Wisner Baum Named Co-Lead Counsel in Boston Scientific Spinal Cord Stimulator MDL
- Behram V. Parekh appointed Co-Lead Counsel in Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulator MDL No. 3181
- Hannah Quicksell named to Leadership Development Committee for coordinated discovery phase
- Plaintiffs allege device failures and insufficient clinical trials for post-approval modifications
- Consolidation of cases against Abbott and Nevro scheduled for September 24 hearing consideration

*this image is generated using AI for illustrative purposes only.
Wisner Baum LLP attorneys have been appointed to key leadership roles in the multidistrict litigation concerning Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulators. The appointments mark a shift from individual filings to coordinated federal proceedings.
Behram V. Parekh, a partner at the firm’s Los Angeles office, has been named one of three Co-Lead Counsel in Boston Scientific Corporation Spinal Cord Stimulator Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3181. Associate attorney Hannah Quicksell was appointed to the litigation’s Leadership Development Committee.
Federal Coordination Begins
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation established MDL No. 3181 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The cases are pending before U.S. District Judge Josephine L. Staton.
As Co-Lead Counsel, Parekh will coordinate plaintiffs’ pretrial activities, develop the litigation plan, and manage common-issue and bellwether discovery. Quicksell and other committee members will work with senior leadership on litigation projects and participate in court presentations.
Regulatory and Safety Allegations
Plaintiffs allege that spinal cord stimulators failed to deliver promised pain relief and caused injuries including painful electrical shocks, worsening pain, and neurological symptoms. The lawsuits also challenge how manufacturers modified devices after original U.S. Food and Drug Administration approvals.
Attorneys argue that manufacturers made extensive changes to software, firmware, battery systems, and stimulation patterns through the FDA’s premarket approval supplement process without conducting new clinical trials to evaluate cumulative effects.
Broader Industry Scrutiny
The Boston Scientific MDL addresses one portion of broader spinal cord stimulator litigation. Attorneys are seeking to consolidate federal cases against Abbott and Nevro. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation is scheduled to consider those requests at a September 24 hearing.
Parekh noted that if additional cases are coordinated, the litigation could provide a broader look at practices across the spinal cord stimulation industry, examining evidence supporting devices, post-implantation risks, and information provided to patients.
How might the outcome of the September 24 hearing regarding Abbott and Nevro consolidation impact the total settlement value and timeline of the spinal cord stimulator litigation?
What potential regulatory changes could the FDA implement in response to allegations that manufacturers modified device software and firmware without new clinical trials?
How will the appointment of Co-Lead Counsel influence the selection and strategy for upcoming bellwether trials in MDL No. 3181?

































