The firms
Wisner Baum is a trial firm in Los Angeles that went by Baum Hedlund Aristei & Goldman until January 2023. It tried the first Roundup cancer cases, and today it is a co-lead firm in the federal Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulator cases.
Wisner Baum has separate pages for Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic and Nevro stimulators. Its partner Behram Parekh is one of three co-lead counsel in the Boston Scientific MDL.
- Main office
- Los Angeles, California
- Fee terms
- Contingency ("No Fees Unless We Win")
- Device cases it advertises
- spinal cord stimulators (Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Nevro), Philips CPAP, IVC filters and port catheters incl. Bard PowerPort
Seats assigned by a court
- On August 13, 2026, Behram V. Parekh was named one of three co-lead counsel for the Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulator MDL (MDL 3181, C.D. Cal.). Proof
Ask about this
- Most results the firm publishes come from non-device cases. Ask how much device trial work it has done.
Firm site: wisnerbaum.com
Schmidt & Clark represents injured people one case at a time, taking clients from every part of the U.S. Most of its work is mass torts: defective products, medical devices, dangerous drugs and toxic exposure.
Schmidt & Clark takes spinal cord stimulator cases from clients across the United States. It has no court-appointed role in a stimulator MDL on record, so ask whether your case would stay with the firm or go to co-counsel.
- Main office
- Washington, DC
- Year founded
- 2005
- Fee terms
- Free case review; phone line open 24/7
- Device cases it advertises
- hernia mesh, spinal cord stimulators, Philips CPAP, Bard PowerPort, IVC filters and Nexplanon
Awards and certifications
- The firm says Best Lawyers put it on the "Best Law Firms" list for 2026. Proof
- The Texas Board of Legal Specialization has board-certified partner C.L. Mike Schmidt in both Personal Injury Trial Law and Civil Trial Law. The National Board of Trial Advocacy has certified him in Civil Trial. Proof
- The firm says it has made the Super Lawyers list for 19 straight years. Proof
Ask about this
- Its website lists no individual verdict or settlement figures. Ask what it has won in cases like yours.
- Mass tort cases are often passed to co-counsel. Ask if the firm will keep your case or refer it out.
Firm site: schmidtandclark.com
Motley Rice is a plaintiffs' firm in South Carolina that opened in 2003. It holds lead roles in hernia mesh cases and won a Bard hernia mesh jury verdict in Rhode Island.
Motley Rice lists spinal cord stimulator cases on its medical device page. Its device results come from hernia mesh trials, not stimulator cases.
- Main office
- Mount Pleasant, South Carolina
- Year founded
- 2003
- Fee terms
- Contingency on most cases
- Device cases it advertises
- hernia mesh (Bard, Covidien), IVC filters (Cook) and spinal cord stimulators
Seats assigned by a court
- His firm bio says Jonathan D. Orent leads the Atrium C-QUR hernia mesh MDL (MDL 2753) as lead counsel. He is also co-lead in Rhode Island's coordinated state-court Bard hernia mesh cases. Proof
- A February 2019 order named Donald A. Migliori to the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee for the Bard IVC filter MDL (MDL 2641). Proof
Results the firm or court published
- In Trevino v. Davol (August 2022), a Rhode Island jury returned a $4.8 million verdict over a Bard Ventralex hernia patch. Proof
Ask about this
- Philips CPAP, Bard PowerPort and Nexplanon cases are missing from its device page.
Firm site: motleyrice.com
TorHoerman Law opened in Illinois in 2009 and handles mass torts. It advertises five of the six device cases this site covers, and one of its lawyers sat on the Bard IVC filter MDL steering committee.
TorHoerman's spinal cord stimulator page says it handles these cases on a contingency fee basis. It also advertises four other device cases covered on this site.
- Main office
- Chicago and Edwardsville, Illinois
- Year founded
- 2009
- Fee terms
- Contingency
- Device cases it advertises
- hernia mesh, Philips CPAP, Bard PowerPort, IVC filters and spinal cord stimulators
Seats assigned by a court
- A February 2019 order named Eric M. Terry to the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee for the Bard IVC filter MDL (MDL 2641). Proof
Ask about this
- The verdicts the firm features come from non-device cases. Ask what it has won in device cases.
Firm site: torhoermanlaw.com
Every result shown comes from the firm's own published record or from court filings. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Who handles spinal cord stimulator lawsuits
A spinal cord stimulator is an implanted device that sends electrical pulses to the spine to treat chronic pain. Lawsuits against the makers challenge how some stimulators won FDA approval and were changed afterward.
Four firms on this page advertise stimulator cases. Wisner Baum is the only firm here with a court-appointed seat in a stimulator MDL. Schmidt & Clark takes stimulator cases nationwide and answers its free case review line 24/7. Partner C.L. Mike Schmidt holds Texas board certification in Personal Injury Trial Law.
| Firm |
Stimulator makers named on its pages |
MDL role |
Fee stated |
| Wisner Baum |
Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Nevro |
Co-lead, MDL 3181 |
Contingency |
| Schmidt & Clark |
Spinal cord stimulators (makers not listed) |
None on record |
Free case review; 24/7 line |
| Motley Rice |
Spinal cord stimulators (makers not listed) |
None on record |
Contingency for most cases |
| TorHoerman Law |
Spinal cord stimulators |
None on record |
Contingency |
The three stimulator MDLs
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) decides whether to group federal cases in one court. In its June 2026 order, the JPML declined to create one MDL for every stimulator maker. It grouped only the Boston Scientific cases at first. Separate MDLs for Abbott and Nevro followed on October 2, 2026.
| MDL |
Maker |
Court and judge |
Size |
| MDL 3181 |
Boston Scientific |
C.D. Cal., Judge Josephine L. Staton |
41 pending (Oct. 1, 2026) |
| MDL 3194 |
Abbott |
N.D. Ill., Judge Lindsay C. Jenkins |
15 actions in 6 districts, plus 11 related actions (Oct. 2, 2026 order) |
| MDL 3195 |
Nevro |
N.D. Cal., Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr. |
17 actions in 6 districts, plus 6 related actions (Oct. 2, 2026 order) |
| None |
Medtronic |
No MDL |
6 related actions named Medtronic (June 2026) |
When the JPML ruled in June 2026, the parties had told the panel about related cases against Boston Scientific (12), Abbott (9), Nevro and Globus (17) and Medtronic (6).
Boston Scientific MDL 3181
On August 13, 2026, Judge Staton appointed three co-lead counsel for plaintiffs:
- Behram V. Parekh, Wisner Baum
- Adam Evans, Carlson Law Firm
- Carasusana Wall, Bullock Legal Group
Ashleigh Raso of Nigh Goldenberg Raso & Vaughn is liaison counsel. The executive committee includes Raso, Moze Cowper (Cowper Law), Richard Hood (Wilhite Law Firm) and Trevor Rockstad (Davis & Crump).
Pretrial Order No. 4, issued August 18, 2026, lets new Boston Scientific cases be filed directly into the MDL. Boston Scientific’s deadline to respond to complaints is on hold until the judge says otherwise. No bellwether or trial dates have been set in any of the three MDLs.
What the lawsuits claim
Most spinal cord stimulators are Class III devices that go through FDA premarket approval, or PMA. The FDA calls PMA its most stringent review for devices.
In MDL 3181, plaintiffs claim Boston Scientific won approval using published studies of other companies’ devices rather than its own clinical trials. They say it then used the PMA supplement process to add devices that were significantly changed. A group of plaintiffs also brought claims against the FDA under the Administrative Procedure Act.
The FDA raised concerns about stimulators in a September 2020 letter to doctors, as reported by MedTech Dive. The agency said it had reviewed 107,728 device reports filed between 2005 and 2020, including 428 patient deaths. About 28% of reports cited inadequate pain relief. The agency told doctors to do a trial stimulation before any permanent implant.
Why PMA approval matters for your case
PMA approval can make a stimulator case harder. In Riegel v. Medtronic (2008), the U.S. Supreme Court held that federal law bars many state-law claims challenging the safety or effectiveness of a PMA-approved device. The Court left open claims based on a maker breaking FDA requirements.
That is why the stimulator lawsuits focus on how the makers used the PMA and supplement process. Ask any firm how it plans to handle a preemption defense. Our guide on how to choose a medical device lawyer explains this risk in plain terms.
What to ask a stimulator lawyer
Find out which stimulator you have. Your implant card or operative report names the maker and model. Then ask:
- Does your firm file cases against my device’s maker, and in which MDL?
- Does your firm hold an MDL seat, or work with a firm that does?
- How will you handle the FDA preemption defense?
- Will my case stay with your firm or be referred?
- What is your fee, and is it in a written agreement?
Every state sets a deadline to file. Ask a lawyer what your state’s deadline is before time runs out. The full firm comparison shows each firm’s other device cases, and the homepage lists all eight firms.