Mississippi Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuits: Your Rights

Spinal cord stimulators were supposed to give people with chronic back and nerve pain a way out — a small implanted device promising relief when surgery, physical therapy, and medication had run their course. For a growing number of patients across the country, including here in Mississippi, those devices have allegedly done the opposite. Reports of unexpected shocks, burns, migrating leads, and failed batteries are now driving a wave of product liability lawsuits against major device manufacturers.

At Van Every Law, we have spent decades representing Mississippi families harmed by products that did not perform the way patients were led to believe they would. If you or a loved one had a spinal cord stimulator implanted and ended up worse — not better — this article walks through what the litigation looks like, who may be liable, and what steps protect your rights.

What Happened

According to reports tracking the national litigation, patients who received implanted spinal cord stimulators (often called SCS devices) have filed a growing number of lawsuits alleging that the devices malfunctioned after being placed in the body. The reported problems include leads that shifted out of position, fractured or damaged wiring, batteries that failed, unpredictable electrical output, and stimulation that caused burns, shock-like sensations, worsening pain, or new neurological symptoms. Many patients allegedly required revision surgery or full removal of the device.

As of May 2026, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation was scheduled to consider whether to consolidate these cases into a single multidistrict litigation (MDL). Lawsuits have reportedly been filed against several manufacturers — including makers of well-known neurostimulation systems — claiming repeated changes to hardware, software, batteries, and electrical output were rolled out without clearly disclosing how those changes might affect long-term safety or performance.

This is not a single recall or a single bad batch. It is a broader allegation that an entire class of implantable pain devices may have been sold without adequate testing, adequate warnings, or honest information about how often patients end up needing another surgery.

Who May Be Liable

In a defective medical device case, the most common defendants are the companies that designed, manufactured, marketed, and sold the device. In the spinal cord stimulator litigation, that includes major neuromodulation manufacturers whose SCS systems are widely implanted in U.S. patients.

Depending on the facts, the following parties could be liable:

• The device manufacturer, for alleged design defects, manufacturing defects, or failure to warn about long-term risks.
• Component suppliers, where a specific part such as a battery or lead is alleged to have caused the failure.
• Distributors and sales representatives, in limited circumstances where misrepresentations may have been made about the device.
• In rare cases, a healthcare provider, if implantation or follow-up care fell below the medical standard — though that is a separate medical malpractice theory and is not the focus of the current product litigation.

Federal preemption rules can complicate claims involving devices approved through the FDA’s premarket approval pathway, which is why working with a lawyer who understands medical device law is critical.

Legal Theories That May Apply

A Mississippi spinal cord stimulator case could be built on several overlapping legal theories:

• Strict product liability — design defect: The device’s design may be alleged to be unreasonably dangerous, such that even a properly manufactured unit poses unacceptable risk.
• Strict product liability — manufacturing defect: A specific implanted device may have deviated from its intended specifications.
• Failure to warn: The manufacturer allegedly failed to provide adequate warnings to physicians and patients about complication rates, revision risks, or known hardware vulnerabilities.
• Negligence: The manufacturer may have failed to use reasonable care in designing, testing, monitoring, or updating the device.
• Breach of express or implied warranty: The device may not have performed as represented in marketing materials or product literature.
• Negligent misrepresentation: Statements about safety, durability, or pain relief made to patients or doctors may have been materially inaccurate.

Mississippi’s product liability framework is codified primarily in Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-63, and our courts have a long history of handling complex device and pharmaceutical claims.

Damages Victims May Recover

If a claim succeeds, a Mississippi patient harmed by an allegedly defective spinal cord stimulator may be entitled to recover several categories of damages:

• Past and future medical expenses, including the cost of revision surgery, explant surgery, imaging, rehabilitation, and ongoing pain management.
• Lost wages and lost earning capacity, when injuries keep someone out of work or limit what they can do long-term.
• Pain and suffering, for the physical pain, shocks, burns, and chronic discomfort allegedly caused by the device.
• Mental anguish and emotional distress, including anxiety associated with carrying a malfunctioning implant.
• Loss of consortium, for the spouse of a seriously injured patient.
• Punitive damages, in cases where evidence may show that a manufacturer acted with actual malice or gross negligence — though Mississippi caps and procedural rules apply.
• Wrongful death damages, where complications contributed to a loved one’s passing.

Every case is different, and the value depends on the severity of harm, the strength of the evidence, and the specific device involved.

Evidence That Strengthens a Case

Device cases live or die on documentation. The earlier evidence is preserved, the stronger the claim. Helpful evidence typically includes:

• The device identification card showing manufacturer, model, and serial or lot number.
• Operative reports from implantation, revision, and removal procedures.
• Imaging studies (X-rays, CT, MRI) showing lead position, migration, or fractures.
• Pain management and neurology records documenting symptoms before and after implantation.
• The explanted device itself, if removed — this should be preserved, not discarded.
• Programming logs and remote monitoring data from the manufacturer’s app or clinician portal.
• FDA adverse event reports (MAUDE database) and any recall notices tied to the specific model.
• Photographs of burns, scarring, or external charging components.
• A symptom journal tracking shocks, pain episodes, and limitations on daily life.

What to Do Next

If you suspect a spinal cord stimulator caused your injuries, a few practical steps protect both your health and your legal options:

1. Keep up with your medical care. Tell every treating provider about your symptoms so they end up in the record.
2. Preserve the device. If revision or removal surgery is planned, ask the hospital in writing to retain the explanted hardware.
3. Gather your paperwork. Locate your device card, surgical reports, and any manufacturer correspondence.
4. Be cautious with insurers and manufacturer representatives. Do not give recorded statements without speaking to a lawyer first.
5. Mind the deadlines. Mississippi generally has a three-year statute of limitations for product liability claims, but the clock can start running on different dates depending on when you discovered the harm. Waiting is risky.

If you or a loved one was implanted with a spinal cord stimulator and suffered shocks, burns, worsening pain, or needed revision surgery, our team is ready to listen. Call Van Every Law at (662) 502-5353 for a free Mississippi case evaluation — over 9 decades of trusted legal excellence. You can also reach us at vaneverylaw.com.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I sue if my spinal cord stimulator caused shocks or burns?

You may be eligible to file a claim if you were implanted with an SCS and allegedly experienced unexpected shocks, burns, or tissue injury linked to the device. Compensation could be available for medical bills, pain and suffering, and any revision surgery. A consultation with a Mississippi product liability attorney can help you evaluate whether the facts fit one of the active lawsuits.

How long do I have to file a spinal cord stimulator lawsuit in Mississippi?

Mississippi generally applies a three-year statute of limitations to product liability claims under Miss. Code Ann. § 15-1-49. The clock may start when you knew or reasonably should have known the device caused your injury, which can vary case by case. Because deadlines are unforgiving, it is important to speak with a lawyer as soon as possible.

What if I already had the device removed — can I still file a claim?

Yes, you may still have a claim even if the device has been explanted. In fact, removal surgery and the explanted hardware itself can be powerful evidence. Ask your hospital to preserve the device and keep copies of all related surgical and pathology reports.

Do I need to know the brand or model of my spinal cord stimulator?

It helps, but it is not required to start the conversation. Manufacturers, model numbers, and serial numbers are typically listed on the device identification card given at implantation and in your surgical records. Your attorney can help obtain these records if you no longer have them.

Who pays if I sue the manufacturer of my SCS device?

In most defective device cases, the manufacturer and its insurers are the parties that may ultimately pay any settlement or verdict. Patients typically do not pay out of pocket to pursue a claim because most personal injury firms, including Van Every Law, work on a contingency fee basis. That means you owe nothing unless there is a recovery.

What if my doctor told me the device was safe?

Claims in this litigation are generally directed at the manufacturer, not the implanting physician, because manufacturers control device design, testing, and warnings. If your doctor relayed information that allegedly came from the manufacturer’s marketing or product literature, that does not bar a claim against the company. A lawyer can sort out who the proper defendants may be.

Is there a class action, or would I file my own case?

As of recent reports, plaintiffs have asked the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to consolidate spinal cord stimulator cases into an MDL. An MDL is not the same as a class action — each patient still has an individual claim with individual damages, but pretrial proceedings are coordinated before one judge. Your lawyer can explain where the litigation stands when you call.

What does it cost to talk to Van Every Law about a possible case?

Nothing. Initial case evaluations are free and confidential, and our firm handles qualifying defective medical device cases on a contingency fee. You only pay attorney’s fees if we recover compensation for you.

Original reporting: aboutlawsuits.com.