Spinal cord stimulator lawsuits are accelerating in 2026, with injured patients pursuing claims against some of the world’s largest medical device manufacturers. On June 5, 2026, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation formally established MDL 3181, centralizing federal spinal cord stimulator lawsuit claims against Boston Scientific and Abbott Laboratories in the Central District of California. Then, on October 2, 2026, the JPML went further, announcing the creation of two additional MDLs — MDL 3194 for Abbott and MDL 3195 for Nevro — as litigation against multiple manufacturers continues to expand. If you or someone you love suffered injuries from a spinal cord stimulator device — lead migration, electrical burns, nerve damage, or worse — these developments directly affect your legal options right now.
What Are MDL 3181, MDL 3194, and MDL 3195 and Why Do They Matter?
The JPML’s June 5, 2026 order created a proceeding officially titled IN RE: Abbott Laboratories and Boston Scientific Corporation Spinal Cord Stimulator Products Liability Litigation, designated MDL 3181. The case has been assigned to Judge Josephine L. Staton in the Central District of California, one of the nation’s busiest federal courts for complex civil litigation. As of July 1, 2026, there are 24 pending actions in that MDL, drawn from federal districts across the country.
Then, on October 2, 2026, the JPML announced the creation of two additional MDLs, significantly expanding the spinal cord stimulator litigation landscape. MDL 3194 centralizes claims against Abbott, and MDL 3195 centralizes claims against Nevro. MDL 3195 launched with 17 transferred cases and six tag-along potential cases. These new proceedings reflect the JPML’s recognition that spinal cord stimulator litigation has grown far beyond a single manufacturer’s products and requires organized, manufacturer-specific consolidation to be managed efficiently.
The original MDL 3181 formation came after plaintiffs filed a consolidation motion on February 20, 2026, arguing that the cases shared overlapping factual questions about regulatory compliance, device performance, and failure to warn. At the time that motion was filed, at least 15 federal lawsuits were already pending, and an estimated 400 additional injured patients had already retained legal counsel. That number is almost certainly higher today. Critically, the JPML initially declined to create a broader industry-wide MDL that would have swept in Medtronic and Nevro devices — those claims proceeded on separate tracks. The October 2, 2026 MDL announcements for Nevro and Abbott represent the next phase of that evolving strategy, and litigation against Medtronic continues on its own track as well.
On the preemption front, a significant legal development came in May 2026, when a Maryland federal judge in DiToto v. Nevro allowed eight counts to proceed and held that failure-to-report claims are not preempted by federal law. That ruling is the most plaintiff-favorable spinal cord stimulator decision to date, and it may shape how courts across all three MDLs approach the threshold preemption questions that defendants are certain to raise. As of October 2026, there are no major verdicts or settlements against spinal cord stimulator manufacturers; the lawsuits remain in early stages, meaning injured patients who file now may be well-positioned as these proceedings develop.
The Injuries Driving the Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit Wave
Spinal cord stimulators are implanted devices designed to manage chronic pain by delivering mild electrical impulses to the spinal cord. When they work as intended, they can meaningfully reduce reliance on opioids and improve quality of life. When they fail, the consequences can be catastrophic and permanent. The injuries alleged across the spinal cord stimulator lawsuit filings consolidated into MDL 3181, MDL 3194, and MDL 3195 include:
- Lead migration — the electrode leads shift from their implanted position, delivering stimulation to unintended areas of the spinal cord
- Lead fracture — leads break inside the body, requiring surgical revision
- Painful electrical shocks — patients report sudden, uncontrolled jolts of electricity
- Thermal burns — overheating components cause internal tissue damage
- Autonomic dysfunction — disruption of involuntary body systems including heart rate, blood pressure, and bladder function
- Nerve damage and neurological injury — permanent loss of sensation or motor function
- Worsening of original pain condition
- Paralysis — in the most severe reported cases
- Device infection requiring explant surgery
Victoria Chambers is a mass tort and class action research analyst with extensive knowledge of multi-district litigation (MDL), defective product cases, dangerous drug lawsuits, and toxic exposure claims across the United States. Victoria is not an attorney and the information provided is for educational purposes only.