≡ Injury Lawsuit Connect ≡ Spinal Cord Stimulator Injury Lawsuit Cases & Settlement Claims

Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit [2026]: Device Failure, Electric Shock, Lead Migration, Implant Revision or Removal Surgery, Burns, Paralysis & Nerve Injury Cases

Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit Cases and Settlement Claims

Home > Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit

Did You (Or A Loved One) Suffer Electric Shocks, Burns, Lead Migration, Device Failure, Paralysis, Nerve Damage, Implant Removal or Revision Surgery or Other Injury From a Spinal Cord Stimulator?

Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuits & Settlements

Reviewed by Jacobs Kolton, Chtd. Attorneys at Law; Updated Sep. 2026

Spinal cord stimulator lawsuits involve claims that certain spinal cord stimulator (SCS) implants malfunctioned, migrated, fractured, failed to provide stimulation, delivered painful or unintended electrical stimulation, or otherwise caused injuries after implantation, including shocks, burns, nerve injury, neurological injuries, paralysis and the need for revision surgery to repair, replace or remove the device.

Plaintiffs in spinal cord stimulator lawsuit cases assert that manufacturers failed to adequately warn doctors and patients about risks of the devices, sold defective devices, failed to comply with certain federal requirements, inadequately reported adverse events, and/or made changes to spinal cord stimulators that affected device safety or performance.

Our team of medical device injury lawyers and class action attorneys is investigating potential spinal cord stimulator lawsuit cases and settlement claims of individuals who suffered injury, such as shocks, burns, lead migration, lead fracture, infection (sepsis), device failure, paralysis, nerve damage, implant revision or removal surgery or other complications from a spinal cord stimulator implant device.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit cases settlement claims SCS

If you (or a loved one) suffered painful shocks, nerve damage, paralysis, lead migration, device failure or other complications from a spinal cord stimulator or required revision or removal surgery, you may be entitled to recover compensation from a spinal cord stimulator lawsuit case or settlement claim.

Spinal cord stimulators are implanted medical devices used to treat certain types of chronic pain. The systems generally include an implantable pulse generator (IPG), which produces electrical impulses, and one or more leads containing electrodes positioned near the spinal cord. The electrical stimulation is intended to alter or interrupt pain signals before they reach the brain.

It has been estimated that about 50,000 patients each year in the U.S. have spinal cord stimulators implanted and that hundreds of thousands of Americans have received such SCS devices over the years.

Unfortunately, many patients treated with spinal cord stimulators may have experienced complications including painful electric shocks or jolts, burning sensations, worsening pain, lead migration, lead fracture, loss of stimulation, loss of therapeutic effect, battery or charging problems, nerve damage, neurological injuries, paralysis and the need for additional surgery to revise, replace or completely remove the SCS implant.

Injured patients are now coming forward and filing spinal cord stimulator lawsuits seeking compensation and justice for harm and suffering they may have endured from a spinal cord stimulator implant.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit: Overview

Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuits and Settlements

Spinal cord stimulator lawsuit cases and settlement claims potentially being investigated include claims of patients who, after implantation of a spinal cord stimulation system, suffered serious injuries or complications, including:

If you or a loved one suffered a serious complication involving a spinal cord stimulator implant, you may be eligible to recover compensation from a spinal cord stimulator lawsuit case or settlement claim.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Injury Lawsuit Cases and Settlement Claims

Who May Qualify for a Spinal Cord Stimulator Case

Individuals may potentially qualify for a spinal cord stimulator lawsuit or settlement claim if they or a loved one:

  • Had A Spinal Cord Stimulator Implant: Had a permanent spinal cord stimulation system implanted (within the last ten years) to treat chronic back pain, leg pain, complex regional pain syndrome, failed back surgery syndrome, diabetic neuropathy or another chronic pain condition.
  • Suffered Injury from the Spinal Cord Stimulator: Experienced painful shocks, burning, unexpected stimulation, worsening pain, neurological symptoms, lead migration, lead fracture, sepsis or infection (other than surgical site infection), battery or charging failure, loss of stimulation, stimulator not working, loss of bowel or bladder control, gastroparesis (stomach paralysis), dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), uncontrollable diarrhea or another significant complication after implantation.
  • Required Significant Medical Treatment: Required revision surgery, lead replacement, generator replacement, spinal cord stimulator removal, hospitalization, ICU or emergency care, neurological treatment or other substantial medical care because of the alleged complication.

Other criteria may apply in order to be eligible. Not all individuals or cases qualify for a spinal cord stimulator lawsuit. Individuals may not qualify if (1) the injury cannot be linked to the spinal cord stimulator (2) the injury is minor or easily treated; (3) patient did not have a spinal cord stimulator implanted (or only had a trial device or a nerve, bladder, sleep apnea, or other stimulator); (4) the claim is outside the statute of limitations period (if an individual waits too long they may be legally barred from suing); (5) the spinal cord stimulator was implanted more than 10 years ago; (6) there is no evidence that the spinal cord stimulator was turned off on a long-term basis, was surgically removed, could not be removed despite a reason to do so, or that the patient requested that it be removed; and/or (7) medical records do not support the claims. Individuals may not qualify for other reasons. Individuals do not necessarily need to know the manufacturer or exact model of their spinal cord stimulator before requesting a case review. Device information can often be identified through medical records, implant cards, operative reports or device interrogation records.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit Complaints

Patients who have suffered from injury or complications from a spinal cord stimulator implant (including unsatisfactory pain relief, shocking, burning, lead migration, autonomic dysfunction, neurological injuries, nerve damage, paralysis, infection, etc.) have filed lawsuits seeking to recover money damages for the injuries they have suffered.

Spinal cord stimulator injury lawsuits have alleged, among other things, that certain spinal cord stimulators (1) were defectively designed or manufactured; (2) were sold without adequate warnings concerning potential complications; (3) were inadequately tested or monitored; (4) were changed after earlier FDA approvals in ways plaintiffs allege affected their safety or effectiveness; (5) generated adverse events that plaintiffs contend were not adequately communicated to doctors, patients or regulators; and/or (6) were promoted or programmed in ways plaintiffs contend exceeded the appropriate role of manufacturer representatives.

According to spinal cord stimulator lawsuit complaints:

  • The FDA granted Premarket Approval (PMA) of certain manufacturer’s spinal cord stimulators based on published literature related to similar systems manufactured by other companies seeking PMA approval of its SCS devices, rather than offering independent clinical studies demonstrating the safety and efficacy of their devices.
  • Once a PMA is approved, federal regulations prohibit any change to the design, materials, energy source, software, manufacturing process, or labeling of the device that could significantly affect its safety or effectiveness without submission of a new PMA or a panel-track PMA supplement and that Manufacturers may not use the PMA supplement process as a backdoor to avoid new clinical testing or public review.
  • Since the original PMAs were approved, certain manufactures have introduced numerous new spinal cord stimulator devices incorporating significant modifications under supplements to their original PMAs to avoid heightened scrutiny and clinical evaluation.
  • Certain manufacturers failed to comply with regulatory requirements and deprived physicians, patients, and the FDA of the complete information necessary to evaluate the true risks associated with these devices and failed to warn of and concealed the known risks of their spinal cord stimulator devices.

Spinal cord stimulator lawsuit complaints have asserted legal claims for, among other things: manufacturing defect (strict liability), failure to warn (strict liability), negligence per se, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraud and fraudulent concealment, fraudulent misrepresentation and violation of certain state consumer protection laws

The spinal cord stimulator lawsuits seek to recover compensatory damages, including past and future medical expenses, past and future pain and suffering, emotional distress, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, disability, disfigurement, past and future loss of consortium, past and future lost wages, including loss of earnings and loss of earning capacity and/or punitive damages.

Who May Be Sued For Spinal Cord Stimulator Injury

Companies who may be sued as defendants in the spinal cord stimulator lawsuits may include manufacturers of a spinal cord stimulator, manufacturers of individual components such as leads or implanted pulse generators, distributors, sellers or others, including:

  • Boston Scientific
  • Abbott Laboratories (St. Jude Medical)
  • Medtronic
  • Nevro (Globus Medical)
  • Other possible SCS defendants

Spinal Cord Stimulator Brands

Spinal cord stimulator brands and products potentially involved in litigation may include, among others, the following:

  • Abbott Proclaim XR
  • Abbott Proclaim Plus
  • Abbott Proclaim Elite
  • Abbott Eterna
  • Abbott Proclaim DRG
  • Boston Scientific WaveWriter Alpha
  • Boston Scientific WaveWriter Alpha Prime
  • Boston Scientific Spectra WaveWriter
  • Boston Scientific Precision
  • Boston Scientific Precision Montage
  • Boston Scientific Infinion leads and related components
  • Medtronic Intellis
  • Medtronic Intellis Pro
  • Medtronic Inceptiv
  • Medtronic Vanta
  • Medtronic Restore
  • Medtronic Itrel
  • Nevro Senza
  • Nevro Senza II
  • Nevro Senza Omnia
  • Nevro HFX
  • Nevro HFX iQ

Boston Scientific manufactures spinal cord stimulation systems and related leads, including products associated with the WaveWriter, WaveWriter Alpha, Precision, Precision Montage, Spectra WaveWriter and Infinion product families.

Abbott markets spinal cord stimulation systems including products in the Proclaim, Proclaim XR, Proclaim Plus, Proclaim DRG and Eterna families. Abbott acquired St. Jude Medical, and some older spinal cord stimulation systems may carry the St. Jude Medical name.

Medtronic spinal cord stimulation systems include products in the Intellis, Vanta, Inceptiv, Restore, Itrel and related product families.

Nevro developed spinal cord stimulation systems including the Senza, Senza II, Senza Omnia and HFX/HFX iQ systems. Globus Medical completed its acquisition of Nevro in April 2025, after which Nevro became a wholly owned subsidiary.

Many patients may not remember the manufacturer or exact model of their spinal cord stimulator. That does not necessarily prevent them from having a potential claim evaluated. The manufacturer and model can often be determined from a spinal cord stimulator identification card, implantation records, operative reports, hospital records, pain-management records, device programming or interrogation records and/or records from the manufacturer’s representative.

If you suffered a serious spinal cord stimulator complication but do not know which device you received, an attorney investigating spinal cord stimulator lawsuits may be able to help you obtain this information.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Recalls and Safety Warnings

Spinal cord stimulation systems and components from several manufacturers have been subject to FDA recalls or manufacturer corrections over the years, including, for example:

  • Boston Scientific Infinion CX – 2026 Class I Recall: The FDA classified a recall involving Infinion CX SCS leads after identifying the possibility of stress at the anchor site resulting in high impedance or lead fracture and potentially requiring explant and replacement.
  • Boston Scientific Clik X Anchor – 2026 Class II Recall: Boston Scientific recalled certain Clik X Anchors used with spinal cord stimulation systems because affected sterile anchors may lack adequate sterility assurance
  • Abbott Eterna – 2025 Class II Recall: Certain Eterna SCS implantable pulse generators were recalled because of a potential loss of communication with the clinician programmer or patient controller.
  • Medtronic Vanta – 2024 Class II Recall: The FDA recall involved the Medtronic Vanta Implantable Neurostimulator, Model 977006. Medtronic reported that battery life could deplete faster than physicians or patients expected, potentially leading to outpatient reprogramming or earlier-than-anticipated surgical replacement.
  • Boston Scientific WaveWriter Alpha – 2024 Class II Recall: The FDA classified a recall involving Boston Scientific WaveWriter Alpha SC-1216 and SC-1232 implantable pulse generators. During charging, a routine system check could cause the IPG to reset, resulting in a temporary loss of stimulation. The FDA said patients could experience undesired sensations when therapy shut off for approximately 10–15 seconds and restarted, potentially leading some patients to request surgical replacement or revision.
  • Abbott Proclaim – 2023 Class I Recall: Certain Proclaim and related neurostimulation implantable pulse generators were subject to a Class I recall involving inability to exit MRI mode under certain circumstances.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit & Settlement News and Updates

Recent updates about spinal cord stimulator lawsuits and settlements include:

  • September 2026: Spinal cord stimulator litigation continues to expand beyond the existing Boston Scientific multidistrict litigation. The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has scheduled a September 24, 2026 hearing in Chicago to consider separate requests to create manufacturer-specific MDLs for lawsuits involving Abbott Laboratories and Nevro Corporation spinal cord stimulators. The Abbott proceeding has been assigned proposed MDL No. 3194, while the Nevro proceeding is proposed as MDL No. 3195.
  • August 2026: On August 18, the court also entered case-management and direct-filing procedures, allowing new qualifying Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulator lawsuits to be filed directly in the Central District of California rather than first being filed elsewhere and later transferred through the JPML
  • July 2026: On July 14, 2026, a federal judge in Minnesota issued an order involving four plaintiffs who brought product-liability claims involving Medtronic spinal cord stimulators. The court dismissed the claims of three plaintiffs and most of the fourth plaintiff’s claims based on statutes of limitation, federal preemption, and other grounds. However, the court allowed portions of one plaintiff’s claims to proceed where they alleged a parallel manufacturing defect involving a Medtronic device implanted in 2024. The ruling illustrates the role that FDA preemption, device-manufacturing allegations, and state limitation periods may play in spinal cord stimulator lawsuits.
  • June 2026: On June 5, 2026, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued an order creating a federal MDL for Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulator lawsuits, but rejected a broader industry-wide MDL that would have combined lawsuits involving Abbott, Nevro, Medtronic, and Boston Scientific. The new proceeding is styled as MDL No. 3181, In re Boston Scientific Corporation Spinal Cord Stimulator Products Liability Litigation. It is assigned to Judge Josephine L. Staton in the Central District of California. The JPML found that Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulator lawsuits raise substantial common factual questions concerning the company’s FDA approval and PMA supplement practices, alleged failures to disclose device risks, the performance of its SCS products, and allegations that company sales representatives routinely participated in aspects of implantation, programming, and device adjustment. Following the JPML’s decision not to combine different manufacturers into one industry-wide litigation, plaintiffs sought separate proceedings for other manufacturers. A motion seeking creation of Abbott Laboratories Spinal Cord Stimulator Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3194, asked the JPML to centralize federal Abbott cases involving allegations such as painful electrical stimulation, burns, battery problems, lead migration, neurological injuries, and revision or removal surgery. Plaintiffs also filed a motion on June 26, 2026 seeking creation of Nevro Corporation Spinal Cord Stimulator Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3195.
  • May 2026: On May 28, 2026, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation heard arguments concerning whether federal spinal cord stimulator lawsuits should be consolidated for coordinated pretrial proceedings.
  • February 2026: On February 20, 2026, attorneys representing individuals alleging injuries from spinal cord stimulation devices filed an initial motion asking the JPML to coordinate federal spinal cord stimulator product-liability cases. The original request involved lawsuits against Boston Scientific and Abbott and argued that centralized proceedings would reduce duplicative discovery, avoid inconsistent pretrial rulings, and provide a more efficient way to address common factual and legal questions concerning the devices.
What is a spinal cord stimulator?

What Is A Spinal Cord Stimulator?

A spinal cord stimulator is an implanted neurostimulation device used to help manage certain forms of chronic pain. A typical spinal cord stimulation system contains an implantable pulse generator (IPG), lead wires, electrode stimulators, controllers/remotes and programmers:

  • Implantable Pulse Generator (IPG): A small battery-powered device generally implanted beneath the skin, often in the buttock, flank or abdominal region.
  • Leads: Thin insulated wires positioned in the epidural space near the spinal cord.
  • Electrodes: Electrical contacts on the leads that deliver stimulation to selected nerve structures.
  • Patient Controller or Remote: Allows the patient to turn therapy on or off and, depending on the system, adjust certain approved stimulation settings.
  • Clinician Programmer: Allows medical professionals to program stimulation patterns and settings.

Types of Spinal Cord Stimulators

Spinal cord stimulators come in several different types. While they all work by delivering electrical stimulation near the spinal cord to help reduce chronic pain, the way the stimulation is delivered and the type of implanted hardware can vary.

Common types of spinal cord stimulators include:

  • Traditional or Tonic Stimulators: Deliver low-frequency electrical pulses and may produce a tingling sensation known as paresthesia.
  • High-Frequency Stimulators: Deliver stimulation at higher frequencies and are generally designed to provide pain relief without noticeable tingling.
  • Burst Stimulators: Deliver electrical stimulation in short bursts rather than continuously.
  • Closed-Loop Stimulators: Automatically adjust stimulation levels based on feedback from the nervous system.
  • Rechargeable Stimulators: Use an implanted battery that the patient periodically recharges through the skin.
  • Non-Rechargeable Stimulators: Use a battery that does not require charging but may eventually require surgical replacement.

Spinal cord stimulator systems may also use different types of leads. Percutaneous leads are thin wires inserted into the epidural space, while paddle leads are larger electrode arrays that generally require a more invasive surgical procedure to implant.

Why Are Spinal Cord Stimulators Used?

Spinal cord stimulators may be used to treat chronic, difficult-to-manage pain that has not responded adequately to more conservative treatment.

Depending on the device and its FDA-approved indications, spinal cord stimulation may be used for conditions such as:

  • Chronic low-back pain
  • Chronic leg pain
  • Failed back surgery syndrome
  • Post-laminectomy pain
  • Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS)
  • Neuropathic pain
  • Diabetic peripheral neuropathy
  • Other chronic intractable pain conditions

How Does A Spinal Cord Stimulator Work?

Chronic pain signals travel through nerves and the spinal cord before being interpreted by the brain.

Spinal cord stimulation attempts to alter this pain signaling by delivering electrical impulses near the spinal cord. Depending on the system, stimulation may use conventional tonic stimulation, burst patterns, high-frequency stimulation or other proprietary waveforms.

The implanted pulse generator sends electrical energy through the leads to electrodes positioned near selected spinal nerves. Programming can be adjusted to try to obtain pain relief while limiting unwanted stimulation.

Before receiving a permanent implant, many patients undergo a temporary spinal cord stimulator trial. If the trial provides sufficient pain relief, the patient may proceed with implantation of a permanent system.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Injuries & Complications - Risks and Possible Adverse Outcomes

Spinal Cord Stimulator Injuries & Complications

Spinal cord stimulators can provide meaningful pain relief for some patients, but complications may occur after implantation.

Reported spinal cord stimulator problems include lead migration or fracture, painful electrical shocks or burning sensations, loss of stimulation, worsening pain, infection, battery or charging problems, nerve injury, neurological symptoms and other complications. In some cases, patients may require additional procedures to reposition or replace leads, revise the implanted system, or completely remove the spinal cord stimulator.

Spinal cord stimulator complications and injuries might include the following, for example:

  • Spinal Cord Stimulator Revision Surgery: One of the most significant factors in evaluating a potential spinal cord stimulator lawsuit may be whether the patient required additional surgery because of an alleged device problem or serious complication. Some patients require additional surgery to repair or revise a spinal cord stimulation system after implantation. Spinal cord stimulator revision procedures may include: lead repositioning, lead replacement, repair of migrated leads, replacement of fractured leads, replacement of anchors, replacement of the implantable pulse generator, battery replacement, treatment of an infection, repair of complications from implantation and/or complete removal of the spinal cord stimulation system. Revision surgery exposes a patient to additional surgical risks and may lead to additional pain, recovery time, medical expenses and lost income.
  • Spinal Cord Stimulator Explant or Removal Surgery: An explant is surgery to remove some or all of an implanted spinal cord stimulation system. Patients may undergo explant surgery because of severe or persistent pain infection, lead migration, lead fracture, device malfunction, battery or charging problems, painful electrical stimulation, loss of therapeutic benefit, neurological complications, need for another medical procedure and/or patient intolerance of the device. The generator and leads may both need to be removed. Depending on lead type, placement, scar tissue and the patient’s medical condition, spinal cord stimulator removal can itself be a significant surgical procedure. Removal of an implanted system requires another surgical procedure and may leave the patient without the pain treatment for which the device was originally implanted.
  • Spinal Cord Injury or Paralysis From Stimulator: Spinal cord injury is among the most serious potential complications associated with spinal cord stimulator implantation or treatment. Injury to the spinal cord can result in weakness, loss of sensation, impaired mobility, partial paralysis, complete paralysis, and substantial loss of independence. Patients suffering a significant spinal cord injury may require hospitalization, rehabilitation, assistive devices, home modifications, and long-term medical care. Cases involving permanent neurological impairment may represent some of the most serious spinal cord stimulator injury claims.
  • Neurological Injury or Nerve Damage From Spinal Cord Stimulator: Because spinal cord stimulator leads are positioned near sensitive neurological structures, serious complications associated with implantation or device problems may involve nerves or the spinal cord. Reported or alleged neurological complications include nerve damage, increased neuropathic pain, numbness, tingling, muscle weakness, difficulty walking, loss of sensation, bladder dysfunction, bowel dysfunction, autonomic dysfunction, spinal cord injury, partial paralysis or complete paralysis. Neurological testing, specialist examinations, imaging, and rehabilitation records may be important in documenting the nature and permanence of the injury.
  • Loss of Bowel or Bladder Function From Stimulator: New bowel or bladder dysfunction following spinal cord stimulator implantation or complications can indicate a potentially significant neurological injury. Patients may experience urinary retention, incontinence, loss of bowel control, or changes in normal bladder or bowel sensation. Because these symptoms can be associated with serious nerve or spinal cord problems, they typically require prompt neurological or surgical evaluation.
  • Lead Migration from Spinal Cord Stimulator: Lead migration occurs when an implanted spinal cord stimulator lead moves away from the position in which it was originally placed. Because the electrodes need to stimulate particular neural structures, even a relatively small change in lead position may alter where stimulation is felt. Lead migration may result in: loss of pain relief, stimulation in the wrong part of the body, painful or unexpected stimulation, repeated device reprogramming, worsening pain, need for imaging, surgical lead repositioning, lead replacement or complete device removal.
  • Lead Fracture from Spinal Cord Stimulator: A spinal cord stimulator lead may potentially fracture or otherwise become damaged. Lead damage can interfere with the electrical circuit between the implanted pulse generator and the electrodes. This can cause abnormal impedance readings, loss of stimulation or inconsistent stimulation. Possible signs of a lead problem include: sudden loss of pain relief, intermittent stimulation, unexpected changes in stimulation, painful stimulation, abnormal device interrogation results, high impedance readings, need for repeated reprogramming or revision or replacement surgery.
  • Device or Generator Migration: Device migration occurs when the implanted pulse generator, or IPG, shifts, rotates, flips, or moves from the pocket where it was originally placed. This can cause pain, tenderness, pressure under the skin, charging difficulties, irritation, or tension on the connected leads. In more serious cases, the generator may become visibly prominent or move enough to interfere with normal device function. Patients with significant device migration may require surgical repositioning, pocket revision, generator replacement, or complete removal of the spinal cord stimulator.
  • Overstimulation: Overstimulation occurs when a spinal cord stimulator delivers electrical stimulation that is excessively strong, uncomfortable, or painful. Patients may describe severe tingling, jolting, electric-shock sensations, burning, muscle contractions, or sudden increases in pain. Overstimulation may result from programming changes, lead migration, hardware problems, or other issues affecting how stimulation is delivered. Cases involving repeated or severe overstimulation may be particularly significant when the symptoms cause the patient to stop using the device, seek emergency or neurological treatment, request removal, or undergo revision or explant surgery.
  • Unintended Stimulation: Unintended stimulation occurs when a spinal cord stimulator delivers electrical stimulation in an unexpected location or in a manner different from what the patient normally experiences. Patients may feel tingling, pulsing, shocking, or other sensations outside the intended treatment area. Unintended stimulation may be associated with lead migration, changes in body position, programming problems, damaged leads, or other device-related issues. Persistent unintended stimulation can require repeated reprogramming, device shutoff, revision surgery, or removal of the stimulator.
  • Electric Shocks, Jolting and Burning from Spinal Cord Stimulator: Some spinal cord stimulator injury claims involve allegations of unexpectedly strong or painful electrical stimulation, including sudden electrical shocks, jolting sensations, burning sensations, shooting pain, radiating pain, muscle contractions, pain around the implanted generator or pain traveling down the legs or through other areas of the body.
  • Infection From Spinal Cord Stimulator: Implantation of a spinal cord stimulator requires surgery and placement of foreign material inside the body. Infection can therefore occur around the incision, leads or implanted pulse generator. Serious infections may require: oral or IV antibiotics, hospitalization, drainage, surgical debridement, removal of infected hardware, complete spinal cord stimulator explant and/or treatment for bloodstream infection or sepsis. Signs of possible spinal cord stimulator infection may include redness, swelling, warmth, drainage, worsening pain, fever, chills or opening of the surgical incision.
  • Cerebrospinal Fluid Leak: A cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak can occur if the protective membrane surrounding the spinal cord is punctured during spinal cord stimulator lead placement, revision, or another related procedure. The resulting leak may cause severe positional headaches that worsen when sitting or standing, nausea, neck pain, dizziness, or other neurological symptoms. Some CSF leaks resolve with conservative treatment, while more serious or persistent cases may require an epidural blood patch, hospitalization, surgical repair, or additional procedures.
  • Device Malfunction Requiring Permanent Shutoff: In some cases, a spinal cord stimulator may remain implanted but be turned off indefinitely because continued use causes pain, abnormal stimulation, neurological symptoms, or other problems. A medically documented permanent or long-term shutoff may be significant, particularly when a physician recommends that the patient stop using the device or when removal is being considered but has not yet occurred.
  • Worsening Back, Leg, or Neuropathic Pain: A spinal cord stimulator is generally implanted to reduce chronic pain, but some patients report that their pain became significantly worse after implantation or following a device problem. Worsening pain may involve the lower back, legs, implant site, or areas receiving unintended stimulation. Persistent pain that requires substantial additional treatment, repeated reprogramming, surgery, or device removal may be more significant than temporary discomfort following implantation.
  • Muscle Weakness, Numbness, or Difficulty Walking: Patients experiencing spinal cord stimulator complications may develop weakness, numbness, abnormal sensation, balance problems, or difficulty walking. These symptoms may indicate irritation or injury involving nerves or the spinal cord and may require neurological evaluation, imaging, physical therapy, or rehabilitation. Persistent or progressive symptoms supported by medical records are generally more significant than short-term postoperative symptoms that resolve without treatment.
  • Battery, Charging, or Generator Failure Requiring Replacement: Problems with the implantable pulse generator can include premature battery depletion, inability to recharge the device, communication failures, or other malfunctions that prevent normal stimulation. Some problems can be corrected through programming or technical support, while others require surgical replacement of the implanted generator. Some generator or battery problems can result in then need for another surgery.
  • Loss of Stimulation or Loss of Pain Relief: A spinal cord stimulator may stop providing the pain relief it originally produced. Loss of therapy can result from lead migration, lead fracture, battery problems, device malfunction, or other causes. Loss of effectiveness alone may not necessarily indicate a strong injury claim, but it becomes more significant when accompanied by a documented hardware problem, repeated unsuccessful reprogramming, revision surgery, or explantation.
  • Permanent Disability: Serious spinal cord stimulator complications may, in some cases, result in permanent disability. A patient may be left with lasting neurological deficits, chronic pain, weakness, impaired mobility, loss of sensation, bowel or bladder dysfunction, or other limitations that interfere with work and normal daily activities. Permanent disability may require ongoing medical treatment, rehabilitation, assistive devices, home modifications, or long-term personal care.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Injury Signs and Symptoms

Signs and symptoms of spinal cord stimulator injuries or complications can include:

  • Sudden worsening of pain
  • New pain after implantation
  • Electric-shock sensations
  • Jolting
  • Burning pain
  • Stimulation in unexpected locations
  • Inability to feel stimulation
  • Loss of pain relief
  • Intermittent stimulation
  • Pain around the battery or generator
  • Device movement beneath the skin
  • Numbness
  • Tingling
  • Weakness
  • Difficulty walking
  • Bowel or bladder changes
  • Fever
  • Chills
  • Redness or swelling at the implant site
  • Drainage from an incision
  • Problems charging the device
  • Problems communicating with the controller
  • Error messages
  • Inability to enter or exit MRI mode
  • Repeated need for device reprogramming
  • Other symptoms or signs of spinal cord stimulator injury

Medical Treatment For Spinal Cord Stimulator Injuries

Medical treatment for spinal cord stimulator injuries depends upon the particular device problem and injury suffered and might include:

  • Hospitalization: Some spinal cord stimulator complications can become serious enough to require hospitalization. Patients may be admitted for severe infection, uncontrolled pain, neurological symptoms, spinal cord or nerve injury, complications from lead migration or fracture, cerebrospinal fluid leak, or problems requiring urgent revision or removal of the device. Hospital treatment may include diagnostic imaging, intravenous medications or antibiotics, neurological evaluation, surgical consultation, device interrogation, or additional procedures. A hospitalization that is medically linked to a spinal cord stimulator complication can be an important indicator of injury severity.
  • Emergency Room Treatment: Some spinal cord stimulator complications may require emergency room treatment, particularly when a patient experiences severe pain, sudden neurological symptoms, electric shocks, weakness, loss of bowel or bladder control, signs of infection, wound complications, or suspected device malfunction. Emergency evaluation may include imaging, laboratory testing, neurological examination, pain treatment, device assessment, or consultation with a surgeon or pain specialist. ER treatment can be an important indicator of the seriousness and urgency of a spinal cord stimulator complication.
  • Intensive Care Unit Admission: The most serious spinal cord stimulator complications may require treatment in an intensive care unit. ICU admission may occur in cases involving severe infection or sepsis, major neurological injury, respiratory or cardiovascular instability, serious postoperative complications, or other life-threatening conditions. Patients admitted to the ICU may require continuous monitoring, intravenous medications, emergency procedures, surgery, or other advanced medical treatment.
  • Surgery: Some spinal cord stimulator complications require additional surgery after the original implantation procedure. Surgery may be necessary to reposition or replace migrated or fractured leads, repair hardware problems, replace the implantable pulse generator, treat infection, correct wound or pocket complications, repair a cerebrospinal fluid leak, or completely remove the spinal cord stimulator. The need for another operation can be an important indicator that a complication was significant, particularly when the procedure was performed because of a documented device malfunction, neurological injury, infection, or persistent painful stimulation. Additional surgery may also lead to further recovery time, medical expenses, lost income, and exposure to new surgical risks.
  • Doctor, Specialist, and Outpatient Visits: Patients experiencing spinal cord stimulator complications may require repeated outpatient visits with pain-management physicians, surgeons, neurologists, primary care doctors, infectious-disease specialists, physical medicine and rehabilitation physicians, or other medical providers. These visits may involve evaluation of new or worsening symptoms, device interrogation, medication management, wound checks, neurological examinations, imaging review, reprogramming, or discussions about revision or removal of the stimulator.
  • Device Interrogation and Reprogramming: Doctors or authorized device specialists may first evaluate the implanted system and attempt to correct stimulation problems through reprogramming.
  • Generator Replacement: Battery failure, communication problems or other IPG complications may require surgical replacement of the implanted generator.
  • Imaging and Diagnostic Testing: Patients experiencing complications from a spinal cord stimulator may undergo imaging and other diagnostic testing to determine whether the device, leads, or surrounding tissues are contributing to their symptoms. Testing may include X-rays, CT scans, device interrogation, impedance testing, neurological examinations, laboratory testing, or other studies used to evaluate lead migration, lead fracture, infection, hardware malfunction, or neurological injury. In some cases, MRI testing may be limited by the type or condition of the implanted spinal cord stimulator. Objective diagnostic findings can be particularly important in documenting the nature and severity of a potential device-related complication.
  • Medication: Medication may be used to treat pain, infection, inflammation, muscle spasms, nerve symptoms, or other complications associated with a spinal cord stimulator. Treatment may include prescription pain medications, neuropathic pain drugs, muscle relaxants, anti-inflammatory medications, oral or intravenous antibiotics, or other medications depending on the patient’s symptoms. Medication treatment alone generally indicates a less severe complication than revision surgery, explantation, hospitalization, or other invasive treatment, but it may become more significant when medications are required for an extended period or fail to control persistent symptoms.
  • Physical Therapy, Occupational Therapy, and Rehabilitation: Patients who develop weakness, impaired mobility, balance problems, chronic pain, nerve damage, or other neurological complications after spinal cord stimulator treatment may require physical therapy, occupational therapy, or more intensive rehabilitation. Physical therapy may focus on restoring strength, walking ability, flexibility, and mobility, while occupational therapy can help patients regain the ability to perform everyday activities such as dressing, bathing, working, or caring for themselves. More serious injuries may require inpatient or outpatient rehabilitation over an extended period. The need for prolonged therapy or rehabilitation can be an important indicator of lasting functional impairment when evaluating the severity of a spinal cord stimulator injury.
  • Long-Term Support and Disability-Related Needs: Patients who suffer serious or permanent complications from a spinal cord stimulator may require ongoing medical care and long-term support well after the initial injury or corrective treatment. Depending on the severity of the condition, this may include continued pain management, neurological care, rehabilitation, home health services, personal assistance, mobility equipment, assistive devices, and modifications to the home, vehicle, or workplace. Patients with significant neurological injury, weakness, paralysis, chronic pain, or loss of independence may also require help with daily activities or future attendant care. The need for long-term support can be an important indicator of permanent disability and may substantially increase the medical expenses, future care costs, and other damages associated with a spinal cord stimulator injury claim.
Compensation Possible For Spinal Cord Stimulator Injury Lawsuit Cases

Compensation For Spinal Cord Stimulator Injury Cases

Plaintiffs who bring successful spinal cord stimulator lawsuits may be able to recover compensation for the injuries and harm suffered, including money damages for:

  • Pain and suffering
  • Loss of wages or earnings due to missed work
  • Loss of future earning capacity
  • Medical care expenses incurred or to be incurred
  • Other out of pocket expenses
  • Loss of quality or enjoyment of life
  • Permanent disability
  • Mental anguish/emotional distress
  • Loss of consortium
  • Other possible monetary damages

The amount of compensation that may be recovered in a spinal cord stimulator lawsuit depends on the specific facts of each case, including the nature and severity of the injury, medical expenses, lost income, future treatment needs, permanent disability, pain and suffering, and the strength of the evidence linking the injury to the device or other responsible party. Some cases may result in substantial settlements or verdicts, while others may result in significantly smaller recoveries or no recovery at all. No settlement, verdict, compensation amount, or other financial recovery is guaranteed, and past results in spinal cord stimulator or other medical-device cases do not predict the outcome of any individual claim.

Time Is Limited To File A Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit

Deadlines called statutes of limitation and statutes of repose may limit the amount of time that individuals have to file a spinal cord stimulator lawsuit to try to recover compensation for injuries they claimed to have suffered after having a spinal cord stimulator implanted.

This means that if a spinal cord stimulator lawsuit case is not filed before the applicable time limit or deadline, the claimant may be prohibited from ever pursuing litigation or taking legal action regarding the spinal cord stimulator injury claim. That is why it is important to connect with a spinal cord stimulator injury lawyer or attorney as soon as possible.

If you (or a loved one) suffered injury or complications from a spinal cord stimulator, you may be entitled to recover compensation from a spinal cord stimulator lawsuit case or settlement claim. Contact a medical device injury lawyer to request a free case review.

*This page is for informational purposes only and is not medical advice. Medical decisions should be made with a qualified healthcare provider. If you or a loved one are experiencing health issues or complications from a spinal cord stimulator, we urge you to promptly consult with your doctor or physician for an evaluation.

**This page provides general information about spinal cord stimulator lawsuits. It is not legal advice and should not be relied on as a substitute for speaking with an attorney. Reading this page or submitting a form does not create an attorney-client relationship, or any obligation to pursue a claim. Spinal cord stimulator lawsuit eligibility, deadlines, and potential compensation depend on the specific facts of each case and other factors. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. If you believe you may have a claim, you should speak with an attorney as soon as possible because legal deadlines may limit the time to file a lawsuit.

***The listing of a company (e.g., Boston Scientific, Abbott Laboratories, St. Jude Medical, Medtronic, Nevro, Globus Medical) or product (e.g., Proclaim XR, Proclaim Plus, Proclaim Elite, Proclaim DRG, Eterna, WaveWriter Alpha, WaveWriter Alpha Prime, Spectra WaveWriter, Precision, Precision Montage, Infinion, Intellis, Intellis Pro, Inceptiv, Vanta, Restore, Itrel, Senza, Senza II, Senza Omnia, HFX, HFX iQ or other spinal cord stimulator systems) is not meant to state or imply that the company acted illegally or improperly or that the product is unsafe or defective; rather only that an investigation may be, is or was being conducted to determine whether legal rights have been violated. The use of any trademarks, tradenames or service marks is solely for product identification and/or informational purposes.

Fill out the form to request a free attorney review.

"*" indicates required fields

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Have You or A Loved One Suffered Injury or Complications After Having A Spinal Cord Stimulator Implanted?
You May Be Entitled To Recover Money From A Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit Case or Settlement Claim!
Fill out this form to request a free case review by an injury lawyer.

Have You or A Loved One Suffered Injury or Complications From a Spinal Cord Stimulator - Form Question?
Spinal Cord Stimulator Injury Lawsuit & Settlement Cases - Form Title
after spinal cord stimulator was implanted, did you (or a loved one) suffer from:
brand of spinal cord stimulator (if known):
date when spinal cord stimulator was implanted:
date complications started:
medical treatment received:
date of revision or removal surgery (if applicable)
terms & conditions*