Nevro Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit November 2026 Status: MDL 3195 is pending before Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. in the Northern District of California with 24 cases as of November 2, 2026. Leadership applications are due November 30 and the first conference is December 18, 2026 in Oakland. Discovery and pending motions are stayed. No case has been tried or settled. Call (205) 407-6009 for a free case review.
Lawsuits over Nevro’s high-frequency spinal cord stimulators, sold as Senza and HFX, are centralized in MDL 3195 before Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. in the Northern District of California. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation created the proceeding on October 2, 2026. There were 24 cases pending on November 2, 2026, and the lawyers who asked for the MDL told the Panel they represent about 300 potential plaintiffs. Applications to lead the litigation are due November 30, and the court’s first conference is December 18, 2026 in Oakland. No Nevro case has been tried or settled.
This page tracks the Nevro litigation: the latest court dates, the devices named, what the lawsuits allege, how courts have ruled so far, who may qualify and how long you have. Fob & Foster Personal Injury Lawyers review Nevro stimulator claims for patients in Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee and North Carolina. The call is free: (205) 407-6009. For the other manufacturers, see our main spinal cord stimulator lawsuit guide.
Filing Deadline Warning: The Nevro MDL has no direct filing or tolling order, so only a filed lawsuit stops the clock. Your state sets the deadline: one year in Tennessee, two years in Alabama and Georgia, three years in North Carolina, often counted from the first sign of trouble and not from the removal surgery. Call (205) 407-6009 or toll-free (866) 837-1010 to have your dates checked.
Nevro Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit Updates
Latest Update, November 10, 2026: Applications to serve as plaintiffs’ lead counsel and on the steering committee are due November 30, 2026, with responses due December 14 and a joint case management statement due December 15. Judge Gilliam holds the first in-person conference on December 18, 2026 in Oakland. Discovery and pending motions are stayed. The Judicial Panel’s November 2 report lists 24 cases pending. No case has been tried or settled.
Earlier updates are listed newest first. Select one to read it.
October 14, 2026: Pretrial Order No. 1
Judge Gilliam’s first order stayed discovery and briefing on pending motions, set the schedule for leadership applications and set the December 18 conference. The same day the Panel flagged two more cases, from Missouri and Oklahoma, for transfer.
October 2, 2026: MDL 3195 Created
The Judicial Panel centralized 23 Nevro cases from ten districts before Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. in the Northern District of California, where Nevro is based and where twelve cases were already assigned to him. The lawyers who asked for the MDL told the Panel they represent about 300 potential plaintiffs.
May 2026: A Nevro Case Survives in Maryland
In DiToto v. Nevro a federal court in Maryland denied most of Nevro’s motion to dismiss and held that claims based on a failure to report adverse events to the FDA were not preempted. The case has since been transferred into the MDL.
February 2026: New Mexico Case Dismissed Without Prejudice
A federal court in New Mexico dismissed a Nevro complaint on preemption grounds but left the patient free to seek leave to amend.
January 2025: Louisiana Case Dismissed Without Prejudice
A federal court in Louisiana dismissed a Nevro complaint on preemption grounds, without prejudice.
Which Nevro Stimulators Are Named
Nevro’s systems deliver stimulation at 10,000 hertz, far above the frequency of traditional stimulators, and are marketed as relieving pain without the tingling sensation older devices produce. The lawsuits name the Senza, Senza II and Senza Omnia systems and the newer HFX iQ. Nevro was acquired by Globus Medical in 2025, and Globus is named alongside Nevro in some of the cases.
What the Nevro Lawsuits Allege
The Panel described the common questions as Nevro’s regulatory compliance, whether its sales representatives made false or misleading statements about the devices, and whether the company’s conduct amounted to the unauthorized practice of medicine. Its order records the plaintiffs’ allegation that nearly 250 new stimulator devices were brought to market through supplements to earlier approvals instead of through new applications with new clinical data. Patients describe shocks and burning, leads that migrated, devices that stopped relieving pain or made it worse, new neurological symptoms, and revision and removal surgeries. Nevro denies the allegations.
One fact sets Nevro apart from Boston Scientific and Abbott: none of its spinal cord stimulators has been the subject of an FDA-classified recall. A recall is not required for a claim, but Nevro plaintiffs will have to prove their case without one.
How the Courts Have Ruled in Nevro Cases So Far
Nevro cases were being decided one by one before the MDL existed, and the results show how much turns on the way a complaint is written.
- DiToto v. Nevro, District of Maryland, May 2026. The court denied most of Nevro’s motion to dismiss. It held that claims based on a failure to report adverse events to the FDA were not preempted, and it allowed a claim about the training of the people who handled the device to proceed as ordinary negligence. This is the most favorable stimulator ruling for patients to date.
- A New Mexico case, February 2026. The court dismissed the complaint on preemption grounds but without prejudice, and the patient asked for permission to file an amended complaint.
- A Louisiana case, January 2025. Dismissed without prejudice on the same ground.
The Maryland case and the New Mexico case have both been transferred into the MDL, so Judge Gilliam inherits one decision in each direction. His ruling on preemption will replace them for every Nevro case.
Why the Cases Are in Oakland
Plaintiffs asked for the Northern District of California or, in the alternative, for the cases to join the Boston Scientific MDL in Los Angeles. The Panel chose the Northern District, where Nevro is based and where all twelve cases on the original motion were already assigned to Judge Gilliam, whom the order calls “an experienced transferee judge.” By the time of the ruling there were 23 cases in ten districts. A further order on October 14 flagged two more, from Missouri and Oklahoma, for transfer.
What Happens Next in MDL 3195
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Oct. 14, 2026 | Pretrial Order No. 1: discovery and briefing on pending motions stayed |
| Nov. 30, 2026 | Applications for plaintiffs’ lead counsel and steering committee due |
| Dec. 14, 2026 | Responses to leadership applications due |
| Dec. 15, 2026 | Joint case management statement due |
| Dec. 18, 2026 | Initial in-person status conference, federal courthouse, Oakland |
After leadership is appointed, the usual sequence is a master complaint, Nevro’s motion to dismiss on preemption grounds, and orders governing how new cases are filed. There is no direct filing order yet; cases filed in the Northern District of California are coordinated automatically, and cases filed elsewhere are transferred.
Who May Qualify for a Nevro Claim
- You received a permanent Nevro Senza or HFX stimulator.
- Afterward you had shocks or burning, lead migration, loss of therapy or worse pain, a serious infection, or new nerve, bowel or bladder problems.
- You needed revision or removal surgery, hospital care or repeated reprogramming, or were advised to turn the device off.
- Your state’s deadline is open: one year in Tennessee, two in Alabama and Georgia, three in North Carolina, counted from the first sign of trouble.
How Long Do You Have to File a Nevro Claim?
The court handling Nevro cases does not set your deadline. Your state does, and the four states we serve differ sharply:
| State | Deadline to sue for injury | Outer limit | State guide |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tennessee | 1 year | 6 years from injury or 10 years from first purchase | Tennessee guide |
| Alabama | 2 years | 20-year common-law rule of repose | Alabama guide |
| Georgia | 2 years | 10 years from first sale for strict liability claims | Georgia guide |
| North Carolina | 3 years | 12 years from initial purchase | North Carolina guide |
The Nevro MDL has no direct filing or tolling order yet. A case filed in the Northern District of California is coordinated there, and a case filed in another federal court is transferred. Either way, the clock keeps running until the complaint is filed.
What to Do If Your Nevro Stimulator Has Caused Problems
Your Health Comes First: Do not turn off, stop charging or seek removal of your stimulator because of a lawsuit or a recall notice. Those are medical decisions to make with your doctor. If you have sudden weakness or numbness, loss of bowel or bladder control, fever, or signs of infection at the implant site, get medical care right away.
- Tell your doctor. Report each symptom and ask that it go in the chart. Turning the device off, changing its settings or scheduling a removal are medical decisions, not steps to take for a lawsuit.
- Confirm what you have. Your implant card, the Nevro remote and charger, and the operative report identify the system. Newer paperwork may carry the HFX name or refer to Globus Medical.
- Write down the dates: the implant, the first problem, each reprogramming visit, any instruction to turn the device off, and every revision or removal.
- Keep the hardware. If the device is coming out, tell the surgeon and the hospital in writing beforehand that you want the generator and leads preserved and not sent back to the manufacturer.
- Save what the company representative told you: texts, emails and voicemails.
- Have the dates checked. The deadline may already be running.
How Fob & Foster Handle Nevro Stimulator Claims
The review is free and starts with a phone call about your device, the dates and the treatment you have needed. We tell you whether the claim appears to be within your state’s deadline and whether it is the kind of injury these cases involve. If we take the case, we gather the implant and operative records, confirm the model and file it in federal court so that it is coordinated in MDL 3195 in Oakland. We work on a contingency fee: no fee unless we recover money for you, and we explain the fee agreement in writing before you sign anything. Call (205) 407-6009 or send us a message.
Nevro Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit FAQs
Is there a Nevro spinal cord stimulator class action?
No. Nevro cases are individual lawsuits coordinated in MDL 3195 in the Northern District of California before Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. There were 24 pending as of November 2, 2026.
Has Nevro settled any spinal cord stimulator lawsuits?
No. There has been no settlement or verdict in a Nevro stimulator product liability case, and the MDL has not set trial dates.
Has the Nevro HFX or Senza been recalled?
No Nevro spinal cord stimulator has been the subject of an FDA-classified recall. The lawsuits do not depend on a recall.
Is Globus Medical part of the Nevro lawsuits?
Globus Medical acquired Nevro in 2025 and is named as a defendant with Nevro in some cases. The MDL is captioned for Nevro Corporation.
Where are Nevro spinal cord stimulator lawsuits filed?
They are coordinated in MDL 3195 before Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. in the Northern District of California. A case filed in another federal court is transferred there for pretrial proceedings and returns to its home district if it goes to trial.
How long do I have to file a Nevro stimulator claim?
Your state’s law sets the deadline: one year in Tennessee, two years in Alabama and Georgia, and three years in North Carolina. The time often starts when the device first gives you reason to suspect it, not when it is removed.
Do I have to have my Nevro stimulator removed to file?
No. Claims also involve revision or replacement surgery, hospital care, repeated reprogramming and devices a doctor has said to turn off. Removal is a medical decision to make with your physician.
How much does it cost to have a Nevro claim reviewed?
Nothing. The review is free, and Fob & Foster Personal Injury Lawyers handle these claims on a contingency fee: no fee unless we recover money for you.
Related Practice Areas
- Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit (National Guide)
- Boston Scientific Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit
- Abbott Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit
- Medtronic 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
- Bard PowerPort Lawsuit
- AngioDynamics Port Catheter Lawsuit
- Medtronic Bravo Capsule Recall Lawsuit
- Defective Products Lawyers