by Eddie Ruiz
CLF (October 8, 2026 11:51 AM) — The conversation was supposed to be about relief. A patient sat across from a physician, listening as years of chronic back pain and failed treatments narrowed toward a new option. The device was small enough to fit beneath the skin but carried a large promise. Electrical impulses delivered directly to the spinal cord could reduce pain and restore a sense of normalcy. For patients who had exhausted medications, injections, and surgeries, that promise often felt worth the risk.
Months later, for some, the discussions were no longer taking place in exam rooms. They were taking place in lawyers' offices and federal courthouses.
On October 2, 2026, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation established separate multidistrict litigation proceedings involving spinal cord stimulators manufactured by Abbott Laboratories and Nevro Corp. The decision allows related federal lawsuits against each manufacturer to move forward through coordinated pretrial proceedings.
The orders represent a significant development in a growing wave of product liability lawsuits involving spinal cord stimulators, implantable medical devices designed to treat chronic pain by delivering electrical impulses to the spinal cord. Plaintiffs across the country allege that the devices caused injuries and that manufacturers failed to comply with regulatory requirements, concealed known risks, or inadequately warned patients and physicians about potential dangers associated with the devices.
For those following the litigation, the panel's decision is not the beginning of the story. It is the latest chapter. Earlier this year, a federal court in Maryland issued a closely watched ruling in litigation involving Nevro and its parent company, Globus Medical. In that case, the court largely rejected arguments that federal law preempted the plaintiff's claims and allowed most of the lawsuit to move forward. The ruling allowed most of the plaintiff's claims to proceed past the motion-to-dismiss stage, illustrating how certain allegations involving federally approved medical devices may survive preemption challenges. It did not determine whether the defendants were liable, though.
Federal Panel Creates Abbott Spinal Cord Stimulator MDL
What began as isolated lawsuits has now evolved into coordinated federal proceedings spanning multiple jurisdictions. According to the Panel, the Abbott litigation comprises 15 lawsuits pending in six federal districts, with 11 additional related actions reported in ten districts. The cases center on allegations that Abbott failed to comply with federal regulatory requirements, inadequately warned patients and physicians about known risks, and misused the premarket approval supplement process to introduce successive devices with significant modifications while avoiding heightened scrutiny and clinical evaluation. Plaintiffs also contend that Abbott sales representatives programmed, reprogrammed, or made therapeutic adjustments to devices, often without a physician present.
The newly created Abbott litigation, designated MDL No. 3194, will proceed before Judge Lindsay C. Jenkins in the Northern District of Illinois, where Abbott is headquartered and ten actions were already pending when the Panel ruled. The Panel concluded that centralization would eliminate duplicative discovery, streamline briefing, reduce the risk of inconsistent pretrial rulings, particularly on Abbott’s preemption defenses, and conserve the resources of courts and litigants.
Nevro Spinal Cord Stimulator Cases Get Separate MDL
A separate order established a second MDL for claims involving Nevro spinal cord stimulators. In those cases, plaintiffs allege that Nevro introduced numerous device modifications through the Food and Drug Administration's Premarket Approval supplement process rather than through entirely new approval applications. They further contend that the company failed to satisfy various manufacturing, reporting, labeling, warning, and post-market surveillance obligations.
The Nevro litigation, designated MDL No. 3195, will move forward before Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr. in the Northern District of California, where the company maintains its headquarters and where several related actions were already pending.
Why Abbott and Nevro Cases Were Not Combined
The panel's decision to establish separate MDLs reflects an important distinction. Although the allegations involve similar medical devices and many of the same legal themes, the Panel declined to combine the litigation into a single industry-wide proceeding.
That decision recognized a practical reality. Each manufacturer developed its own products, navigated its own regulatory pathway, maintained its own internal records, and made its own business decisions. While plaintiffs often raise comparable concerns regarding device safety and regulatory compliance, the underlying evidence will likely differ from one company to another.
What the MDL Decisions Mean for Patients
For patients, the legal terminology can sometimes obscure what is actually at stake. An MDL does not determine whether any manufacturer acted improperly. It does not establish liability, award compensation, or resolve the truth of the allegations. Instead, multidistrict litigation is intended to streamline pretrial proceedings when courts across the country are handling lawsuits that involve many of the same factual issues. Discovery, expert issues, and common legal disputes can be addressed in a coordinated manner. Cases that are not resolved may later be remanded by the Panel to their originating courts for trial.
Still, the creation of these proceedings sends a clear signal that federal judges view the growing number of spinal cord stimulator cases as sharing enough common questions to warrant coordinated management. That matters not only to lawyers and manufacturers, but also to the patients whose lives are reflected in the court filings.
Behind every complaint is a person who once sat in a medical office searching for relief. Some hoped to return to work. Others wanted to sleep through the night, spend time with family, or reclaim parts of daily life that chronic pain had taken away. For them, the decision to undergo implantation was not simply a medical procedure. It was an investment in the possibility of a better future.
Whether the allegations ultimately succeed remains to be seen. The litigation is still in its early stages, and the allegations remain disputed. The orders do not decide the merits. They record that Abbott and Nevro opposed centralization and challenged whether the cases shared sufficiently common defects, injuries, or factual issues, but the Panel concluded that coordinated pretrial proceedings would promote efficiency. The courts will determine which claims, if any, the evidence supports.
For now, however, the conversations that began in pain clinics and surgical centers have reached a new setting. The patient sitting across from a physician, weighing the promise of relief against the risks of treatment, remains the central figure in this story. The technology, the regulations, and the litigation all trace back to that moment of decision. As the newly created MDLs move forward, the legal questions before the courts will focus on devices and regulations. The human questions that brought those cases there in the first place are far simpler: What were patients told, what did they experience, and did the promise that once sounded so hopeful match the reality that followed?
