Articles
Last updated: November 10, 2026
Boston Scientific faces the largest and most advanced group of spinal cord stimulator lawsuits. The cases are centralized in MDL 3181 before Judge Josephine L. Staton in the Central District of California, created June 5, 2026. There were 62 cases pending on November 2, 2026, up from 41 a month earlier. The plaintiffs filed their master complaint on October 23, 2026, and Boston Scientific’s motion to dismiss it is due November 20, 2026. No case has been tried or settled.
Boston Scientific Stimulator Lawsuits at a Glance
- Court: MDL 3181, Central District of California, Judge Josephine L. Staton; created June 5, 2026.
- Cases pending: 62 as of November 2, 2026.
- Devices: the Precision and WaveWriter families.
- Next dates: motions to dismiss due November 20, 2026; status conference December 4, 2026.
- Direct filing: allowed from any state since August 18, 2026.
- Trials and settlements: none.
Which Boston Scientific Stimulators Are Involved
The master complaint is reported to name nine Boston Scientific systems, all of which trace to a single FDA premarket approval, PMA P030017, first granted in 2004:
- Precision and Precision Plus
- Precision Spectra
- Precision Montage and Precision Montage MRI
- Precision Novi
- Precision Spectra WaveWriter
- WaveWriter Alpha and WaveWriter Alpha Prime
Your implant card, the Boston Scientific remote or charger, or the operative report from your surgery will tell you which system and which leads you have.
What the Boston Scientific Lawsuits Allege
The Panel’s order creating the MDL summarizes the common allegations. Plaintiffs say Boston Scientific obtained its original approval by relying on published studies of other companies’ stimulators instead of clinical trials of its own device; that it then abused the supplement process, using it to introduce one modified system after another without new clinical testing; that it failed to warn of, and concealed, known risks; and that its sales representatives practiced medicine without a license by programming devices and directing care. The injuries pleaded are unsatisfactory pain relief, shocking, burning, lead migration, autonomic dysfunction and neurological injuries. Boston Scientific denies the allegations.
The Panel chose the Central District of California because fourteen cases were already there, ten of them coordinated before Judge Staton, and because Boston Scientific’s neuromodulation business is based in the district.
The Infinion CX Recall and the WaveWriter Alpha Advisory
On September 3, 2026 the FDA announced a Class I recall of Boston Scientific’s Infinion CX lead kits, models SC-2317-50 and SC-2317-70. Mechanical stress on the lead at the anchor site can cause high impedance or a fractured lead, and the company had reported 1,081 serious injuries and no deaths as of May 27, 2026. The recall removes unused leads and does not affect leads already implanted. Our post on the Infinion CX recall covers it in detail. Separately, in 2024 Boston Scientific sent doctors an advisory about the WaveWriter Alpha concerning interruptions of therapy during charging.
How MDL 3181 Is Organized
| Date | Order or event |
|---|---|
| June 5, 2026 | MDL created; 23 cases in nine districts transferred |
| Aug. 13, 2026 | Pretrial Order No. 2 appoints plaintiffs’ co-lead counsel, liaison counsel and committees |
| Aug. 18, 2026 | Pretrial Order No. 4 allows direct filing in the Central District of California |
| Sept. 23, 2026 | Pretrial Order No. 5 creates a separate track for claims against the FDA |
| Oct. 20, 2026 | Pretrial Order No. 6 sets deadlines and names the Personal Injury Track and APA Track |
| Oct. 23, 2026 | Consolidated personal injury complaint and consolidated APA complaint filed |
| Nov. 20, 2026 | Motions to dismiss both complaints due |
| Dec. 4, 2026 | Status conference |
Direct filing
Under Pretrial Order No. 4 a patient in any state can file a Boston Scientific case directly in the MDL. Boston Scientific agreed not to contest venue for pretrial purposes, each complaint names the home district the case would return to for trial, and a directly filed complaint stops the statute of limitations on the day it is filed. Direct filing cannot rescue a claim that had already expired.
The FDA track
Some plaintiffs also sued the FDA under the Administrative Procedure Act, challenging the agency’s approvals of the supplements. Judge Staton placed those claims on a separate track with one consolidated complaint. Motions to dismiss it are due November 20, oppositions December 18, replies January 15, 2027, and the hearing will be no earlier than February 5, 2027. In the Medtronic cases in Minnesota, a judge ruled in July 2026 that plaintiffs lacked standing to bring similar claims against the FDA.
The Ruling to Watch
Boston Scientific’s motion to dismiss will argue that federal law preempts the plaintiffs’ state-law claims because the devices went through FDA premarket approval. The plaintiffs will argue that the company violated the FDA’s own requirements and that claims based on those violations are not preempted. Judge Staton’s decision, which is unlikely before 2027, will be the first preemption ruling by any of the three stimulator MDL judges and will affect every Boston Scientific case. The same order allows Boston Scientific to challenge four cases as filed too late, so deadlines will be tested early as well.
Who May Qualify for a Boston Scientific Claim
- A permanent Boston Scientific Precision or WaveWriter system was implanted in you.
- You experienced shocks or burning, a lead that migrated or fractured, loss of therapy, a serious infection, or new nerve, bowel or bladder problems.
- The problem led to revision, replacement or removal surgery, hospital care or repeated reprogramming, or you were told to turn the device off.
- Your state’s deadline is still open: one year in Tennessee, two in Alabama and Georgia, three in North Carolina.
Boston Scientific Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit FAQs
Is there a Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulator class action?
No. The cases are individual lawsuits coordinated in MDL 3181 in the Central District of California. There were 62 pending as of November 2, 2026.
Has Boston Scientific settled any spinal cord stimulator cases?
No. There has been no settlement or verdict, and no trial dates or bellwether schedule have been set. A $20 million award sometimes cited online was a patent dispute between Boston Scientific and Nevro, not an injury case.
Do I need Infinion CX leads to file a claim?
No. The lawsuits were filed before the Infinion CX recall and cover Boston Scientific’s stimulator systems generally. A fractured Infinion CX lead that required surgery is one kind of claim among many.
Can I file directly in the Boston Scientific MDL?
Yes. Since August 18, 2026 a Boston Scientific case can be filed directly in the Central District of California from any state, and the filing date stops the limitations clock.
For all four manufacturers, the injuries and the deadlines, see our spinal cord stimulator lawsuit guide and the latest lawsuit update. State guides: Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, North Carolina. To have a Boston Scientific claim reviewed at no charge, call Fob & Foster Personal Injury Lawyers at (205) 407-6009.
Related Practice Areas
- Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit
- Alabama Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit
- Georgia Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit
- Tennessee Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit
- North Carolina Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit
- Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit Update
- Spinal Cord Stimulator Verdicts and Settlements
- Boston Scientific Infinion CX Lead Recall
- Abbott Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit
- Nevro Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit
- Medtronic Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit
Fob James, IV
Fob James obtained a B.S., in software engineering from Auburn University and then continued his education by getting his J.D. from Vanderbilt University School of Law. After working for a large national firm for several years, Fob found that his passion was fighting for individuals who have been seriously injured or wronged by others. Fob believes that the jury is the great equalizer to the power and influence that large corporations have in society. Many of Fob’s cases are high profile and have been featured in, among others: Bloomberg News, PlanAdvisor, AL.com, PlanSponsor, National Law Review, and BusinessInsider. For his work in obtaining numerous multi-million dollar outcomes for his clients, Fob has been recognized by: National Trial Lawyers Top 100, SuperLawyers Rising Star (2020-2026), Birmingham Business Journal Who’s Who in Law (2023-2025), and TrustAnalytica – Top Personal Injury Lawyers in Alabama.