No spinal cord stimulator manufacturer has paid a settlement or lost a case as of October 2026. What changed this month is structural: the federal courts created two new multidistrict litigations (MDLs) to manage hundreds of pending injury claims against Abbott and Nevro. On October 2, 2026, the U.S.
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) ordered Abbott and Nevro spinal cord stimulator cases into two separate MDLs, one in Illinois and one in California. The move consolidates pretrial proceedings for people who claim these implanted devices caused injury, but it does not create a settlement fund, certify a class, or decide liability. Here is what the reorganization means for anyone tracking a potential claim.
Official resources:
- Read the official notice from Wisnerbaum — Use this primary source to verify the official announcement.
- Read the official guidance from Bloomberglaw — Use this primary source to verify the official guidance.
Table of Contents
- What Actually Happened in October 2026
- Where Each Manufacturer's Cases Stand
- What These Lawsuits Allege
- Why There Is No Settlement Yet, and What Comes Next
- Checking Where a Specific Claim Fits
- Frequently Asked Questions
What Actually Happened in October 2026
The JPML's October 2 orders split spinal cord stimulator litigation by manufacturer rather than combining it into one proceeding. Abbott cases were sent to the Northern District of Illinois, while Nevro cases went to the Northern District of California, according to Becker's Spine. At the time of centralization, the panel counted 26 pending federal Abbott lawsuits spread across 13 districts and 23 pending federal Nevro lawsuits across 10 districts. The panel also declined to place the new Abbott and Nevro MDLs before Judge Josephine Staton, who already oversees a separate Boston Scientific MDL.
Becker's Spine reports the panel reasoned that grouping multiple manufacturers' device litigation before one judge would not produce meaningful efficiency gains, since each company's devices, design history, and defenses differ. A multidistrict litigation is not a class action. It is a procedural tool that gathers similar federal lawsuits before one judge so discovery, expert testimony, and pretrial motions do not have to be repeated in dozens of courtrooms. Each plaintiff's case still proceeds individually toward its own outcome.
Where Each Manufacturer's Cases Stand
Four manufacturers now account for separate litigation tracks, each at a different stage: The Boston Scientific MDL is furthest along, having had a lead counsel structure in place since August 2026. The Abbott and Nevro MDLs are newly formed and have not yet reached that stage.
- Nevro: MDL No. 3195 was assigned to Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr. in the Northern District of California. A Daily Journal report dated October 7, 2026, separately describes 17 Nevro product-liability suits being consolidated there.
- Abbott: The new MDL sits in the Northern District of Illinois, formed from the 26 pending cases described above.
- Boston Scientific: This MDL, No. 3181, is the oldest of the three. The JPML created it on June 5, 2026, before Judge Josephine Staton in the Central District of California, according to Mealey's, after rejecting an earlier request to combine all manufacturers into one industrywide proceeding. In August 2026, the court appointed Wisner Baum attorney Behram V. Parekh as one of three co-lead counsel for plaintiffs in that case.
- Medtronic: This company has no MDL. A Minnesota federal judge dismissed most Medtronic spinal cord stimulator claims in July 2026 as time-barred, according to Bloomberg Law, leaving only limited manufacturing-defect claims from one plaintiff to proceed.
What These Lawsuits Allege
Plaintiffs in the Abbott and Nevro cases allege that their implanted spinal cord stimulators can migrate inside the body, deliver unexpected and painful shocks, cause nerve damage, or fail outright, according to Becker's Spine. Many plaintiffs say these problems required additional surgery to revise or remove the device. A separate allegation running through the cases concerns how the devices were changed after their original FDA approval.
Plaintiffs claim Abbott and Nevro modified their stimulators through FDA premarket-approval supplements, a regulatory pathway that allows manufacturers to update an already-approved device, without conducting new safety testing on the altered versions. A spinal cord stimulator is a surgically implanted device that sends electrical pulses to the spinal cord to block pain signals before they reach the brain. It is typically used for chronic back or nerve pain after other treatments have failed.
Why There Is No Settlement Yet, and What Comes Next
Centralization under an MDL covers shared pretrial discovery only. According to Becker's Spine, no class has been certified in any of these cases and no settlement fund exists for Abbott, Nevro, Boston Scientific, or Medtronic devices. Each plaintiff must still individually prove that their specific device caused their specific injury. Drugwatch and multiple law-firm litigation trackers confirm that, as of October 2026, no spinal cord stimulator manufacturer has paid a settlement, lost a jury verdict, or been found liable in this wave of litigation.
Settlements in device MDLs typically follow "bellwether" trials, a small number of representative cases tried first to help both sides gauge how juries might rule on the broader pool of claims. Becker's Spine notes those bellwether trials remain years away for the Abbott and Nevro MDLs. Anyone who believes a spinal cord stimulator caused an injury can still have a case evaluated and a lawsuit filed individually; joining an MDL does not require waiting for a settlement to exist. What filing now does not guarantee is a payout, since liability itself has not been established against any manufacturer.
Checking Where a Specific Claim Fits
Because the litigation now splits by manufacturer and location, the first practical step is identifying which track applies: Confirming which manufacturer made the implanted device, and when symptoms or revision surgery occurred, determines which court and timeline a claim falls under — a detail that matters most for the Medtronic track, where the dismissal turned on filing deadlines.
- Abbott device: cases proceed in the Northern District of Illinois MDL.
- Nevro device: cases proceed in the Northern District of California MDL (No. 3195), before Judge Gilliam.
- Boston Scientific device: cases proceed in the Central District of California MDL (No. 3181), before Judge Staton, with co-lead counsel already appointed.
- Medtronic device: most claims have been dismissed as time-barred; only narrow manufacturing-defect claims from one plaintiff remain active, per the July 2026 Minnesota ruling.
Frequently Asked Questions
Has anyone received a payout for a spinal cord stimulator injury?
No. Drugwatch and law-firm trackers confirm no settlement, verdict, or liability finding exists for any manufacturer as of October 2026.
What is the difference between an MDL and a class action?
An MDL centralizes pretrial discovery before one judge, but each plaintiff's case is still decided individually; a class action resolves claims together under one outcome.
Can someone still file a spinal cord stimulator lawsuit now?
Yes. Filing does not require a settlement to exist first, though no manufacturer has yet been found liable in this litigation.
Why does Medtronic have no MDL like the other manufacturers?
A Minnesota federal judge dismissed most Medtronic claims in July 2026 as time-barred, leaving only narrow claims from one plaintiff active.