Abbott is one of many device manufacturers facing mounting litigation related to SCS devices. Lawsuits against Boston Scientific’s SDS line were centralized into a single case in mid-June, also in the Central District of California, while cases against Medtronic and Nevro are pending in Minnesota and Maryland respectively.
More about Abbott’s position
In its motion, filed Aug. 4, Abbott alleges that the injuries described by each of the plaintiffs do not share a common cause of injury and as such would require separate discovery processes.
Injuries noted by the plaintiffs include cardiac issues, infection, battery and Bluetooth issues, blood clots, body aches, back spasms, batteries and wires poking out of the skin and strokes, as well as additional surgeries to remove the implant. Abbott alleges that 13 of the 23 plaintiffs claim injuries that no other plaintiff experienced.
“Assessing plaintiffs’ claims based on each of these injuries will require an individualized
inquiry into the injury’s potential cause,” the motion reads, “inquiries complicated by plaintiffs’ failure to identify any common defect, which leaves every aspect of plaintiffs’ devices’ design and manufacture on the table as the potential cause.”
Abbott also notes that the majority of plaintiffs have no connection to the districts in which their lawsuits were filed, and that most of the suits do not specify which Abbott devices were implanted in the patient. At least one plaintiff was not implanted with an SDS device at all, according to Abbott records, but a different chronic pain implant. Another filed two different lawsuits in two different districts, alleging conflicting details in her case.
Fourteen of the 23 suits also named the FDA as a defendant, alleging that the federal agency erred in approving Abbott’s premarket supplements to the SCS devices. According to footnotes in Abbott’s motion, the FDA has since been dismissed as a party in five of those cases.
Abbott says that “any error in that approval process has little bearing on whether Plaintiffs’ current devices contain manufacturing, design, or labeling defects capable of causing Plaintiffs’ injuries.”
The manufacturer claims that the plaintiffs are seeking to form an MDL in order to drag out the case proceedings and avoid dismissal.
In a statement shared by a spokesperson with MassDevice, Abbott said: “We stand behind the safety, quality, and performance of our spinal cord stimulation systems. These technologies help manage chronic pain and provide meaningful relief, improving patients’ overall quality of life. They are highly regulated medical devices that have been approved and updated in accordance with federal law through the FDA’s rigorous premarket approval and supplement processes. We strongly disagree with the allegations in the cases Plaintiffs seek to consolidate.”
The counterargument against Abbott’s motion
In a response filed on Aug. 11 by Adam M. Evans at The Carsons Law Firm in Killeen, Texas, plaintiffs claim that Abbott, a multibillion dollar corporation, maintains a financial advantage over individual litigants if the cases are kept separate.
“Owing to the diminishing marginal utility of wealth,” the response reads, “uncoordinated litigation makes it much more difficult and burdensome on plaintiffs and the judiciary than it is for [Abbott].”
As for the differences in injury in each case, the plaintiffs note that the injuries all have common underlying causes, regardless of device model. These are alleged to include nerve injury due to the devices’ electrical current, tissue damage from device overheating and internal injury from lead failure.
The reply also points out that differences in manifestation have not posed an impediment to centralization in the past. Evans cites a 2023 case that established that transfer to MDL does not require “a complete identity of factual and legal issues when the action arises from a common factual core.” The statute governing MDL also allows a single judge to institute pretrial procedures for discovery that involve non-common issues of fact.
Said the reply to Abbott’s motion: “All cases will involve the commonalities of the claimed benefits of the devices as well as the risks associated with them [and] discovery regarding Abbott’s knowledge of common injuries involving insult to patients’ nerve tissues.”
