New Abbott and Nevro SCS MDLs Make Boston Scientific Device ID Even More Important

Last reviewed: October 7, 2026

If you are trying to figure out a spinal cord stimulator injury claim,
start with the card in your wallet or the sticker sheet in the
hospital chart. That small piece of paper matters more after the
JPML's October 2 orders.

Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulator cases are still in MDL 3181
in the Central District of California. Abbott cases now have MDL 3194
in the Northern District of Illinois. Nevro cases now have MDL 3195 in
the Northern District of California.

Same kind of device. Similar words in the medical records. Different
federal tracks.

That is the update. It is procedural, but it is not just lawyer trivia
for patients who are dealing with shocks, burning, loss of therapy,
lead movement, another revision surgery, or an explant discussion.

Our main page is the Boston Scientific Spinal Cord Stimulator
Lawsuit.
For related Boston Scientific updates, see our notes on direct filing
in MDL
3181
and the Infinion CX recall
notice.

The court map changed, but MDL 3181 stayed put

The June JPML order created the Boston Scientific MDL. The Panel did
not want one all-purpose spinal cord stimulator docket. Its reason was
plain enough: Boston Scientific, Abbott, Nevro, and the other
companies do not share one product line or one regulatory file.

On October 2, the Panel used that same manufacturer-by-manufacturer
approach again. Abbott went to Judge Lindsay C. Jenkins in Illinois.
Nevro went to Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. in California. Boston
Scientific stayed with Judge Josephine L. Staton in California.

For screening, we would read the map this way:

• Boston Scientific devices: MDL 3181, Central District of California;
• Abbott devices: MDL 3194, Northern District of Illinois;
• Nevro devices: MDL 3195, Northern District of California;
• Medtronic and other devices: not automatically in those MDLs.

The orders do not decide who is right. They decide where similar
federal cases against the same manufacturer will be coordinated.

## The order language worth noticing

The June Boston Scientific order said discovery would not overlap the
same way across companies:

While plaintiffs allege similar conduct on the part of each manufacturer, they do not allege the manufacturers acted in concert. Each manufacturer has its own line of SCS devices, each of which have their own regulatory histories. Discovery will not overlap concerning each manufacturer's conduct.

The Abbott order repeated the point in plainer case-management terms.
The Panel wrote that putting several SCS manufacturers before the same
judge would add little efficiency because "there will otherwise be
little factual overlap between the litigations."

The Nevro order used the same logic and sent Nevro cases to the
district where the company is headquartered. That is why a patient
chart that simply says "SCS" is not enough. The records need to show
the company and the model.

Why the device name comes before the injury story

A patient may say, "The stimulator shocked me." Or, "It burned." Or,
"The doctor said a lead moved." Those details matter, but they come
second.

First we need the manufacturer.

Look for it in the implant card, the original operative report, the
device sticker sheet, a programming note, an interrogation report,
billing records, or a revision or explant report. Hospitals often scan
the stickers into the surgical file. Pain clinics often name the
generator or leads in programming notes.

If the records show WaveWriter Alpha, Precision Montage, Spectra
WaveWriter, or another Boston Scientific system, MDL 3181 may be the
right procedural lane. If the records show Abbott or Nevro, the new
October orders point somewhere else.

A practical records checklist

Do not try to solve the whole case in one afternoon. Get the papers
that answer two questions: what was implanted, and what happened after
that?

Helpful records include:

• implant card or device ID card;
• implant operative report;
• generator and lead model numbers;
• device sticker sheet;
• programming and reprogramming notes;
• imaging reports mentioning migration, movement, fracture, or twisting;
• pain clinic notes after symptoms began;
• emergency, neurology, wound care, or surgical follow-up notes;
• revision, replacement, or explant records; and
• portal messages about shocks, burning, charging trouble, shutdowns, or lost therapy.

A thin file can still be useful. Start with what you have, then ask
the implanting hospital and the pain clinic for the missing pieces.

What not to read into this update

The Abbott and Nevro orders are not settlements. They are not safety
rulings. They do not prove that a Boston Scientific device, an Abbott
device, or a Nevro device caused a particular injury.

They also are not medical advice. If the device is giving you new
symptoms, call the doctor or clinic that manages it. Removal,
revision, settings changes, and shutoff decisions belong with the
treating medical team.

FAQ

Is the Boston Scientific MDL still active?

Yes. MDL 3181 remains the Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulator MDL
in the Central District of California.

What if I cannot tell who made my stimulator?

Ask for the operative report and device sticker sheet from the
implanting hospital. Ask the pain clinic for programming or
interrogation notes. Those records often identify the company and
model.

Do shocks, burns, lead migration, or explant surgery guarantee a claim?

No. A legal review looks at the device identity, timing, medical
records, what doctors documented, and whether the device problem led
to more treatment or surgery.

Sources

• JPML Transfer Order, MDL No. 3181, June 5, 2026: https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3181-Transfer_Order-5-26.pdf
• JPML Transfer Order, MDL No. 3194, Abbott spinal cord stimulators, filed October 2, 2026: https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3194-Transfer_Order-9-26.pdf
• JPML Transfer Order, MDL No. 3195, Nevro spinal cord stimulators, filed October 2, 2026: https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3195-Transfer_Order-9-26.pdf
• JPML pending MDL statistics, October 1, 2026: https://jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/Pending_MDL_Dockets_By_Actions_Pending-October-1-2026.pdf
• FDA MAUDE adverse event database information: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfmaude/search.cfm

Attorney advertising / informational notice

This article is attorney advertising and is for general information
only. It is not medical advice and does not create an attorney-client
relationship. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. If you
have a spinal cord stimulator and new symptoms, talk with your medical
provider about what to do next.

Claims reviewed by Baker Legal Team
Robert B. Baker, Esq., B.C.S. — Board-Certified Civil Trial Lawyer. 30+ years of trial experience, more than $400 million recovered for clients. About Robert Baker →