St. Jude Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit
- Last Updated: May 6th, 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.
Key takeaways:
- Abbott Laboratories faces lawsuits over St. Jude spinal cord stimulators that allegedly caused burns, shocks, and nerve damage requiring additional surgeries.
- The FDA has recalled spinal cord stimulator models manufactured by Abbott/St. Jude due to battery failures and overheating issues that can cause burns during charging.
- TruLaw offers representation for affected patients on a contingency fee basis, meaning clients pay no legal fees unless they receive compensation for their injuries.
St. Jude Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit Overview
The St. Jude Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit centers on allegations that these medical devices, designed to treat chronic pain, have caused unexpected injuries to patients across the country.
These lawsuits claim that manufacturing defects and design flaws have resulted in serious harm, including burns, shocks, nerve damage, and other complications requiring additional surgeries.
On this page, we’ll provide an overview of the St. Jude Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit, reported severe injuries from spinal cord stimulator devices, how to file a Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit, and much more.
Filing a Spinal Cord Stimulator Claim Today
The litigation primarily focuses on various Implantable Pulse Generators (IPGs) that have been recalled due to reports of battery failures and overheating issues.
Abbott Laboratories completed its acquisition of St. Jude Medical for $25 billion, making St. Jude Medical a wholly-owned subsidiary of Abbott that transferred the ownership and responsibility of the Implantable Pulse Generator (IPG) models.
A letter sent to physicians by St. Jude Medical in May 2011 specifically addressed the issue of “weld failures within the internal battery” in Eon Mini Implantable Pulse Generators (Model 3788).
This defect led to devices losing the ability to communicate or recharge, resulting in loss of pain relief and potential need for surgical removal.
TruLaw is currently accepting clients for the St. Jude Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit.
If you or someone you love has experienced complications with spinal cord stimulator implants, you may qualify to seek compensation.
Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page to receive an instant case evaluation and determine your eligibility to join others in filing a Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit today.
Table of Contents
How Can A Spinal Cord Stimulator Attorney from TruLaw Help You?
Our Spinal Cord Stimulator attorney at TruLaw is dedicated to supporting clients through the process of filing a Spinal Cord Stimulator lawsuit.
With extensive experience in product liability cases, Jessica Paluch-Hoerman and our partner law firms work with litigation leaders and medical experts to prove how defective spinal cord stimulator devices caused you harm.
TruLaw focuses on securing compensation for medical expenses, pain and suffering, lost income, and other damages resulting from your spinal cord stimulator injury.
Meet the Lead Spinal Cord Stimulator Attorney at TruLaw
Meet our lead Spinal Cord Stimulator attorney:
- Jessica Paluch-Hoerman: As founder and managing attorney of TruLaw, Jessica brings her experience in product liability and personal injury to her client-centered approach by prioritizing open communication and personalized attention with her clients. Through TruLaw and partner law firms, Jessica has helped collect over $3 billion on behalf of injured individuals across all 50 states through verdicts and negotiated settlements.
How much does hiring a Spinal Cord Stimulator lawyer from TruLaw cost?
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 only pay legal fees after you’ve been awarded compensation for your injuries.
If you or someone you love has experienced complications with spinal cord stimulator implants, you may qualify to seek compensation.
Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page to receive an instant case evaluation and determine your eligibility to join others in filing a Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit today.
Reported Severe Injuries from SCS Devices
Patients implanted with spinal cord stimulators have reported a wide range of adverse outcomes, from minor discomfort to life-altering injuries.
The FDA has reported thousands of adverse events linked to spinal cord stimulator devices.
The severity of these injuries often requires extensive medical intervention, including revision surgeries, device removal procedures, and ongoing treatment for lasting damage.
Many patients report that their pain management issues worsened rather than improved after implantation, leading to decreased quality of life and substantial financial burdens.
Common Complications with St Jude Spinal Cord Devices
The issues with St. Jude devices prompted several recalls, including those for the Eon IPG and Eon Mini IPG due to heating problems, and a recall for Eon Mini IPGs manufactured in April 2012 for delivering unexpected surges in stimulation.
St. Jude spinal cord stimulators have been associated with several specific complications:
- Battery failures and malfunctions – Devices failing to hold charges or deliver consistent therapy, leaving patients without pain relief when most needed
- Severe overheating – Multiple patients have reported first and second-degree burns caused by devices overheating during charging sessions
- Unexpected electrical shocks – Users experiencing painful, sudden shocks from malfunctioning devices
- Internal battery leakage – Weld failures within batteries allowing fluid to escape into surrounding tissue
- Device migration – Implanted components shifting from their intended position, requiring additional surgeries to reposition or remove them
- Lead fractures and disconnections – Broken electrode wires or disconnected components resulting in therapy interruption or inappropriate stimulation
- Infection at implant sites – Bacterial infections requiring antibiotic treatment and often device removal
Documentation Requirements for SCS Lawsuit Eligibility
To qualify for a St. Jude spinal cord stimulator lawsuit, patients must gather extensive documentation proving both their injury and its connection to the device.
This documentation typically includes:
- Medical records showing device implantation – Surgical notes, device identification including model and serial numbers, and implantation date
- Evidence of complications – Medical records documenting all adverse effects experienced after implantation
- Revision surgery or removal documentation – Records of any procedures performed to correct problems or remove the device
- Ongoing treatment records – Documentation of continued medical care needed to address complications
- Prior pain management history – Records showing the patient’s condition before implantation for comparison purposes
The timeframe for filing claims is strictly limited by state-specific statutes of limitations, which typically range from 2-3 years from the date of injury or discovery.
Some states apply the “discovery rule,” meaning the clock starts when the patient reasonably should have discovered the connection between their injury and the device.
If you or someone you love has experienced complications with spinal cord stimulator implants, you may qualify to seek compensation.
Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page to receive an instant case evaluation and determine your eligibility to join others in filing a Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit today.
Legal Basis for St Jude Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit
The legal foundation for St Jude spinal cord stimulator lawsuits rests primarily on product liability law, which holds medical device manufacturers accountable for products that cause harm when used as intended.
These devices, designed to alleviate chronic pain through surgically implanted components that send electrical impulses to block pain signals, must meet stringent safety and efficacy standards before and after reaching the market.
Plaintiffs in these cases typically pursue claims under several legal theories:
- Strict liability: Arguing the device was inherently dangerous when it left the manufacturer’s control
- Negligence: Claiming Abbott/St. Jude failed to exercise reasonable care in design, manufacturing, or providing warnings
- Breach of warranty: Asserting the device failed to meet express or implied promises about safety and effectiveness
- Fraud or misrepresentation: Alleging the company knowingly concealed risks or exaggerated benefits to doctors and patients seeking to relieve pain
FDA regulations play a central role in these lawsuits.
Manufacturers must comply with both premarket approval requirements and post-market surveillance obligations.
Failure to adhere to these regulations often serves as evidence of negligence or defective design in litigation.
FDA Warnings About Spinal Stimulator Safety Issues
The FDA has issued multiple communications regarding safety concerns with spinal cord stimulators.
In 2018, an investigation revealed that the FDA had received more than 80,000 adverse event reports related to these devices over a decade, highlighting serious risks that many patients claim were inadequately disclosed.
The FDA classified spinal cord stimulators as Class III medical devices—the highest risk category—requiring rigorous testing before approval.
Specific FDA warnings have addressed:
- MRI compatibility issues – Older St Jude devices were not MRI-compatible, potentially limiting diagnostic options and creating risks if patients underwent MRI scans with implanted devices
- Battery and charging problems – Warnings about overheating during recharging, battery depletion rates, and charging system failures
- Lead migration and fracture – Notices about leads moving from their intended position in the epidural space or breaking after implantation
- Electromagnetic interference – Cautions about device malfunction when exposed to certain electromagnetic fields
Despite this classification, many devices reached the market through the 510(k) clearance pathway that allows manufacturers to avoid clinical trials if they can demonstrate substantial equivalence to previously approved devices.
These warnings demonstrate the risks were identified and communicated by regulatory authorities, which plaintiffs argue should have prompted more aggressive action from the manufacturer.
TruLaw: Accepting Clients for the Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit
Spinal cord stimulator lawsuits are being filed by individuals across the country who were injured by defective or malfunctioning spinal cord stimulators.
TruLaw is currently accepting clients for the spinal cord stimulator lawsuit.
A few reasons to choose TruLaw for your spinal cord stimulator lawsuit include:
- If We Don’t Win, You Don’t Pay: The spinal cord stimulator lawyers at TruLaw and our partner firms operate on a contingency fee basis, meaning we only get paid if you win.
- Expertise: We have decades of experience handling medical device cases similar to the spinal cord stimulator lawsuit.
- Successful Track Record: TruLaw and our partner law firms have helped our clients recover billions of dollars in compensation through verdicts and negotiated settlements.
If you or someone you love has experienced complications with spinal cord stimulator implants, you may qualify to seek compensation.
Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page to receive an instant case evaluation and determine your eligibility to join others in filing a Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit today.
Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit Frequently Asked Questions
-
What is the recall on the St. Jude spinal cord stimulator?
The St. Jude Eon and Eon Mini Implantable Pulse Generator (IPG) devices, which are utilized for pain management, have been recalled by the manufacturer due to serious safety concerns.
The primary issues prompting this recall include the potential for these devices to overheat during normal operation, which could cause tissue damage or discomfort.
-
What is the average settlement for a spinal cord stimulator lawsuit?
Settlement amounts for spinal cord stimulator claims can range anywhere from $100,000 to over $1,000,000, though each case is evaluated individually based on its specific circumstances.
The final compensation amount is influenced by factors such as the severity of injuries sustained, the extent of medical treatments required, the impact on quality of life, and demonstrable manufacturer negligence.
-
What are the common Abbott spinal cord stimulator problems that lead to lawsuits?
Abbott spinal cord stimulators have been reported to experience several problems that have led to litigation, including device migration, lead breakage, and sudden battery depletion.
Patients have reported experiencing increased pain, electrical shocks, nerve damage, and the need for revision surgeries to remove or replace malfunctioning devices.
-
What is the current status of spinal cord stimulator lawsuits?
Several lawsuits against spinal cord stimulator manufacturers are currently proceeding through various stages of the legal system, with some in discovery phases while others are approaching settlement negotiations.
These lawsuits generally allege that manufacturers failed to adequately test their devices, concealed known risks, or provided insufficient warnings to patients and physicians about potential complications.
-
What evidence is needed to join a spinal cord stimulator lawsuit?
To participate in a spinal cord stimulator lawsuit, plaintiffs typically need to provide comprehensive medical records documenting the implantation of the specific device in question and evidence of subsequent injuries or complications.
Important documentation includes surgical records, device identification information (model and serial numbers), all follow-up treatment records, and medical opinions connecting the device to the injuries experienced.
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?
