Nevro Spinal Cord Stimulator Litigation Overview

Patients implanted with Nevro spinal cord stimulation systems, including the Senza, Senza II, Senza Omnia, and Senza HFX iQ, have filed lawsuits alleging serious injuries. These include unexpected electrical shocks, burning sensations, lead migration or fracture, nerve injury, loss of pain relief, and the need for revision or removal surgery.

On October 2, 2026, the JPML centralized an initial group of federal Nevro cases in the Northern District of California. Reported case counts vary by source and are expected to grow as additional cases are filed and transferred. Nevro was acquired by Globus Medical, Inc. in April 2025, and Globus has been named alongside Nevro in some complaints.

NGRV represents individuals nationwide who suffered serious harm or required revision surgery after receiving a Nevro spinal cord stimulator. Our attorneys bring over 50 years of combined experience, and our founding partners have been appointed by federal judges to leadership positions on Plaintiffs’ Steering and Executive Committees in major national litigations. Founding partner Brett Vaughn is also a Registered Nurse (RN, BSN), which informs how our firm reviews device records, operative reports, and neurological complaints.

If you or a loved one experienced nerve damage, uncontrolled shocks, burning, or revision or explant surgery after a Nevro implant, call or text NGRV at (202) 792-7927 or email Intake@nighgoldenberg.com for a free, confidential case evaluation.

What Is the Nevro Senza Spinal Cord Stimulator?

The Nevro Senza system is a Class III implantable neurostimulation device approved through the FDA’s Premarket Approval (PMA) process. Under PMA P130022, first approved on May 8, 2015, the Senza family is indicated as an aid in managing chronic intractable pain. FDA records also reflect an indication for painful diabetic neuropathy of the lower limbs when the system is programmed to include 10 kHz stimulation, and Nevro states that its HFX iQ system is approved for non-surgical back pain and painful diabetic neuropathy.

Nevro’s signature technology is 10 kHz high-frequency therapy, marketed under the HF10 and later HFX names and promoted as an alternative to traditional low-frequency stimulation that does not produce a tingling sensation (paresthesia). A Nevro system generally includes:

• Implantable Pulse Generator (IPG): A rechargeable generator placed beneath the skin, typically in the flank or upper buttock.
• Leads: Thin, insulated wires with electrodes placed in the epidural space to deliver stimulation.
• Charger and Patient Controls: External devices used to recharge the IPG and adjust programs. Newer systems use a smartphone-based app.

Note: This table describes the devices. Specific complications vary by patient and are alleged individually in each case.

Core Allegations in the Nevro Lawsuits

Plaintiffs allege the following, and Nevro disputes these claims. None of the allegations has been proven in court:

What Injuries Are Alleged in the Nevro Lawsuits?

When a spinal cord stimulator malfunctions or is improperly programmed, unintended electrical output near the spinal cord and nerve roots can cause serious harm. Complications reported by patients and alleged in the litigation include:

• Sudden Shocks or Surges: Abrupt, uncontrolled stimulation that can cause falls or involuntary muscle contractions.
• Burning Sensations and Heat-Related Injury: Painful stimulation, or heating at the lead or generator site, including during recharging.
• Lead Migration, Displacement, and Fracture: Movement or breakage of leads in the epidural space, causing radicular pain, loss of therapeutic coverage, or nerve injury.
• Loss of Therapy: Sudden shutdown, failure to hold a charge, or complete loss of pain relief with worsening nerve pain.
• Neurological Injury: Reported complications include numbness, weakness, foot drop, difficulty walking, spinal cord compression, and neuropathy.
• Bowel and Bladder Dysfunction: Reported in cases involving nerve injury or lead displacement.
• Infection and Fluid Complications: Surgical pocket infection, epidural abscess, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak, seroma, and skin erosion at the generator site.
• Revision and Explant Surgery: Procedures to reposition, replace, or remove leads and generators, each of which carries its own surgical risks, including scarring and dural injury.

Who May Qualify to File a Nevro Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit?

You may have a claim if you meet the following criteria:

• Implanted Device: You received a Nevro Senza, Senza II, Senza Omnia, or Senza HFX iQ system. Your device identification card, operative report, or hospital records will confirm the model.
• Documented Complication: You experienced one or more complications, such as:
  • Painful shocks, jolting sensations, or burning
  • Lead migration, fracture, or displacement
  • Rapid battery failure, overheating during charging, or sudden shutdown
  • New weakness, numbness, or difficulty walking
  • Bowel or bladder dysfunction
  • Severe infection, seroma, or skin erosion at the generator site
  • Loss of pain relief accompanied by worsening nerve pain
• Medical Intervention: You required additional treatment, such as repeated reprogramming, hospitalization, lead revision, device deactivation, or partial or complete explant.

Eligibility depends on the facts of each case. If you do not have your implant paperwork, NGRV can request and review your medical records on your behalf. You do not need to have had explant surgery to speak with an attorney, but the severity of your injury and any surgical recommendation are relevant to evaluating a claim.

What Is the Current Status of MDL 3195?

The Multi-MDL Landscape for Spinal Cord Stimulators

On June 5, 2026, the JPML declined to create a single industry-wide MDL and centralized only the Boston Scientific cases. On October 2, 2026, it created separate MDLs for Abbott and Nevro. In its order, the Panel also declined to assign the new cases to the judge overseeing the Boston Scientific MDL, noting that little efficiency would be gained by placing SCS cases against multiple manufacturers before one judge. Federal spinal cord stimulator claims are now organized as follows:

• Nevro Corp.: MDL No. 3195, Northern District of California (Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr.)
• Abbott Laboratories: MDL No. 3194, Northern District of Illinois (Judge Lindsay C. Jenkins). See our Abbott Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit page.
• Boston Scientific: MDL No. 3181, Central District of California (Judge Josephine L. Staton). See our Boston Scientific MDL 3181 case management repository.

Claims involving other manufacturers, including Medtronic, are not part of these MDLs.

What Happens Next

MDL 3195 is at an early stage. Typical initial steps include appointing plaintiffs’ leadership, setting a master docket and case management schedule, and addressing threshold legal issues. Nevro and Globus Medical opposed centralization, arguing that it would delay rather than streamline the cases.

One anticipated issue is federal preemption. Under Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc., 552 U.S. 312 (2008), state-law claims that impose requirements different from or in addition to federal requirements for a PMA-approved device may be preempted under 21 U.S.C. § 360k, while claims that parallel federal requirements may proceed. As of October 16, 2026, no bellwether trial dates or global settlement have been announced.

What Can I Expect If I File a Nevro Claim?

An MDL is not a class action. Each plaintiff keeps an individual lawsuit, and any recovery is based on that plaintiff’s own medical history, expenses, and injuries. MDL centralization coordinates pretrial proceedings such as discovery and expert issues before a single judge. Cases not resolved through settlement are generally returned to their original courts for trial.

Overview of the Process

1. Case evaluation. NGRV reviews your implant date, device model, and complication history at no cost to you.
2. Records collection. Our team obtains operative records, device programming and interrogation data, explant reports, imaging, and billing statements.
3. Filing. Your claim is filed in federal court and coordinated with MDL 3195, either by direct filing if the court authorizes it or by transfer to the Northern District of California.
4. Coordinated discovery. Court-appointed plaintiffs’ leadership conducts common discovery, including review of Nevro’s testing, regulatory, and marketing documents, depositions of company witnesses, and retention of biomedical, neurological, and regulatory experts.
5. Bellwether trials and settlement discussions. The court may select representative cases for trial. Outcomes in those cases often inform settlement negotiations, though no outcome can be guaranteed.

Damages That May Be Available

Depending on the facts and applicable state law, plaintiffs may seek compensation for:

• Past and future medical expenses, including hospitalization, imaging, and revision or explant surgery
• Lost wages and diminished earning capacity
• Physical pain, suffering, and permanent loss of mobility
• Loss of consortium and diminished quality of life
• Wrongful death damages in cases involving fatal complications

Why Choose Nigh Goldenberg Raso & Vaughn?

Product liability litigation against a medical device manufacturer requires multidistrict litigation experience, courtroom credibility, and medical literacy.

• Court-Appointed MDL Leadership: Our founding partners have been appointed by federal judges to Plaintiffs’ Steering and Executive Committees in national litigations, including In re: Valsartan, Losartan, and Irbesartan Products Liability Litigation (MDL 2875), In re: Paraquat Products Liability Litigation (MDL 3004), In re: Uber Technologies, Inc., Passenger Sexual Assault Litigation (MDL 3084), and In re: Davol, Inc./C.R. Bard, Inc., Polypropylene Hernia Mesh Products Liability Litigation (MDL 2846).
• Clinical Perspective: Brett Vaughn is both a trial attorney and a licensed Registered Nurse (RN, BSN), which supports careful review of neurosurgical records, lead placement imaging, and neurological injuries.
• Contingency Fee Representation: NGRV represents clients on a contingency fee basis. We advance litigation costs and expert expenses, and if there is no recovery on your behalf, you owe no attorney fees.

Frequently Asked Questions