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.
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.
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.
In July 2023, Abbott initiated a recall of its Proclaim and Infinity neurostimulation systems due to issues with patients being unable to exit MRI mode, effectively locking devices in a state where therapy delivery is disabled.
The FDA subsequently categorized this as a Class I recall, its most serious designation, indicating a situation where using the affected devices may cause serious injuries or death.
On this page, we’ll provide an overview of the Abbott Spinal Cord Stimulator lawsuit, types of spinal cord stimulator devices and manufacturers, how to file a Spinal Cord Stimulator lawsuit, and much more.
The Class I recall classification by the FDA highlights the serious nature of the defect, which has already resulted in 73 reported injuries among the 155,028 affected devices distributed in the U.S. from 2015 to 2023.
The affected devices include, but are not limited to:
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, you may be eligible to seek compensation.
Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page to receive an instant case evaluation and determine if you qualify to join others in filing a Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit today.
Our Abbott spinal cord stimulator attorney at TruLaw is dedicated to supporting clients through the process of filing a product liability lawsuit against Abbott.
With proven success in handling medical device cases, Jessica Paluch-Hoerman provides direct guidance and advocacy to clients affected by defective Abbott spinal cord stimulators, ensuring they understand their legal rights and options throughout their journey to recovery.
We recognize the physical pain and emotional strain that Abbott spinal cord stimulator complications cause, which is why we focus on streamlining the legal process of seeking the compensation you deserve.
Meet our lead Abbott spinal cord stimulator attorney:
At TruLaw, we believe financial concerns should never stand in the way of justice.
That’s why we operate on a contingency fee basis—with this approach, you won’t face any upfront costs for your legal representation.
Our fee is only collected if we are successful in securing compensation on your behalf.
This arrangement not only removes the financial risk of pursuing your case, it allows us to focus our resources on achieving a positive outcome in your case by:
Our investment in representing you demonstrates our unwavering commitment to seeking the compensation you deserve.
If you or a loved one experienced complications from an Abbott spinal cord stimulator device, you may be eligible to seek compensation.
Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page to receive an instant case evaluation and determine whether you qualify to join others in filing an Abbott spinal cord stimulator lawsuit today.
Abbott’s spinal cord stimulator systems are used to manage chronic pain and movement disorders through low-intensity electrical impulses delivered to nerve structures.
A technical flaw has emerged related to the MRI compatibility feature, causing patients to lose therapeutic benefits and potentially requiring invasive surgical intervention to restore functionality.
The core issue affects the Bluetooth communication pathway between the implantable pulse generator (IPG) and the Patient Controller device (a paired iPhone).
When patients activate MRI mode before undergoing magnetic resonance imaging, therapy delivery is temporarily disabled for safety reasons.
The system may become permanently locked in this disabled state under certain conditions.
According to Abbott’s investigation, this malfunction occurs when the Bluetooth pairing is compromised while in MRI mode, which can happen when:
Once this connection is broken while in MRI mode, the patient cannot reactivate their therapy.
The FDA reports that Abbott has received 186 complaints about the MRI mode issue, with 73 documented injuries.
While no deaths have occurred, the consequences can be severe.
When a device becomes locked in MRI mode with no ability to restore function, patients require additional surgery to replace the entire implantable pulse generator to restore their therapy.
These surgical interventions carry their own risks, with the FDA noting that certain subpopulations, particularly those with Parkinson’s disease and movement disorders receiving Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS) treatment, face “higher morbidity and mortality with every surgery, thus otherwise unneeded anesthesia events and surgeries pose an increased hazard.”
This sudden loss of therapy can impact the quality of life and pain management for patients who rely on continuous neurostimulation interrupting pain signals.
The recall of Abbott’s neurostimulation systems has significant implications for both the company and patients affected by device malfunctions.
While Abbott has taken steps to address the technical issues, many patients are now exploring legal options to seek compensation for their injuries.
If you or a loved one has been affected by an Abbott neurostimulator that became locked in MRI mode, you may be eligible to seek compensation.
The process for filing a lawsuit typically involves:
While the current recall focuses on Abbott’s devices, it’s worth noting that other manufacturers have faced similar issues with neurostimulation technology:
If you have a neurostimulator from any manufacturer that has malfunctioned or caused injury, it’s important to consult with an attorney specializing in medical device litigation.
They can help determine whether your case relates to the Abbott recall or involves similar issues with devices from other companies.
The implantation of a spinal cord stimulator (SCS) involves a two-step process: a trial phase and, if successful, a permanent implantation.
This staged approach helps determine if spinal cord stimulation provides sufficient pain relief before committing to a permanent device.
The spinal cord stimulator trial period begins with a minimally invasive procedure, where thin electrical leads (electrodes) are inserted into the epidural space surrounding the spinal cord.
These leads are connected to an external pulse generator worn outside the body.
Patients typically undergo local anesthesia or mild sedation for this procedure, which allows the orthopedic surgeon to position the leads precisely and test their effectiveness in real time.
The goal is to see if the device reduces pain enough to warrant a permanent implant.
The trial period typically lasts around 5-7 days, during which the patient evaluates the level of pain relief and reports any issues.
If the trial is successful, the patient may proceed to the permanent implantation phase.
If the patient experiences significant pain relief during the trial, a permanent spinal cord stimulator is implanted.
This process is conducted under local or general anesthesia, and the leads are implanted in the same epidural space as during the trial phase.
However, the pulse generator is now placed within the body, usually under the skin in the abdomen or buttocks.
The leads are connected to this internal pulse generator, which is programmed to provide consistent stimulation to alleviate pain.
Some devices include rechargeable batteries, requiring the patient to regularly recharge the device through an external system, while others use a non-rechargeable battery, which may need replacement surgery after several years.
After implantation, the device is calibrated and programmed to meet the patient’s specific pain relief needs.
Patients are trained to use a handheld remote control, allowing them to adjust the stimulation level or turn the device on and off.
Initial follow-up appointments are necessary to fine-tune the stimulator settings and ensure the device functions optimally.
Over time, as the patient’s condition or pain levels change, additional adjustments may be made to maintain effective pain relief.
Recovery from the implantation procedure can take a few weeks, during which patients are advised to limit certain physical activities to allow the device and lead to settle.
Long-term patients may require periodic adjustments, and in some cases, the device may need to be repositioned or replaced due to complications like lead migration, device malfunction, or battery depletion.
Proper maintenance and regular medical follow-up ensure that the spinal cord stimulator continues to provide effective pain relief over time.
Spinal cord stimulation as a treatment for chronic pain originated in the late 1960s when the first devices were introduced to target pain pathways directly within the nervous system.
Over the following decades, advancements in technology allowed these devices to evolve, providing greater control over pain management with more compact, reliable models.
By the 1990s, spinal cord stimulators had gained FDA approval for broader use, though their effectiveness varied significantly among patients.
Improvements in the 2000s brought rechargeable batteries, high-frequency stimulation options, and patient-controlled settings, further enhancing their appeal as an alternative to long-term pain medication.
Today, spinal cord stimulators are manufactured by multiple medical companies, each producing various models to cater to specific types of chronic pain and patient needs.
Types of Spinal Cord Stimulator Devices and Manufacturers include:
These types of spinal cord stimulators provide varied methods and technologies to address specific pain needs.
Medical malpractice claims, medical negligence claims, and product liability lawsuits have named several different types of spinal cord stimulators.
Spinal cord stimulators offer relief for many patients, but they come with notable limitations and risks.
For one, these devices are not universally effective; up to 30% of patients report little to no improvement in their pain levels and opt for removal, even after proper implantation and use.
Complications such as device migration, where the electrode moves from its intended position, can impact the device’s effectiveness and may require corrective spinal surgery.
There’s also a risk of infection at the implant site, which can be severe enough to warrant removal of the device.
In rare cases, patients may experience neurological side effects like numbness or even paralysis due to issues like epidural hematoma or nerve damage during insertion.
Battery life is another limitation, as the devices require battery replacement, which involves additional surgeries over time.
Spinal cord stimulators come at a significant financial cost, and insurance coverage may vary, placing a burden on some patients seeking this therapy.
Injuries from spinal cord stimulators can have a profound impact on a person’s life, often turning a hopeful treatment into a daily struggle with new and worsening pain.
For many, these complications limit their mobility, add emotional strain, and affect their ability to work or care for loved ones.
The physical and emotional toll can be overwhelming, leaving individuals to navigate medical issues and the uncertainty of their well-being in the face of ongoing pain.
If you or a loved one has suffered injuries or complications from a spinal cord stimulator, you may be entitled to seek compensation for medical expenses, pain, and the impact on your quality of life.
Contact TruLaw today for a free consultation.
Use the chat feature on this page for a free and instant case evaluation.
Building a strong case for a Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit requires gathering comprehensive evidence to demonstrate the impact of the device’s failure on the patient’s life.
Medical records documenting the initial pain condition, treatment attempts, and any complications post-implantation provide critical insight into the extent of harm caused.
Expert evaluations and personal documentation of pain levels, physical limitations, and emotional distress can strengthen the case, illustrating the profound effects of the injuries.
Evidence in a Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit may include:
The damages in a Spinal Cord Stimulator injury claim aim to address both the financial and non-financial impacts of the injuries to help victims recover from the consequences of faulty devices.
These claims seek to cover not only direct costs, like medical bills, but also the broader effects on a person’s quality of life, earning capacity, and emotional well-being.
Potential damages in Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuits may include:
If you’ve suffered severe injuries such as spinal cord injuries, severe back pain, or other complications related to a spinal cord stimulator, you may be eligible to seek compensation.
Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page to receive an instant case evaluation and determine if you qualify to join others in filing a Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit today.
Spinal cord stimulator surgery carries risks that include, but are not limited to infections, bleeding, hardware complications, and lead migration.
In rare cases, patients may experience neurological damage from spinal cord compression during the procedure, which could result in pain, weakness, or sensory changes requiring immediate attention.
Recovery from spinal cord stimulator placement typically takes 4-6 weeks for complete healing.
Patients usually experience soreness at incision sites but can gradually increase activity. Most return to normal activities within 2-3 weeks, though certain restrictions apply until fully healed.
Yes, if a spinal cord stimulator doesn’t provide adequate relief, removal is possible through another surgical operation.
The procedure is typically less difficult than initial implantation, though patients should discuss potential risks and expectations with their surgeon before proceeding.
During the spinal cord stimulator operation, patients receive sedation or anesthesia while surgeons place electrodes near the spinal cord and connect them to a pulse generator.
The procedure takes 1-2 hours, and physicians test the device during implantation to ensure proper positioning.
Spinal cord stimulators work by emitting mild electrical impulses that mask pain signals traveling to the brain.
These controlled pulses modify pain perception without eliminating the source, providing significant relief for many patients with chronic back, neck, or limb pain.
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!
You can learn more about the Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit by visiting any of our pages listed below:
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!
Do you believe you’re entitled to compensation?
Use our Instant Case Evaluator to find out in as little as 60 seconds!
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.
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?