Two new manufacturer-specific proceedings give plaintiff firms a reason to revisit how they evaluate spinal cord stimulator inquiries and communicate with people seeking representation.
On October 2, 2026, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued separate orders centralizing litigation involving Abbott and Nevro spinal cord stimulators. The decisions establish coordinated pretrial proceedings for each manufacturer. They do not determine liability, resolve causation or establish whether an individual has a viable claim.
For firms following SCS litigation, the practical question is how these developments should inform acquisition messaging, intake questions and further review.
Two Manufacturers, Two Separate Proceedings
The Abbott litigation, MDL No. 3194, was centralized in the Northern District of Illinois before Judge Lindsay C. Jenkins. The Nevro litigation, MDL No. 3195, was centralized in the Northern District of California before Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr.
In both proceedings, plaintiffs allege injuries associated with the implantation and use of the manufacturers’ devices. The transfer orders discuss shared questions involving regulatory compliance, the premarket approval supplement process and alleged conduct by sales representatives. Those descriptions summarize allegations and the basis for centralization, rather than findings that the alleged conduct occurred.
The Panel identified efficiencies from coordinating discovery and overlapping pretrial issues, including preemption defenses. It also maintained a manufacturer-specific approach rather than creating an industry-wide SCS proceeding. [1][2]
Manufacturer Identification Belongs Early in Review
A person may know they received a spinal cord stimulator without remembering the manufacturer or model. That uncertainty deserves a clear next step.
For a firm reviewing SCS inquiries, an initial record can distinguish among information confirmed by documentation, details recalled by the person and information still needed. A device identification card or other relevant documentation may help clarify the manufacturer, subject to the firm’s approved collection and privacy procedures.
This is an operational recommendation, not an intake requirement imposed by the transfer orders. Its value is practical: manufacturer information helps the reviewing team connect an inquiry with the appropriate litigation and firm-approved criteria.
The process should allow a person to say “I don’t know.” A guessed answer can make a record appear more complete while leaving an important question unresolved.
Capture the Experience Without Supplying a Conclusion
Intake should preserve the person’s account of what happened, when it happened and what treatment or follow-up they report.
That record is different from a determination about a product defect or the cause of an injury. For example, documenting that someone reports symptoms beginning after implantation establishes their reported timeline. It does not establish that the device caused those symptoms.
Structured fields can help organize device information and dates. Space for the person’s own explanation can preserve details that do not fit neatly into a checklist. Both should support appropriate review rather than steer the person toward a predetermined account.
For firms, the distinction matters because a centralization order addresses how related litigation will proceed. Individual legal and medical questions still require evaluation.
Align Campaign Language With the Firm’s Actual Process
Before changing SCS acquisition messaging, firms can review whether the language accurately describes what happens after someone submits an inquiry.
An initial screening, an attorney’s review and acceptance of representation are different steps. Public copy and intake scripts should make those steps understandable without suggesting that a new MDL means everyone with an implant qualifies.
A useful internal review can address four questions:
- Does intake identify the manufacturer and preserve unknown details?
- Are screening questions based on the firm’s approved criteria?
- Is there a named owner when an inquiry needs more information?
- Does the person understand the next step and what remains undecided?
These questions help connect the court update with decisions the firm can actually make. They do not assume the orders require broader eligibility criteria or increased campaign spending.
What Firms Should Watch Next
The separate proceedings warrant separate monitoring. Firms can follow case-management orders, relevant pretrial rulings and any officially established requirements that affect their work in each litigation.
The SmashOrbit perspective is that industry intelligence becomes useful when teams translate it into specific, supported decisions. Here, that means reviewing manufacturer identification, information collection and messaging while preserving the distinction between procedural coordination and the merits of a potential case.
How SmashOrbit Legal Supports More Informed SCS Acquisition and Intake
As manufacturer-specific SCS litigation develops, plaintiff firms may need to revisit how campaigns introduce the inquiry process and how intake captures information for further review.
At SmashOrbit Legal, we help plaintiff firms connect litigation developments with thoughtful acquisition and intake strategies, including qualification workflows aligned with firm-approved criteria and clear next steps when information is incomplete.
The goal is to collect meaningful case-specific information while recognizing the individual circumstances behind every person seeking representation.
As these proceedings develop, acquisition messaging and intake processes should remain aligned with what firms know and what still requires review.
Talk With Our Team → https://smashorbitlegal.com/contact-us/
Receive SmashOrbit Legal Insider Updates → https://smashorbitlegal.com/smashorbit-legal-insider/
Sources
[1] Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, In re: Abbott Laboratories Spinal Cord Stimulator Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3194, transfer order filed October 2, 2026.
https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3194-Transfer_Order-9-26.pdf
[2] Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, In re: Nevro Corporation Spinal Cord Stimulator Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3195, transfer order filed October 2, 2026.
https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3195-Transfer_Order-9-26.pdf