Abbott Spine Stimulator Lawsuits

Chronic pain is debilitating. Neurostimulation or spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is one type of pain management; it works by sending low intensity electrical impulses to a patient’s nerve structures. Abbott makes various kinds of SCS systems that plaintiffs allege are flawed and caused injuries. Lawsuits have been filed that allege the SCS implants can break through skin, migrate, give painful shocks, cause nerve damage and fail outright; these may require expensive revision or removal surgery. On October 2, the JPML centralized 26 lawsuits against Abbott across 13 districts to be heard by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. If you were injured by the Abbott spine stimulator, you should call the seasoned Chicago-based product liability lawyers of Moll Law Group about whether you have a claim. Billions have been recovered in cases with which we’ve been involved.

Call Moll Law Group About Your Claim

Centralization permits lawsuits against the same manufacturer go through discovery and other pretrial proceedings together, which allows common questions to be decided consistently. In each case, plaintiffs still need to establish that the device in question cased their injuries. The plaintiffs in the initial cases that sought centralization in multidistrict litigation claimed that since the original premarket approvals, Abbott and Boston Scientific, another defendant, had introduced new devices that were significantly modified under supplements to their original premarket approvals. The plaintiffs alleged that they were implanted with spinal cord stimulators from these different companies and suffered injuries such as neurological problems, autonomic dysfunction, burning, shocking, lead migration and insufficient pain relief.

In June, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation found that proponents of an industry-wide MDL had failed to meet their burden of showing that an MDL with a wide scope would be appropriate since each manufacturer had its own line of devices, each of which had different regulatory histories. It found that given the differences among the lawsuits naming various manufacturers, an industry-wide MDL would probably complicate case management, due to the need to protect confidential information and trade secrets. Additionally, there was no common mechanism of defect alleged among all the different spinal cord stimulators.

However, the panel did find it was appropriate to centralize the lawsuits against Boston Scientific, ruling that those cases involved common questions of fact and that centralization would serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote efficient and just litigation.

In August, Abbott had opposed centralization, claiming that the cases were highly individualized and that they didn’t share a particular alleged device defect. However, on October 2, the JPML centralized Abbott cases in the Northern District of Illinois and centralized Nevro cases in California. It found that there were three frequent injuries alleged: nerve injury because of an electrical current delivered by stimulator devices; tissue damage that was the result of devices overheating; and failure of leads causing product failure and injury. It was not necessary that a common mechanism of defect be alleged.

Discuss Your Injuries With a Product Liability Attorney

If you were injured by an Abbott spinal cord stimulation system, please call the experienced Chicago-based product liability lawyers of Moll Law Group to find out whether you have a viable claim. Complete our online form or call us at 312.462.1700.