Nevro spinal cord stimulator lawsuits allege that certain Senza, HF10, and HFX systems failed to provide the promised pain relief and caused serious complications. The lawsuits allege manufacturing defects, inadequate warnings, misleading representations, post-market reporting failures, and improper device programming by Nevro sales representatives. Plaintiffs further allege that cumulative changes made through FDA premarket-approval supplements altered device components and performance without adequate clinical validation or disclosure.
Our attorneys are evaluating spinal cord stimulator lawsuits nationwide, including those involving Nevro products. If you received a Nevro SCS device and later experienced adverse events, contact us today for a free and confidential case evaluation.
Nevro Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit Updates
September 2026: The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation heard arguments on September 24, 2026, to decide whether to centralize federal Nevro spinal cord stimulator lawsuits in proposed MDL No. 3195.
August 2026: In a separate proceeding involving Boston Scientific (not Nevro) spinal cord stimulators, the court appointed Wisner Baum attorney Behram V. Parekh as one of three Co-Lead Counsel in MDL No. 3181. Read about Wisner Baum’s Boston Scientific MDL appointment.
June 2026: The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation declined to create a single industrywide proceeding for spinal cord stimulator claims. It centralized cases involving Boston Scientific in MDL No. 3181 but left Nevro cases outside that MDL. On June 26, plaintiffs filed a new motion seeking a separate, manufacturer-specific proceeding for federal Nevro cases, docketed as proposed MDL No. 3195.
May 2026: In DiToto v. Nevro Corporation, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland granted in part and denied in part Nevro and Globus Medical’s motion to dismiss. The court dismissed the implied warranty count but allowed the plaintiff’s other pleaded claims to proceed at this preliminary stage. The ruling did not determine that the plaintiff’s allegations are true or that the defendants are liable. Read the May 21st order.
April 2026: Plaintiff Paul Pospisil filed a product liability action against Nevro Corporation and Globus Medical in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The complaint alleges that two Nevro spinal cord stimulators failed to provide expected relief and caused burning pain, electrical shocks, numbness, weakness, and permanent nerve damage. It further alleges that Nevro representatives repeatedly attributed the problems to programming and adjusted the devices, at times without a treating physician present. These allegations have not been proven in court.
March 2026: On March 23, 2026, Wisner Baum filed Lutke v. Nevro Corporation et al. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of Montana resident Richard Lutke. The complaint alleges that Lutke’s permanently implanted Nevro spinal cord stimulator failed to relieve his chronic pain and instead caused worsening pain, numbness, muscle weakness, falls, urinary incontinence, blood clots, and other injuries. It further alleges that Nevro representatives programmed and repeatedly adjusted the device outside the presence of Lutke’s physician and that Nevro failed to adequately disclose known or foreseeable device risks.
April 2025: Globus Medical completed its acquisition of Nevro Corp in a $250 million deal on April 3, 2025, making the company a wholly owned subsidiary of Globus.
January 2022: Nevro Corporation received approval to expand indications for the Senza SCS systems to patients with chronic neuropathic and refractory back pain who are not candidates for spine surgery and have not previously undergone spine surgery. As a result of the expansion, more patients could receive the device to manage chronic pain in the legs and lower back.
July 2021: FDA approved an expanded indication for the Senza system as an aid in managing chronic intractable lower-limb pain associated with diabetic neuropathy.
Nevro Spinal Cord Stimulator Devices
In May 2015, Nevro Corporation received FDA approval for the Senza spinal cord stimulator (SCS) system delivering HF10 therapy. The new system differed from conventional spinal cord stimulators in that it is designed to deliver electrical pulses at a much higher frequency (10,000 Hz) directly to the spinal cord. Traditional SCS systems focused on low-frequency devices that can induce a tingling sensation known as paresthesia.
The Nevro HF10, subsequently HFX, was marketed as superior to traditional SCS therapy for back and leg pain since it was a paresthesia-free option for pain management. In July 2021, the FDA expanded its approval for the device to treat diabetic neuropathy. Six months later, indications were further expanded to include patients with chronic neuropathy and refractory back pain. The January 2022 expansion gave FDA approval of the device for the management of failed back surgery syndrome, leg pain, and intractable low back pain.
Which Nevro Devices Are Named in Lawsuits?
Nevro has marketed several spinal cord stimulation systems within the Senza product family. FDA records identify Senza, Senza II, and Senza Omnia as systems within the broader Senza SCS platform. “HF10” refers to Nevro’s 10 kHz therapy, while “HFX” is also used in Nevro’s product branding. As a result, complaints and medical records may use overlapping terms for the therapy, platform, and implanted system.
The following Nevro devices have been expressly identified in complaints or court records reviewed for this page:
Nevro HF10: The complaint in Yusnukis v. Nevro Corporation identifies the product at issue as a “Nevro HF10 spinal cord stimulation device.” The plaintiff alleges that the device failed after implantation and caused permanent injuries. Nevro disputed the claims, and the allegations are not findings of fact.
Nevro Senza II: The court in DiToto v. Nevro Corporation identified the plaintiff’s implanted device as a Senza II Spinal Cord Stimulation System. The plaintiff alleges that his particular device malfunctioned and caused painful electrical stimulation and other injuries. Most of his claims survived an initial motion to dismiss, but that ruling did not determine whether the device was defective or whether Nevro is liable.
Nevro HFX Senza Omnia: Our firm filed complaints that name the Nevro HFX Senza Omnia system in the allegations.
Patients who do not know their exact Nevro model can check their patient identification card, implant or operative report, programming records, or explant records. These documents may identify the implanted pulse generator and leads by product or model number.
Nevro's History & Why It Matters
Nevro Corporation was founded in 2006 as NBI Development Inc. After a rebrand, the company was renamed Nevro Corporation. Today, it is headquartered in Redwood City, California. Throughout its 20-year history, the company has faced a number of regulatory and legal issues, from IP disputes and securities fraud allegations to product liability claims.
Patent Infringement, Trade Secrets, and the Boston Scientific Dispute
Nevro Corporation was the subject of a multi-year IP battle with competitor Boston Scientific. A complaint, originally filed in 2016, alleged that Nevro intentionally recruited and hired dozens of former Boston Scientific employees to obtain trade secrets and insider information. In November 2021, a Delaware jury found that Nevro willfully infringed on patents owned by Boston Scientific and recommended a $20 million payout for royalties.
After years of back-and-forth, the long-running intellectual property dispute was officially settled in August 2022, when the companies agreed to an $85 million settlement. Nevro received the payment, while Boston Scientific received the right to practice “paresthesia-free therapy at frequencies below 1,500 Hz.”
Securities Fraud Class Action
In addition to a contentious intellectual property dispute with Boston Scientific, Nevro faced a securities fraud class action lawsuit in 2018. The lawsuit alleged that between January 8 and July 12, 2018, Nevro Corporation failed to disclose that it was involved in litigation over patent rights with its competitor. The period was particularly significant because it coincided with the company's aggressive expansion and the launch of its Senza II system.
Globus Medical Acquisition
On April 3, 2025, Globus Medical completed its $250 million acquisition of Nevro Corporation. As a result of the acquisition, Nevro Corp.'s stock stopped trading on the market. Patients who claim to have had Nevro spinal cord stimulator problems may still be eligible to file a lawsuit, despite the merger. Product liability claims generally follow the product and not the company. However, it is strongly recommended that any affected patients speak with an attorney as soon as possible to determine how the transition may affect their legal rights.
Injuries and Device Issues Cited in Lawsuits
The following are common injury allegations in ongoing lawsuits against Nevro:
- Worsening pain
- Shocking sensations
- Weakness in the extremities
- Avascular necrosis of both femoral heads
- Mechanical and therapeutic failure resulting in surgical removal
- Continuing pain and other symptoms after removal
Broader Alleged Failures
In addition to the injuries listed above, lawsuits also allege that Nevro knew or should have known about risks or problems involving:
- Device or lead migration, stimulation failure, and neurological injury
- Painful stimulation, electrical shocks, therapy interruption, or loss of pain relief
- Autonomic dysfunction, including alleged incontinence, hypotension, and cardiac arrhythmia
- Firmware execution, wireless programming, device communication, battery charging, and therapy delivery
- Material performance differences between temporary trial systems and permanent implants
Lawsuits Filed Against Nevro Over SCS Devices
Individual product liability cases have been filed against Nevro. The corporation is one of several other SCS manufacturer defendants in broader litigation.
The lawsuits allege Nevro failed to provide adequate warnings, misrepresented the system’s safety and performance, failed to disclose material differences between the trial and permanent systems, and did not adequately respond to post-market safety information. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and other relief against Nevro and Globus.
The complaints generally allege that Nevro SCS systems worsened the plaintiffs’ pain and caused shocking sensations, extremity weakness, avascular necrosis of both femoral heads, and other injuries. These allegations have not been proven, and the defendants dispute liability and causation.
Who May Be Eligible to Pursue a Nevro Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit
While not all Nevro spinal cord stimulator patients who suffered side effects will be eligible to take legal action, some will. There are several eligibility criteria that one must meet to file a lawsuit.
Basic eligibility requirements for a Nevro SCS claim:
- Have a qualifying Nevro device implanted. Potentially eligible devices include the Senza, Senza II, Senza Omnia, or HF10 (HFX).
- Have experienced serious complications, including device malfunction, lead migration, nerve damage, lead migration, insufficient pain relief, incontinence, revision surgery. These are just a few of the potential side effects that may qualify.
Filing deadlines vary by jurisdiction, claim, and individual circumstances. If you believe you may have a case, contact an attorney as soon as possible to evaluate your claim.
Contact a Nevro Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawyer Today
Wisner Baum represents plaintiffs in pending Nevro spinal cord stimulator lawsuits. We are currently reviewing potential claims involving Nevro spinal cord devices. If you experienced a serious medical problem, repeated programming issues, revision surgery, or explant after receiving a Nevro system, the firm can evaluate the circumstances during a free, no-obligation consultation.
Wisner Baum has an extensive history of working with victims of defective medical devices and their families. The firm works on a contingency fee basis, meaning there are no fees unless compensation is recovered on the patient’s behalf. Reach out to us today at (310) 207-3233 to discuss your potential claim.
