Chronic Pain Shouldn’t Mean Living With More Pain – Spinal Cord Stimulator Update

Publish Date : 07/27/2026

For millions of Americans living with chronic back, leg, and nerve pain, a spinal cord stimulator represents hope.

When medications fail, when injections stop working, or when surgery isn’t an option, patients are told these devices may help them reclaim their lives.

Manufacturers like Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Abbott, Nevro, Saluda Medical, and others market spinal cord stimulators as innovative technology capable of reducing pain and improving quality of life.

For many patients, they do; but for others, the experience has been very different.

A growing number of lawsuits suggest some patients were never fully informed about the risks before these devices were implanted.

When the Treatment Becomes the Problem

Unlike many medical devices, spinal cord stimulators are not simply worn or carried, they are surgically implanted into the body.

Thin electrical leads (wires) are placed near the spinal cord and connected to an implanted battery delivering electrical impulses intended to interrupt pain signals before they reach the brain.

The concept is remarkable.

But when something goes wrong, fixing it often requires another surgery.

Sometimes several.

Patients have reported complications including:

• Lead (wire) migration, where the electrodes move from their intended position.
• Device failures or unexpected loss of therapy.
• Pain at the implant site.
• Infection.
• Battery failures.
• Electrical shocks or uncomfortable stimulation.
• The need for repeated revision surgeries.

For many patients, the result is exactly the opposite of what they were promised.

Instead of reducing pain, they find themselves living with new pain.

The Questions Being Asked in Court

Across the country, lawsuits involving spinal cord stimulators continue to grow.

While every case is different, many raise remarkably similar allegations.

Patients contend they were not adequately warned about potential complications before surgery.

Others allege devices failed prematurely or required multiple revision procedures.

Still others argue manufacturers overstated the benefits while minimizing known risks.

The manufacturers deny these allegations and maintain their products are safe and effective when used appropriately.

These issues are now increasingly being decided in courtrooms rather than marketing materials.

This Story Sounds Familiar

If this pattern feels familiar, it should.

Medical device litigation has followed this path before.

Hip implants.

Pelvic mesh.

IVC filters.

Insulin pumps.

Each began with individual reports of unexpected injuries.

Each eventually raised larger questions about product design, testing, warnings, and post-market surveillance.

Today, spinal cord stimulators are following a similar trajectory.

Innovation Doesn’t End the Duty to Warn

Thousands of patients have experienced meaningful relief from spinal cord stimulation therapy, but innovation does not eliminate responsibility.

Manufacturers still have a duty to thoroughly evaluate products, monitor adverse events, communicate known risks, and provide physicians and patients with complete and accurate safety information.

Patients can make informed decisions only when they receive informed information.

This principle has guided product liability law for decades.

Living With Chronic Pain Is Hard Enough

People who agree to spinal cord stimulator surgery are rarely looking for convenience; they are looking for relief, and most have already exhausted conservative treatments.

They’ve lived with pain for years. They’ve missed work. Missed family events. Missed pieces of their lives.

Choosing an implanted medical device is often a last resort—not a first choice.

Making informed consent even more important.

Because once the device is implanted, removing it may require another invasive surgery, and in some cases, the complications can persist long after the device is gone.

The Bigger Question

Patients understand every medical device carries some level of risk. The question is not whether complications can occur, the question is whether patients were given the information needed to make a truly informed decision before undergoing surgery.

As spinal cord stimulator litigation continues to develop, courts will increasingly be asked to answer familiar questions:

What did manufacturers know?

When did they know it?

Were physicians and patients adequately warned?

And if additional risks became apparent after these devices entered the market, were those risks communicated quickly enough?

For patients living with chronic pain, those questions aren’t academic.

They’re personal.

Because when you trust a device that’s supposed to relieve your pain, you shouldn’t have to wonder whether it created a whole new one.

Hiring our firm costs nothing upfront. We work on a contingency fee basis, meaning you only pay if we receive compensation. If you win, our fee will be a percentage of the settlement or verdict, so there are no out-of-pocket expenses unless we succeed.

Feel free to contact one of our attorneys at 1-877-542-4646 or by using the form below if your family has suffered any adverse side effects due to a video game addiction. Your information will remain confidential, and a lawyer will provide a free legal consultation.