May 26, 2026
Written by Eddie Ruiz
Reviewed by Adam Evans | Mass Tort Attorney | Reviewed May 2026
Senior District Judge Allows Most Claims to Proceed in Medical Device Lawsuit
A United States District Court judge in Maryland has largely denied a motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by a patient who alleges serious injuries from a spinal cord stimulation (SCS) device manufactured by Nevro Corporation, allowing most of the case to move forward while dismissing one claim.
Although Nevro moved to dismiss all claims brought by Plaintiff Perry DiToto based on federal preemption, U.S. Senior District Judge Richard D. Bennett ruled that plaintiff may proceed with the majority of his claims against medical device manufacturers Nevro Corporation and Globus Medical, Inc. The case centers on allegations that the SCS device used to treat chronic pain caused severe and lasting harm.
Mr. DiToto underwent surgery in October 2020 to implant the Senza II SCS system, a device designed to relieve chronic pain by delivering electrical impulses to the spinal cord. According to the complaint, the device initially appeared successful during a trial period.
However, nearly two years later, plaintiff alleges the device malfunctioned during a remote adjustment by a company representative. He claims it delivered “extremely painful electrical jolts,” leading to severe pain, mobility issues, and long term impairment. The device was ultimately removed in February 2023, but plaintiff says his condition did not fully improve.
Court Rejects Most Federal Preemption Arguments
Mr. DiToto filed a lawsuit asserting multiple claims, including product liability claims, negligence, fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation, breach of express and implied warranties, violations of Maryland consumer protection law. The defendants sought dismissal, arguing the claims were preempted by federal law governing medical devices.
Nevertheless, Judge Bennett rejected most of the defendants’ preemption arguments, finding that several of the plaintiff’s claims could proceed under what is known as a “parallel claim” theory. This legal doctrine allows state law claims that mirror federal regulatory requirements.
The court held that plaintiff plausibly alleged that the device deviated from FDA approved specifications, violated federal manufacturing and reporting requirements, caused injuries consistent with a defect. Holding that such allegations align with both federal and state duties, Judge Bennett ruled that they are not barred by federal preemption.
Which Claims Survived the Motion to Dismiss?
As a result, the court allowed claims for manufacturing defect, negligence, fraud, misrepresentation, express warranty, and consumer protection violations to proceed. The court dismissed only one claim; breach of implied warranties, finding that the plaintiff failed to respond to the defendants’ arguments or demonstrate how the claim avoided federal preemption.
Adam Evans, attorney from The Carlson Law Firm, counsel for the plaintiff, expressed that “This ruling is a significant win, as the court declined to dismiss nearly all claims on federal preemption grounds, preserving our client’s right to pursue full accountability.
It is also an important victory for the tens of thousands of individuals nationwide who have injuries related to SCS failures in that it gets the complex ‘parallel claims’ doctrine right and sets a roadmap to justice for a lot of injured people.”
National Spinal Cord Stimulator Litigation Continues to Grow
On May 28, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML), held oral argument on a motion requesting that numerous SCS cases filed nationwide be consolidated into a single proceeding. Attorney Elijah Bidinguer stated: “This has been our objective from the beginning.
If the Panel grants that request, the likelihood of resolving these claims through a global settlement will increase”. The proceedings before the JPML further illustrate the broader legal landscape surrounding the case. The judges comprising the JPML heard arguments from various attorneys for SCS plaintiffs as well as counsel for Nevro, Boston Scientific, and Abbott Laboratories.
What This Ruling Means Going Forward
In summary, the ruling highlights the ongoing legal tension between federal regulation of medical devices and patients’ ability to pursue state law claims. While federal law often shields manufacturers, courts continue to allow cases to move forward when plaintiffs allege violations of federal standards themselves.
Reviewed by Adam Evans
Mass Tort Attorney | The Carlson Law Firm
Last Reviewed: June 2026
Adam Evans reviews Carlson Law Firm mass tort and product liability content to help ensure legal information is accurate, current and useful for readers.
