On June 5, 2026, a federal judicial panel created a new multidistrict litigation for spinal cord stimulator injury cases against Boston Scientific. The order gathers those cases before a single federal judge in California for coordinated pretrial handling. If you received a spinal cord stimulator to treat chronic pain and the device left you worse off, this development may matter to you — but the right legal path depends on which company made your device. The new MDL covers Boston Scientific cases only; claims involving other manufacturers may proceed separately.

Spinal cord stimulators are implanted devices that send electrical pulses along the spinal cord to mask pain signals. For some patients they help. For others, the reported result has been unexpected shocks, burning, lead wires that move or break, infection, or a return of the pain the device was meant to control. Below is where things stand and why patients injured by other manufacturers’ devices still have options.

Where the Spinal Cord Stimulator Litigation Stands

In February 2026, a group of injured patients asked the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to consolidate spinal cord stimulator cases filed across the federal court system. A multidistrict litigation, or MDL, brings related lawsuits before one judge for shared pretrial work such as discovery and expert testimony. It is not a class action. Each plaintiff keeps a separate case, with individual facts, injuries, and damages.

The request named both Abbott and Boston Scientific. According to Boston Scientific’s quarterly filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the original motion identified eight cases against the company, with more filed afterward. The panel heard argument in Milwaukee on May 28, 2026.

In a June 5 transfer order, the panel granted that request in part. It found that centralizing the Boston Scientific cases was appropriate and assigned them to Judge Josephine L. Staton in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, now proceeding as MDL No. 3181. The panel counted 23 Boston Scientific cases then pending in nine districts. It declined to create the broader industrywide MDL the motion had sought, and it denied centralization of the Abbott cases. The result is one Boston Scientific MDL, with claims against Abbott, Medtronic, and Nevro left to proceed separately.

Claims Against Abbott, Medtronic, and Nevro Continue Separately

The new MDL covers only Boston Scientific. That does not close the door on patients injured by other manufacturers’ stimulators. Lawsuits against Abbott, Medtronic, and Nevro continue to move forward on their own, both in individual federal courts and in state courts around the country. The legal theories are similar: that the devices were defectively designed or made, that the companies failed to warn patients and doctors about known risks, and that the products caused injuries requiring further surgery.

Whether a claim belongs in the Boston Scientific MDL, a separate federal lawsuit, or a state court depends on the device involved and the facts. That is a determination a lawyer makes at the outset, not something a patient should sort out alone.

How Spinal Cord Stimulators Fail

A spinal cord stimulator system has three main parts: a pulse generator under the skin, thin lead wires placed near the spinal cord, and a controller for the settings. When it works, it can ease chronic pain in the back and limbs. When it fails, the cause often traces back to the hardware, and a fix can mean another operation near the spinal cord.

The injuries reported most often include:

• Lead migration. The wires shift out of position, which can cause loss of pain relief or sudden, painful stimulation.
• Lead fracture. A wire breaks, interrupting the therapy and sometimes requiring surgery to repair or replace it.
• Shocks and burning. Patients report jolts of electricity and burning along the spine, at times severe enough to cause falls or lasting harm.
• Infection. An infection at the implant site can force removal of the device.
• Loss of effect. The device stops controlling pain, leaving the patient back where they started, or worse, after major surgery.
• Revision or removal surgery. Many of these problems lead to a second operation to reposition, replace, or take out the device, which is often the clearest marker of a serious injury.

The volume of complaints to regulators has been substantial. In a 2020 report, the consumer group Public Citizen found that between 2004 and 2019 the FDA received more than 220,000 adverse event reports tied to spinal cord stimulators. Those included more than 150,000 injury reports and more than 900 reports of patient deaths. The report also cited published complication rates of 30 to 40 percent.

Specific devices have also drawn regulatory action. In September 2023, the FDA classified a recall of Abbott’s Proclaim and Infinity implantable pulse generators as Class I, its most serious category. The defect could leave a device stuck in “MRI mode” and unable to resume therapy, sometimes requiring surgery to replace it. The recall covered more than 155,000 devices. Abbott’s cases are not part of the Boston Scientific MDL, but the recall reflects the kind of hardware and software failures at the heart of this litigation.

The Legal Fight: FDA Approval and Federal Preemption

A central legal issue in these cases is not only whether patients were hurt, but whether their state-law claims can survive federal preemption. The answer turns on how the devices were approved.

Spinal cord stimulators like Boston Scientific’s are Class III devices approved through the FDA’s premarket approval process, known as PMA. PMA is the agency’s most demanding pathway, reserved for higher-risk devices. FDA approval records show that Boston Scientific’s stimulator line was first approved in 2004, then changed many times over the following years through supplements to that original approval.

That pathway creates a powerful defense called federal preemption. Preemption is the rule that federal law can override, and bar, state-law claims. Under a 2008 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Riegel v. Medtronic, a patient generally cannot use a state-law claim to hold a manufacturer to a standard different from or stricter than what the FDA already required for a PMA device. In practice, the court often decides preemption before a jury ever hears the facts, and it is a frequent obstacle to these suits.

The Supreme Court left one important opening. A claim is not preempted if it simply enforces the manufacturer’s own duty to follow the FDA’s rules. Courts call these “parallel” claims. That is the lane these plaintiffs are trying to occupy. They allege that Boston Scientific used repeated supplements to bring significantly changed devices to market without the full clinical testing a new approval would demand. They also say the company failed to report problems as federal law required. Whether those allegations fit within the parallel-claim opening is a question the court will have to decide. Boston Scientific denies the allegations.

Who May Have a Claim

In general, a person may be able to bring a claim if they were implanted with a spinal cord stimulator and then suffered a serious problem tied to the device. Common situations include patients who needed a second surgery to reposition or remove a stimulator, who had repeated shocks or burns, who developed an infection at the implant site, or who lost the pain relief the device was meant to provide. Each case depends on its own facts, including the device, the medical records, and the timeline of treatment.

There is no need to wait for the litigation to mature before speaking with a lawyer. The deadline that applies to any individual claim depends on the facts of that case and should be confirmed with an attorney rather than assumed.

The New York Connection

New York and Long Island residents are among the patients who received these devices. The Law Offices of Rudolph F.X. Migliore, P.C. represents New York clients in national device litigation, working with co-counsel networks that handle these cases in courts across the country. Because the new MDL covers only Boston Scientific, the right path for an individual New Yorker depends on the manufacturer and the facts. A claim might belong in the federal MDL, a separate federal case, or a New York state court. Which state’s law governs is its own question, and the firm works through that at intake.

What Comes Next

Because the Boston Scientific MDL was created only days ago, it is in its earliest stage. The next steps typically include appointing lead plaintiffs’ lawyers, organizing the exchange of records, and litigating the preemption question that will shape how far the cases can go. If the litigation follows the usual path, a small set of test cases known as bellwether trials would later be chosen to gauge how juries respond. None of that has happened yet, and the schedule should come into focus in the coming months.

This is a fast-moving situation, and court rulings and case counts can change quickly. Treat the status here as a snapshot and confirm the latest developments.

Speak With a New York Spinal Cord Stimulator Injury Lawyer

If you or a loved one was injured by a spinal cord stimulator, the attorneys at the Law Offices of Rudolph F.X. Migliore, P.C. can evaluate your potential claim at no cost. We work with co-counsel networks active in the spinal cord stimulator litigation. We can help you understand whether your case fits the federal MDL or belongs in another court, and what records you will need.

Call our Commack office at 631-543-3663 for a free, confidential case evaluation, or use our online contact form. There is no fee unless we recover compensation for you.

This article is for general informational purposes and is not legal advice, and it reflects information available as of its publication date; laws, regulations, and case developments change over time. Each case depends on its specific facts, and any filing deadline that may apply should be determined by an attorney. Boston Scientific denies wrongdoing, and no determination of liability has been made by any court. No outcome can be guaranteed in any litigation.