Los Angeles — Two attorneys at Wisner Baum LLP have been appointed to leadership roles in multidistrict litigation involving Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulators pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
Behram V. Parekh, a partner in the firm’s Los Angeles office, was appointed one of three Co-Lead Counsel in Boston Scientific Corporation Spinal Cord Stimulator Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3181. Associate attorney Hannah Quicksell was named to the litigation’s Leadership Development Committee.
The federal multidistrict litigation consolidates lawsuits involving allegations that Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulators caused injuries or failed to provide the pain relief patients expected.
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation established the proceeding to coordinate cases involving common questions related to device safety, manufacturer conduct and the regulatory history of the products. The litigation is being overseen by U.S. District Judge Josephine L. Staton.
As Co-Lead Counsel, Parekh will help coordinate plaintiffs’ pretrial activities, develop litigation strategy, organize discovery, conduct depositions and oversee common-issue and bellwether proceedings.
“This is complex litigation that will require significant coordination, scientific investigation and careful review of the regulatory record,” Parekh said. “The purpose of leadership is to make sure that work is organized effectively and efficiently, while never losing sight of the fact that who we represent are the thousands of individual patients who were injured as a result of these devices.”
Wisner Baum represents patients who allege that spinal cord stimulation devices caused painful electrical shocks, worsening pain, neurological symptoms, device malfunctions and the need for revision or removal surgery.
The lawsuits also raise questions about changes made to spinal cord stimulators after their original U.S. Food and Drug Administration approvals. Plaintiffs allege that manufacturers altered software, firmware, battery systems, wireless programming and other components through the FDA’s premarket approval supplement process without conducting sufficient new clinical trials to evaluate the cumulative effect of those changes.
Attorneys are also seeking to consolidate federal spinal cord stimulator cases involving Abbott and Nevro. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation is scheduled to consider those requests at a Sept. 24 hearing.
“If additional cases are coordinated, this litigation could provide a much broader look at practices across the spinal cord stimulation industry,” Parekh said. “These cases involve different manufacturers, but many of the underlying questions are similar: What evidence supported these devices, how were they changed, what risks emerged after implantation and what information was given to patients and physicians?”
With plaintiffs’ leadership now established, attorneys are expected to begin developing a coordinated litigation plan and identifying common scientific, factual and regulatory issues for discovery.
That process could include reviewing corporate records, adverse-event reports, device modifications and FDA submissions, as well as questioning company witnesses and experts and selecting representative cases for potential bellwether trials.
