Spinal Cord Stimulator Injury Lawyer: New York Claims

A spinal cord stimulator is supposed to quiet chronic pain — not create a new source of it. These implanted devices send electrical pulses along the spinal cord to interrupt pain signals, and for some patients they work. But a growing number of people have reported the opposite: sudden shocks, burning, lead wires that shift or break, infection, and a return of the pain the device was meant to control — often requiring another operation near the spine to fix or remove the hardware. If a spinal cord stimulator left you worse off, you may have a claim against the manufacturer.

The Law Offices of Rudolph F.X. Migliore, P.C. represents New York and Long Island residents in medical-device injury litigation, working alongside a national co-counsel network. We are based in Commack and serve clients throughout New York State. The case review is free, and there is no fee unless we recover compensation for you.

What a Spinal Cord Stimulator Is — and How It Fails

A spinal cord stimulator system has three main parts: a pulse generator implanted under the skin, thin lead wires placed near the spinal cord, and a controller for adjusting the settings. The device is marketed to patients with chronic back and limb pain, often after other treatments have failed. When the system works, it can mask pain signals before they reach the brain. When it fails, the cause usually traces back to the hardware — and fixing it can mean another surgery near the spinal cord.

The problems patients report most often include lead migration (the wires move out of position, causing loss of relief or sudden, painful stimulation), lead fracture (a wire breaks, interrupting the therapy), shocks and burning (jolts of electricity along the spine, sometimes severe enough to cause falls), infection at the implant site, and complete loss of effect, leaving the patient back where they started after major surgery. Many of these problems lead to revision surgery — a second operation to reposition or replace the device — or to removal surgery (also called explant surgery) to take the device out altogether. That revision or removal surgery is often the clearest marker of a serious injury, and a stimulator revision or stimulator removal procedure is frequently the point at which patients begin to consider their legal options.

The Scale of the Problem

Concern about these devices is not new. According to a 2020 analysis by the consumer-advocacy group Public Citizen, based on FDA adverse-event reporting data, the FDA had received more than 220,000 adverse-event reports tied to spinal cord stimulators between 2004 and 2019 — including over 150,000 injury reports and more than 900 reports of patient deaths — and the analysis pointed to published complication rates in the range of 30 to 40 percent. Individual devices have also drawn regulatory action: in 2023 the FDA designated a recall of certain Abbott pulse generators as Class I, its most serious category, after a defect could leave a device unable to resume therapy without surgical replacement. These figures help explain why this litigation has gathered momentum.

The Boston Scientific MDL — and Claims Against Other Makers

On June 5, 2026, the federal Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation created a new multidistrict litigation, MDL No. 3181, consolidating spinal cord stimulator injury cases against Boston Scientific before a single federal judge in the Central District of California for coordinated pretrial handling. An MDL is not a class action: each plaintiff keeps a separate case, with individual facts, injuries, and damages. The panel declined to create a broader industrywide MDL, which means claims involving Abbott, Medtronic, and Nevro devices continue to move forward separately, in individual federal courts and in state courts around the country.

What this means in practice is that the right path for any one patient depends on which company made the device and the specific facts of the case. A claim might belong in the Boston Scientific MDL, in a separate federal lawsuit, or in a state court — a determination a lawyer makes at the outset. For more on this litigation, see our blog post on spinal cord stimulator lawsuits.

Why FDA Approval Makes These Cases Complex

Spinal cord stimulators are Class III medical devices — the highest-risk category — cleared through the FDA’s premarket approval process, or PMA. That approval pathway creates a significant legal hurdle called federal preemption. In the Supreme Court’s decision in Riegel v. Medtronic (2008), the Court held that a patient generally cannot use a state-law claim to hold a manufacturer to a standard stricter than what the FDA already required for a PMA device. Courts often decide this question early, before a jury hears the facts. Riegel left an important opening, however: claims that simply enforce a manufacturer’s own duty to follow the FDA’s rules — known as “parallel” claims — can survive. Plaintiffs in this litigation argue that the makers used repeated approval supplements to bring significantly changed devices to market without full clinical testing, and failed to report problems as federal law required. This is precisely the kind of legal terrain where experienced co-counsel matters, and the manufacturers deny the allegations.

Who May Have a Claim

In general, you may be able to bring a claim if you were implanted with a spinal cord stimulator and then suffered a serious problem connected to the device. Common situations include patients who needed a second surgery to reposition or remove a stimulator, who experienced repeated shocks or burns, who developed an infection at the implant site, or who lost the pain relief the device was meant to provide. Every case depends on its own facts — the device involved, the medical records, and the timeline of treatment. You do not need to have any of that organized in advance, and you do not need to wait for the litigation to mature before speaking with a lawyer. Filing deadlines vary by claim and by state, so anyone considering a claim should consult a lawyer promptly to determine the deadline that applies to their situation rather than assume it has passed.

Representing New York and Long Island Patients

New York and Long Island residents are among the patients who received these devices. Our firm represents New York clients in national medical-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 — and which state’s law governs is its own question that we work through at intake. If you or a loved one was injured by a spinal cord stimulator, call 631-543-3663 for a free, confidential case evaluation, or use our contact form. There is no fee unless we recover compensation for you.

Frequently Asked Questions: Spinal Cord Stimulator Claims

Speak With a New York Spinal Cord Stimulator Injury Lawyer

If a spinal cord stimulator caused you harm, the Law Offices of Rudolph F.X. Migliore, P.C. can evaluate your potential claim at no cost — statewide, from a Long Island firm working with co-counsel active in this litigation. Call 631-543-3663 or use the contact form below. There is no fee unless we recover compensation for you.