You may qualify if your spinal cord stimulator — an implant that pulses the spinal cord — caused serious injury. Reviewing firms focus on Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Nevro and St.
Jude devices tied to shocks, burns, lead failure or repeat surgery. Federal cases against Boston Scientific are now centralized in one court. Other brands proceed separately, so your records and deadlines matter.
Official resources:
- Read the original report from Govdelivery — Use this primary source to review the complete report.
- Read the official notice from Helbocklaw — Use this primary source to verify the official announcement.
Table of Contents
- What changed in federal court?
- What did regulators report about Infinion CX leads?
- Do you meet the screening criteria firms use?
- What limits could block your claim?
- What records and steps protect your options?
What changed in federal court?
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation centralized federal Boston Scientific cases into MDL 3181 on June 5, 2026. The cases sit in the Central District of California before Judge Josephine L. Staton, according to the Marin & Murphy transfer-order summary.
The panel refused a single industry-wide MDL. Abbott, Medtronic and Nevro cases therefore stay outside MDL 3181. They continue as individual or state-court product-liability actions, as described by the Law Firm of Melinda J. Helbock.
What did regulators report about Infinion CX leads?
Boston Scientific's Infinion CX leads can suffer mechanical stress at the anchor site. That stress can cause high impedance or fracture, weak stimulation, and explant or replacement. The U.S.
FDA counted 1,081 serious injuries and no deaths as of May 27, 2026, in the FDA bulletin. The recall covers only unused Infinion CX leads removed from use or sale. It does not affect already-implanted leads or call for preventive removal, according to the same FDA bulletin.
📨 Get Free Mass Tort Guides Alerts
Free · No spam · Unsubscribe anytime
Do you meet the screening criteria firms use?
Reviewing firms say a potential claimant generally must show an implant from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Nevro or St. Jude. The person must also show a serious complication, according to the King Law October 2026 update.
A 2020 Public Citizen analysis of FDA MAUDE data found 179,917 adverse-event reports for fully implanted stimulators from 2004 to 2019. It included 118,272 injury reports. Common problems included lead migration or fracture, shocks, pain and infection, as summarized by TorHoerman Law.
- Shocks or burns during stimulation
- Lead migration, fracture or loss of stimulation
- Worsening pain or neurologic injury
- Revision or removal surgery
What limits could block your claim?
MAUDE reports and a recall do not prove causation. Cases move forward as individual product-liability claims, not as a class action with automatic payout, according to the TorHoerman Law October 2026 update.
Infection-only claims are generally excluded. State statutes of limitation can still bar late filing, as TorHoerman Law and Helbock Law note.
What records and steps protect your options?
TorHoerman Law ties practical qualification to paper and medical proof. Preserve implant records, device model and lead identifiers, and treatment notes that link malfunction to injury.
Get care promptly for shocks, loss of stimulation, new pain or other complications. Then seek a timely legal review before your state deadline passes.
You Might Also Like
- Depo-Provera Lawsuit Settlement Update: What Changed This Month?
- Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit: October 2026 Eligibility Update
- Monsanto Roundup Lawsuit Settlement Payouts Explained