Product Liability

Abbott Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit

Abbott Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit — Product Liability class action lawsuit

Case Overview

p

A woman named Kim Doherty filed a lawsuit against Abbott Laboratories and Advanced Neuromodulation Systems Inc., also known as Abbott Medical. Doherty alleges that the company's spinal cord stimulation (SCS) devices, which include systems like Proclaim XR, Proclaim, Eterna, and FlexBurst360, have defective leads and implantable pulse generators (IPGs) that can fail. These failures allegedly cause worsening pain, neurological injuries, and other health complications.

The core allegations center on the devices' electrical leads and IPGs having an unacceptably high failure rate. The complaint specifies potential issues such as lead fractures, insulation breaches, lead migration, and IPG or battery malfunctions, which can interrupt therapy and cause uncontrolled electrical stimulation, burns, and permanent nerve damage. The lawsuit asserts claims for strict liability based on manufacturing and design defects, failure to warn, and corporate negligence.

Doherty was implanted with an Abbott SCS device in April 2019 and began experiencing worsening symptoms in 2020. The lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and other relief. For more information, the complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Who May Qualify

Individuals who experienced complications or injuries after receiving an SCS device from Abbott.

Frequently Asked Questions

What types of devices are involved in the lawsuit?

The lawsuit concerns Abbott's spinal cord stimulation (SCS) systems, including models such as Proclaim XR, Proclaim, Eterna, and FlexBurst360. These devices are designed to deliver electrical stimulation to the spinal cord to treat chronic pain.

What specific failures are alleged regarding the devices?

The allegations include issues with the electrical leads and implantable pulse generators (IPGs). Specific failures cited are lead fractures, insulation breaches, lead migration, and malfunctions of the IPG or battery, which can interrupt therapy.

What legal claims are being asserted by the plaintiff?

The plaintiff asserts multiple claims, including strict liability based on manufacturing and design defects, failure to warn, corporate negligence, and fraudulent misrepresentation. She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages.

Related Cases

Mead Johnson Infant Formula NEC Lawsuit — Product Liability class action lawsuit

Mead Johnson Infant Formula NEC Lawsuit

Past
Product Liability
A jury in Illinois rejected claims that Mead Johnson's infant formula caused a premature baby to develop necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC). The lawsuit alleges the company failed to warn about the risks associated with its product.
$110M Transamerica Life Insurance Class Action Settlement — Product Liability class action lawsuit

$110M Transamerica Life Insurance Class Action Settlement

Past
Product Liability
Transamerica Life Insurance agreed to a $110 million settlement to resolve claims regarding its failure to properly credit certain cash value increases on specific life insurance policies. The settlement applies to policyholders who owned or owned a universal life insurance policy that was active on January 1, 2016, and was identified by certain product names or attribute codes.
Clorox Contaminated Cleaner Class Action — Product Liability class action lawsuit

Clorox Contaminated Cleaner Class Action

Current
Product Liability
A class action lawsuit alleges that The Clorox Company sold scented cleaning products, such as Mistolin and Lestoil, that were potentially contaminated with the bacterium Pseudomonas aeruginosa. The plaintiffs claim the company failed to warn consumers about this danger, especially for those with weakened immune systems.