staton, who has begun pretrial proceedings in likely preparation for a series of early “bellwether” trials.

These trials will put cases before actual juries, whose decisions may indicate which way most of the litigation would go if all of the claims were tried individually. While not binding on the other claims, the outcomes of these trials will be closely watched.

The goal of such trials is to create a basis of negotiation for a potential Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulator lawsuit settlement agreements, which could reverberate throughout claims brought against other implant manufacturers as well.

Attorneys met with Judge Staton on October 7 for a status conference (PDF), indicating that the litigation has grown to 59 claims involving 72 plaintiffs.

The judge later set a schedule for future status conferences (PDF) on October 9. Those conferences will be held on:

• November 6, 2026
• December 4, 2026
• February 5, 2027
• March 5, 2027
• April 9, 2027

Boston Scientific Master Complaints

Previously, Judge Staton issued a pretrial order (PDF) on September 23, calling for plaintiffs to submit a Master Complaint to her court by October 23, involving all of the claims against the FDA, which are proceeding on a separate, but parallel, track from the personal injury claims. Counsel for both sides are calling for the judge to give them until October 30.

Two days later, attorneys filed a joint memorandum (PDF) asking the judge to do the same for the personal injury cases, along with the same due date.

A Master Complaint is a single document that would include all claims and injuries common to most Boston Scientific SCS implant lawsuits. Once agreed upon and approved, new lawsuits can be submitted as short-form complaints, which is a much simpler and more efficient process than each individual having to file a full lawsuit.

The process is usually accompanied by a direct filing order that would allow all future claims to be immediately sent to the MDL court in Central California, regardless of where in the federal court system they were originally filed.

In addition to expediency in filing, the Master Complaint and short-form complaints will make it easier to sort through the claims to find the most common types of injuries and alleged device failures. This will allow the court to build a profile of what a typical, representative Boston Scientific SCS implant lawsuit looks like, guiding attorneys in selecting the best cases for bellwether trials.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuits

Soon after the Boston Scientific SCS MDL was established earlier this year, plaintiffs pursuing claims against other manufacturers asked for Nevro implant lawsuits and Abbott SCS lawsuits to be centralized in the Central District of California as separate MDLs.

The panel heard oral arguments on the proposed consolidations last month and agreed to centralize Abbott and Nevro complaints in separate MDLs in the Northern District of Illinois and the Northern District of California, respectively. Each of those proceedings will also likely move toward selecting representative cases for bellwether trials.

As the amount of lawsuits ramp up nationwide, spinal cord stimulator lawyers continue to investigate potential claims involving complications linked to implant failures and malfunctions, including:

Individuals who experienced complications that may be associated with a defective implant can request a free evaluation to determine whether they may be eligible to pursue a spinal cord stimulator lawsuit. Attorneys investigating these cases handle claims on a contingency fee basis, with no upfront legal fees and payment only if compensation is recovered.

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