Three Minnesota patients say a trip to a Twin Cities pain clinic for routine spinal cord stimulator procedures ended in the outcome every chronic pain patient dreads: partial or complete paralysis. They have now filed lawsuits against the clinic and the implanting physician, alleging that devices meant to relieve chronic pain instead caused sudden, lasting spinal cord injuries. According to their attorney, one plaintiff now uses a wheelchair and another has been diagnosed with Brown‑Séquard syndrome. The cases arrive as medical records and reporting increasingly highlight rare but devastating complications tied to spinal stimulation procedures.
The Patients and the Lawsuits
As reported by KARE 11, the complaints named Nura Pain Clinic and Dr. David Schultz were filed on behalf of patients, including Kevin Prybilla and Amber Fuller, who traveled to the Edina practice for treatment. Prybilla says he received his implant in January 2022 and now uses a wheelchair after doctors told him he would never walk again. Fuller was later diagnosed with Brown‑Séquard syndrome following her implant, according to the station. Attorney Jeff Storms, who represents Prybilla and Fuller, has urged careful review of cervical‑spine implants and says each patient’s circumstances have to be evaluated individually.
How Common the Therapy Is and What the Records Show
Spinal cord stimulation is widely used for chronic pain, with literature reviews estimating about 50,000 implants per year in the United States, according to a review in PubMed Central. The Food and Drug Administration’s adverse‑event database includes reports tied to neurostimulation devices that involve serious outcomes such as paralysis, according to FDA MAUDE. Manufacturers and federal oversight have also been pulled into court, with recent litigation targeting major device makers over alleged defects and regulatory lapses, as reported by Bloomberg Law.
Clinic Response
Nura Pain Clinic declined an on‑camera interview but provided a written statement and court filings asserting that the injuries stem from pre‑existing or subsequent medical conditions rather than the implants themselves, according to KARE 11. Public materials from the clinic describe spinal cord stimulation as an outpatient therapy that typically begins with a temporary trial before any permanent implant is placed. The clinic’s own site says Nura integrates neurostimulation into a multidisciplinary pain program and performs implants in outpatient settings, with an emphasis on follow‑up and programming support, according to Nura Pain Clinics. It is a polished description that stands in stark contrast to the catastrophic outcomes alleged in court.
How the Devices Work and the Risks
Spinal cord stimulators send mild electrical pulses to the spinal cord through leads placed in the epidural space, interrupting pain signals before they reach the brain. Most patients go home the same day after an implant procedure. Complications are considered uncommon but can include infection, lead migration, and device failure, and, in rare cases, spinal cord injury or paralysis, according to Johns Hopkins Medicine. Because the devices sit so close to the spinal cord, clinicians stress that careful imaging and individualized planning are particularly important when placing leads in the cervical spine.
Legal Outlook
The lawsuits are expected to dig into whether the device itself, the surgical technique, or the preoperative evaluation met the standard of care, and whether manufacturers provided adequate warnings about risks. The patients are represented locally by attorney Jeff Storms, whose firm highlights his experience in high‑stakes civil litigation in Minneapolis, according to Storms Dworak. What happens in these cases could influence future litigation and shape how providers vet candidates for neuromodulation procedures.
What to Watch Next
Key developments to watch include new court filings, independent medical reviews, and any FDA actions or manufacturer responses that might clarify whether these injuries are isolated mistakes or signs of broader device risks. Bloomberg Law has been tracking related lawsuits that could influence how plaintiffs and regulators approach claims of device defects and oversight failures. For Twin Cities patients weighing neuromodulation for pain relief, the outcome of these cases and any regulatory follow‑up will be watched closely, and probably with no small amount of anxiety.
