Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit
- Last Updated: July 14th, 2025
Attorney Jessica Paluch-Hoerman, founder of TruLaw, has over 28 years of experience as a personal injury and mass tort attorney, and previously worked as an international tax attorney at Deloitte. Jessie collaborates with attorneys nationwide — enabling her to share reliable, up-to-date legal information with our readers.
Legally Reviewed
This article has been written and reviewed for legal accuracy and clarity by the team of writers and legal experts at TruLaw and is as accurate as possible. This content should not be taken as legal advice from an attorney. If you would like to learn more about our owner and experienced injury lawyer, Jessie Paluch, you can do so here.
Fact-Checked
TruLaw does everything possible to make sure the information in this article is up to date and accurate. If you need specific legal advice about your case, contact us by using the chat on the bottom of this page. This article should not be taken as advice from an attorney.
Spinal Cord Stimulator Injury Claims
Our law firm is actively investigating Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit claims from individuals across all fifty (50) states in the United States.
Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit claims center on device malfunctions, inadequate risk warnings, and severe complications that have left patients facing new or worsened pain, additional surgeries, and, in some cases, permanent injuries or even death.
TruLaw and our partner law firms are investigating injuries related to spinal cord stimulator implants.
This page provides the most recent news and updates on the Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit.
You will not get more updated news on the Spinal Cord Stimulator investigation anywhere else.
On this page, we’ll discuss Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit claims, potential injury risks related to spinal cord stimulation, how spinal cord stimulators work, how Spinal Stimulator Lawsuit claims are pursued, and much more.
Do You Qualify for a Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit?
Spinal cord stimulators are medical devices implanted to manage chronic pain by delivering electrical impulses to the spinal cord, aiming to disrupt pain signals before they reach the brain.
A spinal cord stimulator operation is typically considered when other treatments have failed to provide relief.
Spinal cord stimulator implantation involves placing electrodes near the spinal cord and a pulse generator under the skin, allowing patients to control the intensity of stimulation.
However, while spinal cord stimulators can offer significant pain relief, they also carry risks such as infection, lead migration, device malfunction, and, in some cases, worsening pain or neurological complications.
Injuries can occur due to surgical errors, device defects, or improper patient selection, leading to serious health issues.
Given these concerns, our law firm is actively investigating injury claims related to spinal cord stimulator devices to support affected individuals in seeking justice and compensation.
If you’ve suffered severe injuries such as spinal cord injuries, severe back pain, or other complications related to a spinal cord stimulator, our law firm is here to help you explore your legal options and seek the compensation you deserve.
Contact TruLaw today for a free consultation.
Use the chat feature on this page for an instant case evaluation to find out if you qualify for a Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit instantly.
For countless patients and their families, the promise of relief from spinal cord stimulators has instead led to a harrowing cycle of pain, injury, and, in the most heartbreaking cases, loss of life.
Manufacturers of medical devices bear a vital responsibility to ensure their products are safe and to provide clear warnings about any known risks.
Attorneys are actively investigating cases involving defective spinal cord stimulators, striving to hold manufacturers accountable and secure justice for individuals and families who have suffered due to these device failures.
Table of Contents
Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit Updates Timeline
A newly filed lawsuit targets both the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and leading medical device manufacturers over alleged defects in spinal cord stimulators that have caused severe patient injuries.
Plaintiffs claim the devices led to electric shocks, nerve damage, worsening chronic pain, and in some cases, required surgical removal.
The lawsuit alleges that the FDA improperly used the Premarket Approval (PMA) supplement process to allow manufacturers to modify spinal cord stimulators without adequate safety testing or public warnings.
Device makers named in the spinal cord stimulator lawsuit include Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Abbott/St. Jude, and Nevro.
According to the complaint, both the FDA and the manufacturers failed to act despite thousands of adverse event reports, including nearly 500 deaths and over 40 product recalls.
Plaintiffs argue that the FDA permitted significant design and functionality changes without requiring new clinical trials, allowing potentially unsafe devices to remain on the market.
Since 2008, the FDA has received more than 80,000 spinal cord stimulator injury reports, with multiple Class I recalls issued for models from Abbott and Boston Scientific due to serious defect risks.
The case is notable for naming a federal agency as a defendant, a rare legal move that may raise complex immunity and jurisdictional questions.
Australian health regulators are weighing new restrictions on spinal cord stimulators following renewed concerns over their safety and long-term effectiveness.
The review by Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) follows a 2023 study published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, which found that spinal cord stimulation provides little to no sustained relief for chronic back pain.
The study analyzed multiple clinical trials and concluded that the devices—designed to disrupt pain signals with electrical pulses—performed only slightly better than placebo.
Researchers also noted a high rate of complications, including infections, lead migration, device malfunctions, and frequent surgical removals.
In response, health experts in Australia are calling for tighter regulations or possible withdrawal of the devices from the market, citing that the risks often outweigh the benefits.
This international scrutiny may have implications for the U.S., where spinal cord stimulator lawsuits are already being filed over similar safety concerns.
While the FDA has not taken formal action, growing global pressure could lead to expanded regulatory review or new clinical guidelines in the U.S.
An increasing number of lawsuits claim that rechargeable spinal cord stimulators (SCS) are prone to critical battery malfunctions that can disrupt therapy, cause unexpected pain, or necessitate emergency removal procedures.
Focus on Rechargeable Battery Defects
A widely cited 2011 recall involving St. Jude’s Eon and Eon Mini implants exposed battery weld defects that leaked electrolyte, leading to charging failures, overheating, and sudden power loss—complications that often required urgent explant surgery.
Recent legal filings suggest similar battery-related failures occur with devices produced by leading manufacturers such as Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Abbott, with patients reporting sudden malfunctions and the need for corrective surgeries.
Patient Impact: More Than Just an Inconvenience
When an SCS battery fails, the resulting therapy disruption can cause a painful return of chronic symptoms—and in some cases, patients experience intense shocks or burns as a result of the malfunction.
Charging-related overheating adds another layer of physical risk for users of these devices.
Signs of Potential Battery Failure
Patients should be alert to symptoms such as sudden therapy shutdowns, failure to hold a charge, or challenges recharging the device.
Other red flags include excessive heat or unusual sensations at the implant site during recharging sessions.
Anyone experiencing these warning signs should consult their healthcare provider immediately, as defective SCS batteries may need to be examined or removed to avoid serious injury.
TruLaw continues to monitor developments in spinal cord stimulator litigation as more patients come forward with device-related injuries.
On May 27, 2025, U.S. News & World Report featured AposHealth® and its CEO, Dr. Cliff Bleustein, in an article exploring emerging technologies aimed at reducing reliance on opioids.
While AposHealth’s new wearable device is non-invasive, Dr. Bleustein used the opportunity to also promote a new spinal cord stimulator developed by Abbott, describing the broader initiative as “a revolution in care” for chronic pain management.
However, Abbott’s spinal cord stimulator—like many devices in its category—has faced growing scrutiny.
These implantable devices are designed to deliver electrical impulses to the spinal cord, interrupting pain signals to the brain.
Yet despite being marketed as innovative, they carry a well-documented history of adverse outcomes and mixed clinical results.
Spinal cord stimulators, including those produced by Abbott, have been associated with serious complications such as nerve damage, electrical shocks, burns, lead migration, and increased or unresolved pain.
Thousands of adverse event reports have been submitted to the FDA, underscoring the frequency and severity of these issues.
Abbott and other manufacturers are currently facing lawsuits alleging that their stimulators are defective and were inadequately labeled regarding potential dangers.
Plaintiffs claim the devices were promoted without appropriate warnings, leaving patients unaware of the risks.
Moreover, independent studies have found limited scientific evidence supporting the long-term effectiveness of spinal cord stimulators.
Despite their widespread use, the medical community lacks clear consensus on whether these devices provide meaningful benefit to chronic pain sufferers.
As more devices enter the market under the banner of opioid alternatives, legal and regulatory scrutiny is expected to intensify.
Patients who experience harm due to defective or malfunctioning spinal cord stimulators may have grounds for legal action.
Spinal cord stimulators (SCS) are implantable devices used to manage chronic pain by sending electrical impulses to the spinal cord, altering pain signals before they reach the brain.
Although designed to provide relief, these devices have been linked to various complications and adverse events.
Spinal cord stimulators have become a popular alternative to opioid medications for pain management, often recommended for patients who have not found relief with other treatments.
The implantation process involves placing electrodes near the spinal cord and a pulse generator under the skin, allowing patients to control stimulation intensity.
Common Complaints and Injuries:
Despite their benefits, spinal cord stimulators are associated with several adverse effects, including:
- Device Malfunction and Migration: Electrodes may move, causing ineffective pain relief or stimulation of unintended areas, requiring further surgery.
- Infections: Surgical implantation carries infection risks, which can become severe if not addressed quickly.
- Neurological Damage: Incorrect placement or malfunctioning devices may cause nerve injuries, resulting in numbness, tingling, or loss of function.
- Pain and Overstimulation: Some patients experience increased pain or discomfort due to device malfunction, leading to overstimulation and injury to nearby nerves or tissues.
- Serious Adverse Events: The FDA has received reports of severe complications, such as paralysis, sepsis, and even death, linked to spinal cord stimulators.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has received numerous reports about adverse events related to spinal cord stimulators, raising safety concerns and questions about the adequacy of pre-market evaluations.
From 2004 to 2019, the FDA documented 220,374 reports, including 156,817 injuries and 931 deaths.
Many patients have filed lawsuits against manufacturers, claiming serious health issues due to these devices. Lawsuits typically involve:
- Product Liability: Allegations that the devices are defectively designed or manufactured, leading to unexpected complications.
- Failure to Warn: Claims that manufacturers did not sufficiently inform patients or healthcare providers about potential risks.
- Medical Malpractice: Cases where improper implantation or management by healthcare providers resulted in patient harm.
In August 2024, a New Jersey man received a $1.25 million settlement after suffering complications from a spinal cord stimulator.
If you or a loved one suffered complications from a Spinal Cord Stimulator, such as infection, device migration, malfunction, or neurological issues, you may be eligible to pursue legal action by filing a Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit.
Contact TruLaw for a free consultation.
Use the chatbot on this page to determine if you qualify to file a Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit and connect with a licensed attorney.
A medical malpractice lawsuit in Essex County, New Jersey, resulted in a $1.25 million settlement for Orlando Figueroa, a 61-year-old man who sustained partial paralysis and incontinence after spinal cord stimulator surgery.
The settlement, finalized on August 24, 2024, underscored critical failures in preoperative assessment and post-surgical care.
Figueroa sought treatment in April 2017 from neurosurgeon Dr. Antonios Mammis at University Hospital in Newark for severe lower back pain radiating into his legs, intermittent incontinence, and mobility challenges.
Despite these symptoms, Dr. Mammis recommended spinal cord stimulator surgery without obtaining preoperative diagnostic imaging.
The procedure was performed on May 22, 2017.
Following the surgery, Figueroa’s symptoms worsened, including significant incontinence and increased difficulty walking.
A CT scan conducted on May 26 revealed spinal cord compression caused by the stimulator.
Emergency surgery was performed to remove the device and address spinal canal narrowing with additional laminectomies.
However, Figueroa suffered permanent loss of bladder function and further reduced mobility in his lower extremities, leaving him more dependent on a wheelchair.
Figueroa filed suit against Dr. Mammis, University Hospital, and Rutgers University, alleging that the failure to perform preoperative imaging violated the standard of care.
His neurosurgery expert testified that the spinal canal was too narrow to safely accommodate the stimulator, resulting in compression and damage.
The defense argued that Figueroa’s preexisting conditions contributed to his outcome and that neurological complications are a known risk of spinal cord stimulator placement.
However, the plaintiff maintained that the lack of preoperative imaging and procedural mismanagement were primary.
If you or a loved one suffered complications from a Spinal Cord Stimulator, such as infection, device migration, malfunction, or neurological issues, you may be eligible to pursue legal action by filing a Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit.
Contact TruLaw for a free consultation.
Use the chatbot on this page to determine if you qualify to file a Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit and connect with a licensed attorney.
Abbott has recalled nearly 200,000 Proclaim and Infinity neurostimulation systems following reports of device failures in resuming therapy after MRI scans.
The FDA has classified the recall as Class I, its most serious category, indicating a risk of significant harm to patients.
The recall affects Proclaim spinal cord stimulators, dorsal root ganglion stimulators, and Infinity deep brain stimulators, which are used to treat chronic pain and movement disorders such as Parkinson’s disease and essential tremor.
The issue arises from the devices’ “MRI mode,” which disables therapy during imaging scans.
Failures occur when the implantable pulse generator (IPG) loses its Bluetooth connection to the Patient Controller app, preventing therapy from restarting.
This disruption, linked to 73 reported injuries, can result from deleted Bluetooth pairings, app damage or loss, or iOS upgrades on the paired Apple device while in MRI mode.
If the app cannot reconnect to the IPG, patients are unable to exit MRI mode, potentially requiring surgical removal and replacement of the device.
Abbott reported a global incidence rate of 0.06%, with nearly half of these cases necessitating corrective surgery.
The company has not disclosed the total number of complaints or whether injuries or fatalities have occurred.
In July, Abbott issued an urgent medical device correction letter to healthcare providers with updated guidance on managing MRI mode issues.
The letter advises patients to avoid deleting the Bluetooth connection, update their systems, and consult their physician before undergoing MRI scans.
If you or a loved one suffered complications from a Spinal Cord Stimulator, such as infection, device migration, malfunction, or neurological issues, you may be eligible to pursue legal action by filing a Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit.
Contact TruLaw for a free consultation.
Use the chatbot on this page to determine if you qualify to file a Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit and connect with a licensed attorney.
A Chatham County jury awarded $4.5 million in a medical malpractice case against a Savannah doctor who improperly implanted a spinal cord stimulator and failed to disclose the error to the patient.
The verdict, in the case of Amy E. Douglas v. Dr. Thomas Lawhorne III and Optim Orthopedics LLC, came after a five-day trial and just two hours of jury deliberation.
In September 2017, Dr. Lawhorne performed an unnecessary spinal cord stimulator implant surgery on Amy Douglas.
Trial evidence revealed there was no medical justification for the procedure, and the device was incorrectly implanted, damaging a spinal nerve root.
Despite recognizing the mistake, Dr. Lawhorne did not inform Ms. Douglas, document the error in her records, or notify his colleagues.
As a result of the misplaced device, Ms. Douglas experienced severe pain and underwent multiple corrective surgeries to remove the stimulator and address the damage.
She was dismissed from Dr. Lawhorne’s care during her first post-surgery visit, prompting her to pursue legal action.
Key Testimonies:
- Neurosurgeon Dr. John Sarzier, a former partner at Optim Orthopedics, testified on behalf of Ms. Douglas, explaining the corrective measures he took to repair the damage caused by the failed surgery. Dr. Sarzier was later dismissed from the practice.
- Dr. Lawhorne admitted during the trial that he implanted the device incorrectly, taking responsibility after jurors reviewed the substantial evidence and testimony presented.
If you or a loved one suffered complications from a Spinal Cord Stimulator, such as infection, device migration, malfunction, or neurological issues, you may be eligible to pursue legal action by filing a Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit.
Contact TruLaw for a free consultation.
Use the chatbot on this page to determine if you qualify to file a Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit and connect with a licensed attorney.
The safety and effectiveness of spinal cord stimulators are under scrutiny following a controversial study suggesting these devices may be no more effective than a placebo for treating certain types of chronic pain.
Private health insurers and independent scientists are urging Medicare to stop funding these expensive procedures, citing growing concerns about their efficacy and outcomes.
Spinal cord stimulators, designed to disrupt nerve signals and alleviate chronic pain, have become widely used, with the global market for these devices expected to reach nearly $3 billion by 2025.
However, a study published in JAMA found no significant differences in pain relief, disability, or quality of life between patients using active stimulators and those with deactivated devices.
The research, which included 50 Norwegian patients with chronic back and leg pain following spinal surgery, has sparked calls for stricter oversight.
Critics argue that much of the existing research supporting spinal cord stimulators is influenced by manufacturer funding, raising concerns about bias.
Dr. Adrian Traeger of the Institute for Musculoskeletal Health has recommended halting subsidies for these devices until further evidence is available, suggesting their use should be limited to clinical trials.
Patient experiences add to the controversy. Australian photographer Lou Whelan, for example, underwent two spinal cord stimulator implants that failed to provide relief and caused increased epidural scarring.
A recent investigation also revealed over 500 serious complications linked to these devices, many of which were life-threatening.
This mounting evidence highlights the need for greater regulatory oversight and more independent research to determine the true benefits and risks of spinal cord stimulators.
If you or a loved one suffered complications from a Spinal Cord Stimulator, such as infection, device migration, malfunction, or neurological issues, you may be eligible to pursue legal action by filing a Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit.
Contact TruLaw for a free consultation.
Use the chatbot on this page to determine if you qualify to file a Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit and connect with a licensed attorney.
The FDA has identified 428 patient deaths and tens of thousands of injuries and malfunctions linked to spinal cord stimulators (SCSs) in a recent letter to healthcare providers.
These findings raise significant concerns about the safety, effectiveness, and regulatory oversight of these devices, commonly used for chronic pain management.
Key Findings from the FDA:
- Between 2016 and 2020, the FDA received 107,728 Medical Device Reports (MDRs) related to spinal cord stimulators, including 428 patient deaths.
- Approximately 30% of adverse event reports cited inadequate pain relief, often attributed to improper adherence to trial stimulation protocols.
- Many deaths occurred within 30 days of implantation, with most patients presenting comorbidities. The average age of affected patients was 69 years.
- Common device issues included charging problems, consistent with long-term use of battery-powered stimulation devices.
These findings follow criticism from organizations like Public Citizen, which has accused the FDA of “dangerously lax oversight” of high-risk implantable medical devices, including SCSs.
Public Citizen has called for a reassessment of approved spinal cord stimulator models, stricter Premarket Approval (PMA) submissions for new devices, and reclassification of SCS devices into a higher-risk category.
If you or a loved one suffered complications from a Spinal Cord Stimulator, such as infection, device migration, malfunction, or neurological issues, you may be eligible to pursue legal action by filing a Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit.
Contact TruLaw for a free consultation.
Use the chatbot on this page to determine if you qualify to file a Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit and connect with a licensed attorney.
Spinal cord stimulators, commonly used for back pain management and promoted as a safer alternative to opioids, are now facing increased inspection over safety concerns.
An investigation by NBC News, in collaboration with the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, uncovered more than 80,000 injury reports related to these devices filed with the FDA.
Approximately 60,000 Americans receive spinal cord stimulators annually, highlighting their widespread use.
While these devices are designed to reduce opioid dependence, concerns about their safety and long-term effectiveness persist.
In response, the FDA has announced new safety goals for medical devices, emphasizing the need for stronger regulatory oversight.
This investigation exposes critical issues within the medical device industry, including the need for greater transparency and accountability.
Experts recommend caution when considering spinal cord stimulator implantation and stress the importance of thorough patient monitoring to address potential risks.
If you or a loved one suffered complications from a Spinal Cord Stimulator, such as infection, device migration, malfunction, or neurological issues, you may be eligible to pursue legal action by filing a Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit.
Contact TruLaw for a free consultation.
Use the chatbot on this page to determine if you qualify to file a Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit and connect with a licensed attorney.
Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit Overview
Spinal cord stimulators are widely used medical devices designed to manage chronic pain by delivering electrical impulses to the spinal cord, interrupting pain signals before they reach the brain.
While these devices can provide effective pain relief for many patients suffering from conditions like severe back pain, leg pain, or spinal cord injuries, they are not without risks.
Unfortunately, some spinal cord stimulator devices have been linked to severe injuries, defective performance, and complications stemming from medical malpractice or product defects.
When a spinal cord stimulator fails—whether due to a design flaw, manufacturing defect, or improper implantation—the results can be devastating.
The FDA reports that since 2008, there have been over 80,000 adverse event filings associated with spinal cord stimulator (SCS) devices, including nearly 500 cases resulting in death.
Patients may experience increased pain, device migration, nerve damage, or even permanent injuries that require additional surgeries or treatments.
These outcomes not only disrupt a patient’s ability to manage chronic pain but can also lead to significant financial burdens, including mounting medical expenses, lost wages, and long-term care needs.
If you’ve suffered severe injuries due to a defective spinal cord stimulator device, you may be eligible to file a Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit and seek compensation.
TruLaw can help determine whether you qualify for a defective medical device lawsuit or medical malpractice lawsuit against those responsible for your injuries.
Contact us today for a free consultation, or use the chat feature on this page to find out if you qualify for a Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit instantly.
How are Spinal Cord Stimulator Cases Handled?
Spinal cord stimulator injury cases can involve both medical errors and defective products.
Depending on the circumstances, claims may be filed against healthcare providers, device manufacturers, or both to seek compensation for injuries and losses.
Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuits are generally pursued through two main legal avenues:
- Medical Malpractice Cases Against Healthcare Providers
- Product Liability Lawsuits Against Medical Device Manufacturers
Medical malpractice cases typically focus on errors made during implantation, such as improper placement of the device or failure to monitor post-surgical complications.
Medical malpractice attorneys work to prove that a healthcare provider’s negligence during the procedure directly caused the patient’s injuries, gathering evidence such as surgical records, expert testimony, and post-operative reports.
Product liability lawsuits target medical device manufacturers for defects in the design, manufacturing, or marketing of implanted devices.
These claims may allege that the device was inherently unsafe or that the manufacturer failed to provide adequate warnings about known risks.
Depending on the nature of the injury, plaintiffs may pursue one or both types of litigation to hold all responsible parties accountable for the harm caused.
Injuries and Health Risks Linked to Spinal Cord Stimulator Devices
While spinal cord stimulator devices are designed to provide relief for chronic pain by interrupting pain signals in the nervous system, they can sometimes cause severe injuries and health complications.
Faulty devices, improper implantation, or inadequate monitoring can lead to long-term or even permanent damage for patients.
Common Injuries and Complications
Patients who experience complications with spinal cord stimulator devices often report a range of serious injuries and health risks.
Injuries and health risks include:
- Device Malfunction: Electrical pulses may fail to provide effective pain relief or may cause unintended nerve damage.
- Increased Pain or Discomfort: Some patients report worsened pain, particularly in the back, neck, or legs, following implantation.
- Device Migration: The implanted device or its components may shift from their original placement, causing damage to nearby tissues or the spinal cord.
- Infection: Surgical implantation of spinal cord stimulators carries the risk of infection at the incision site or within deeper tissues.
- Epidural Hematoma: Bleeding around the epidural space can lead to nerve compression and serious complications.
- Nerve Damage: Incorrect placement or malfunctioning devices may result in nerve injuries, causing numbness, tingling, or loss of function.
Long-Term Health Risks
In addition to immediate injuries, patients may face long-term health complications from defective or improperly implanted spinal cord stimulator devices.
Long-term effects include:
- Chronic Inflammation: Prolonged irritation or immune responses caused by the implanted device.
- Scar Tissue Formation: Build-up around the stimulator leads to further complications or device malfunctions.
- Spinal Cord Compression: Pressure on the spinal cord can cause significant nerve damage and loss of mobility.
- Permanent Disabilities: Severe complications may result in irreversible damage, impacting a patient’s quality of life.
Emotional and Financial Impact
Beyond the physical injuries, the complications associated with spinal cord stimulator devices can lead to other impacts.
Emotional and financial impacts include:
- Emotional Distress: Anxiety, depression, and reduced quality of life due to chronic pain and medical complications.
- Substantial Medical Expenses: Costs for additional surgeries, treatments, physical therapy, and ongoing medical care.
- Lost Wages: Inability to work during recovery or due to permanent disability.
If you or a loved one has suffered injuries linked to a spinal cord stimulator device, you may be entitled to compensation for medical expenses, lost wages, and other damages.
Contact TruLaw today for a free consultation and to discuss your legal options.
What Are Spinal Cord Stimulators and Why Are They Used?
Spinal cord stimulators are medical devices designed to manage chronic pain by delivering mild electrical pulses to the spinal cord.
These devices are typically used for patients who have not found relief from other pain management treatments, such as medication or physical therapy.
Spinal cord stimulators are often recommended for conditions such as failed back surgery syndrome, nerve injuries, degenerative disc disease, or chronic back and neck pain.
By interrupting pain signals before they reach the brain, these devices aim to improve the quality of life for individuals suffering from severe or persistent pain.
How Spinal Cord Stimulators Work
Spinal cord stimulators work by sending electrical impulses to the spinal cord to mask pain signals traveling to the brain.
The device consists of a small implanted generator and electrodes placed near the spinal cord, typically in the epidural space.
Patients use an external controller to adjust the intensity and frequency of the stimulation, tailoring the pain relief to their needs.
This technology does not eliminate the source of pain but instead alters the perception of pain, replacing it with a mild tingling sensation or, in some cases, complete pain relief.
The Different Types of Spinal Cord Stimulator Implants
Spinal cord stimulator implants come in various forms to accommodate different patient needs and medical conditions.
The primary types include:
- Traditional Low-Frequency Stimulators: Deliver consistent electrical impulses to manage chronic pain, often causing a tingling sensation (paresthesia).
- High-Frequency Stimulators: Operate at a higher frequency to provide pain relief without the sensation of tingling, ideal for patients who find paresthesia uncomfortable.
- Burst Stimulators: Mimic natural nerve firing patterns to deliver more effective pain relief with less energy consumption.
- Rechargeable and Non-Rechargeable Models: Rechargeable devices allow patients to maintain their stimulators without frequent surgeries, while non-rechargeable models are simpler but require periodic replacement.
Each type of implant is tailored to provide optimal pain management, depending on the patient’s condition and preferences.
Despite their benefits, complications and malfunctions can occur, leading to severe health risks for some patients.
What Companies Make Spinal Cord Stimulator Implants?
Several major medical device manufacturers produce spinal cord stimulators, offering various models designed to manage chronic pain.
These companies have developed both traditional low-frequency stimulators and more advanced high-frequency or burst stimulation devices.
However, despite technological advancements, reports of device malfunctions and complications have led to lawsuits against several of these manufacturers.
Companies that produce spinal cord stimulator implants include:
- Medtronic: One of the largest producers of spinal cord stimulators, known for its rechargeable and non-rechargeable models.
- Boston Scientific: Offers a range of stimulators, including high-frequency and patient-controlled devices.
- Abbott: Known for its BurstDR stimulation technology, which mimics natural nerve firing patterns for pain relief.
- Nevro: Specializes in high-frequency spinal cord stimulators with its HF10 system, designed for paresthesia-free pain relief.
- Stimwave: Produces wireless stimulators designed to minimize the invasiveness of implantation.
Were You Injured by a Defective Spinal Cord Stimulator?
Spinal cord stimulator implants are meant to provide pain relief and improve the quality of patients’ lives, but for many, the devices have caused severe complications instead.
Issues such as device malfunction, lead migration, and infections have left patients dealing with new or worsened pain.
As a result, lawsuits have been filed against both healthcare providers and device manufacturers to seek compensation for these life-altering injuries.
If you were injured by a defective spinal cord stimulator or due to a negligent surgery involving a spinal cord stimulator device, you may be eligible to file a lawsuit and seek financial compensation.
Contact TruLaw for a free consultation, or use the chat feature on this page to find out if you qualify for a Spinal Stimulator Lawsuit instantly.
Your lawyers will help you gather evidence for your claim and assess damages related to medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering, and the long-term impact of spinal cord stimulator injuries on your life.
Gathering Evidence for Your Lawsuit
Building a strong spinal cord stimulator lawsuit requires thorough and organized evidence to prove negligence or defect and demonstrate the impact on your health and well-being.
Essential documentation strengthens your case and can make a significant difference in the outcome of your claim.
Key types of evidence include:
- Medical Records: Documentation of complications, surgeries, or adverse effects caused by the spinal cord stimulator.
- Device Information: Details about the specific spinal cord stimulator model, including serial numbers and manufacturer information.
- Surgical Reports: Records of the implantation procedure and any subsequent surgeries related to the device.
- Photographs and Videos: Visual evidence of injuries, scars, or the malfunctioning device.
- Expert Testimony: Opinions from medical or engineering experts who can link your injuries to device defects or surgical errors.
Gathering this evidence ensures that your claim is supported by credible and comprehensive information.
TruLaw can assist you in compiling and organizing this evidence to build a compelling case.
Damages in Spinal Cord Stimulator Claims
Victims of defective spinal cord stimulators or negligent surgeries may suffer a range of physical, emotional, and financial damages.
Filing a lawsuit allows you to seek compensation for these losses and hold the responsible parties accountable.
Common damages in spinal cord stimulator claims include:
- Medical Expenses: Costs related to surgeries, hospital stays, medications, physical therapy, and ongoing treatments.
- Lost Wages: Income lost due to time away from work during recovery or inability to return to employment.
- Pain and Suffering: Compensation for the physical pain and emotional distress caused by the injury and its long-term impact.
- Permanent Injuries: Damages for lasting complications, such as nerve damage, scarring, or chronic pain.
- Loss of Quality of Life: Compensation for the inability to enjoy daily activities or maintain an independent lifestyle.
An experienced spinal cord stimulator attorney will help assess the full scope of your damages and fight for maximum compensation to address your injuries and future needs.
Contact TruLaw today to learn how we can help you achieve justice and financial recovery.
TruLaw: Investigating the Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit
TruLaw is actively investigating spinal cord stimulator lawsuits on behalf of individuals who have suffered injuries or complications due to defective devices or negligent medical care.
Spinal cord stimulators, intended to provide relief from chronic pain, have instead caused severe physical and emotional harm to many patients.
Issues such as device malfunctions, incorrect placement, lead migration, and infections have left individuals dealing with worsened pain, additional surgeries, and long-term health challenges.
Our team understands the complexities of spinal cord stimulator cases, which often involve both defective medical devices and medical malpractice.
We are committed to holding manufacturers and healthcare providers accountable for their actions and ensuring that injured patients receive the compensation they deserve.
Whether your case involves a defective device design, insufficient safety warnings, or medical errors during implantation, TruLaw is here to help.
If you or a loved one have experienced injuries related to a spinal cord stimulator, contact TruLaw today.
We offer a free consultation to evaluate your case and determine the best course of action.
Use the chat feature on this page for an instant case review and take the first step toward justice and recovery.
Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit Frequently Asked Questions
Managing Attorney & Owner
With over 25 years of legal experience, Jessica Paluch-Hoerman is an Illinois lawyer, a CPA, and a mother of three. She spent the first decade of her career working as an international tax attorney at Deloitte.
In 2009, Jessie co-founded her own law firm with her husband – which has scaled to over 30 employees since its conception.
In 2016, Jessie founded TruLaw, which allows her to collaborate with attorneys and legal experts across the United States on a daily basis. This hypervaluable network of experts is what enables her to share the most reliable, accurate, and up-to-date legal information with our readers!
Additional Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit resources on our website:
Here, at TruLaw, we’re committed to helping victims get the justice they deserve.
Alongside our partner law firms, we have successfully collected over $3 Billion in verdicts and settlements on behalf of injured individuals.
Would you like our help?
At TruLaw, we fiercely combat corporations that endanger individuals’ well-being. If you’ve suffered injuries and believe these well-funded entities should be held accountable, we’re here for you.
With TruLaw, you gain access to successful and seasoned lawyers who maximize your chances of success. Our lawyers invest in you—they do not receive a dime until your lawsuit reaches a successful resolution!
AFFF Lawsuit claims are being filed against manufacturers of aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF), commonly used in firefighting.
Claims allege that companies such as 3M, DuPont, and Tyco Fire Products failed to adequately warn users about the potential dangers of AFFF exposure — including increased risks of various cancers and diseases.
Depo Provera Lawsuit claims are being filed by individuals who allege they developed meningioma (a type of brain tumor) after receiving Depo-Provera birth control injections.
A 2024 study found that women using Depo-Provera for at least 1 year are five times more likely to develop meningioma brain tumors compared to those not using the drug.
Suboxone Tooth Decay Lawsuit claims are being filed against Indivior, the manufacturer of Suboxone, a medication used to treat opioid addiction.
Claims allege that Indivior failed to adequately warn users about the potential dangers of severe tooth decay and dental injuries associated with Suboxone’s sublingual film version.
Social Media Harm Lawsuits are being filed against social media companies for allegedly causing mental health issues in children and teens.
Claims allege that companies like Meta, Google, ByteDance, and Snap designed addictive platforms that led to anxiety, depression, and other mental health issues without adequately warning users or parents.
Transvaginal Mesh Lawsuits are being filed against manufacturers of transvaginal mesh products used to treat pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI).
Claims allege that companies like Ethicon, C.R. Bard, and Boston Scientific failed to adequately warn about potential dangers — including erosion, pain, and infection.
Bair Hugger Warming Blanket Lawsuits involve claims against 3M — alleging their surgical warming blankets caused severe infections and complications (particularly in hip and knee replacement surgeries).
Plaintiffs claim 3M failed to warn about potential risks — despite knowing about increased risk of deep joint infections since 2011.
Baby Formula NEC Lawsuit claims are being filed against manufacturers of cow’s milk-based baby formula products.
Claims allege that companies like Abbott Laboratories (Similac) and Mead Johnson & Company (Enfamil) failed to warn about the increased risk of necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) in premature infants.
Here, at TruLaw, we’re committed to helping victims get the justice they deserve.
Alongside our partner law firms, we have successfully collected over $3 Billion in verdicts and settlements on behalf of injured individuals.
Would you like our help?
