Nevro Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit MDL 3195 Case Management Orders (CMOs)
MDL 3195 was created on October 2, 2026, when the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) centralized federal lawsuits over Nevro spinal cord stimulators in the Northern District of California before Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr. The litigation is new. As of October 16, 2026, the JPML transfer order is the only order listed on this page, and orders entered by Judge Gilliam will be added as they appear on the MDL 3195 docket. Reading the orders is one of the best ways to follow the status of the litigation, so bookmark this page.
Plaintiffs allege that Nevro spinal cord stimulators caused painful shocks, burning sensations, lead migration, loss of pain relief, and the need for revision or removal surgery. Each plaintiff keeps an individual claim. The MDL coordinates pretrial proceedings only.
Injured by a Nevro Spinal Cord Stimulator?
Our attorneys are reviewing claims involving Nevro Senza, Senza II, Senza Omnia, HFX, and HFX iQ systems. Visit our Nevro Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit page or call (202) 792-7927 for a free consultation.
Important: Do not alter your device settings or schedule removal of your device without first speaking with your treating physician. A legal consultation does not replace medical advice.
Master Docket Information
All MDL 3195 Case Management Orders
1 order listed, newest first.
2026
- 10/02/2026 LatestJPML Transfer Order: Creation of MDL 3195PDF
Note: Pretrial orders, case management orders, direct filing orders, and complaint templates will be added after the court enters them.
Summary of the JPML Transfer Order (October 2, 2026)
The Panel centralized the Nevro actions for coordinated pretrial proceedings and assigned them to Judge Gilliam. At the time of the order, 17 Nevro actions were pending in six federal districts, with six related actions identified in five more. Twelve of the actions were already pending before Judge Gilliam.
The Panel found that the cases share common questions of fact, including allegations about Nevro’s regulatory history, its use of the FDA premarket approval supplement process, and the role of company representatives in programming implanted devices. It created this MDL separately from the Abbott and Boston Scientific proceedings. In June 2026, the Panel had already declined to create a single MDL for all spinal cord stimulator manufacturers.
What the Nevro Lawsuits Allege
Plaintiffs in MDL 3195 allege that Nevro spinal cord stimulators caused serious injuries and failed to deliver lasting pain relief. The allegations raised across the complaints include:
- Device changes without adequate review. Plaintiffs allege Nevro introduced nearly 250 devices through supplements to earlier FDA approvals, and that the cumulative changes warranted more clinical evaluation.
- Programming by company representatives. Plaintiffs allege that Nevro representatives took part in programming and reprogramming implanted devices and adjusted stimulation settings after implantation.
- Injuries. Reported complications include painful shocks, burning sensations, lead migration, weakness in the legs, and loss of pain relief, in some cases requiring revision or removal surgery.
- Inadequate warnings. Plaintiffs allege that patients and their doctors were not fully warned about these risks.
These are allegations. Nevro has not been found liable, and the court has not ruled on the merits of these claims. For a full discussion, see our Nevro Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit page.
Nevro Devices Involved
The lawsuits involve Nevro Senza, Senza II, Senza Omnia, HFX, and HFX iQ systems, along with the implanted pulse generators, leads, and related components used with them.
Related Spinal Cord Stimulator MDLs
Lawsuits against other spinal cord stimulator manufacturers are proceeding separately:
Why Follow the Case Management Orders?
Case management orders set the schedule and rules for the litigation, including leadership appointments, discovery, plaintiff fact sheets, direct filing, and the selection of bellwether cases. Following them helps injured patients and their attorneys understand where the litigation stands and what comes next.
About Nigh Goldenberg Raso & Vaughn
- Our partners have been appointed by federal judges to leadership roles in major multidistrict 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).
- Founding partner Brett Vaughn is a licensed registered nurse (RN, BSN) as well as an MDL trial attorney, which helps our team review medical records and device data.
- Our firm has more than 50 years of combined experience and handles these cases on a contingency fee basis. You pay no attorney fees unless we recover compensation for you.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is MDL 3195?
MDL 3195 is a federal multidistrict litigation created on October 2, 2026, for lawsuits alleging that Nevro spinal cord stimulators are defective. The cases are centralized in the Northern District of California before Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr. for coordinated pretrial proceedings.
What is a case management order?
A case management order is a court order that sets the schedule and procedures for an MDL, such as discovery rules, filing requirements, and deadlines. In some MDLs these are titled pretrial orders.
Is there a Nevro spinal cord stimulator class action?
No. An MDL is not a class action. Each plaintiff pursues an individual claim, and compensation depends on the device, the injuries, and the treatment required.
Do I have to live in California to file a Nevro lawsuit?
No. Lawsuits filed in federal courts across the country can be transferred into the MDL. In most cases, plaintiffs do not need to travel to California, and cases not resolved in the MDL may later be returned to the original court for trial.
Which Nevro devices are involved?
The lawsuits involve Nevro Senza, Senza II, Senza Omnia, HFX, and HFX iQ systems and their components.
How do I file a claim in MDL 3195?
Speak with an attorney experienced in medical device litigation. An attorney can review your implant history and injuries and file an individual complaint in the appropriate federal court, where it can be coordinated with the MDL. Filing a claim does not extend the statute of limitations, so timing matters.
Has there been a settlement?
No settlement has been announced as of October 16, 2026. MDL 3195 is at its earliest stage.
How is the Nevro MDL different from the Boston Scientific and Abbott MDLs?
Each manufacturer has its own devices, regulatory history, and evidence, so the JPML created a separate MDL for each. The Nevro MDL covers only Nevro devices.
Sources and References
- NGRV, MDL tracker and JPML transfer orders
- HarrisMartin, JPML asked to centralize Nevro actions
- Daily Journal, Nevro cases consolidated in Northern District of California
- Becker’s Spine, Abbott and Nevro cases sent to two federal courts
- Law360, JPML denies industry-wide MDL, June 5, 2026
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. The information on this page is for general informational purposes and is not legal or medical advice. Allegations described are claims made by plaintiffs in active litigation and have not been proven. Contacting NGRV does not by itself create an attorney-client relationship.
