Judge Keeps Medtronic Stimulator Suit in Illinois
A federal judge in Peoria denied Medtronic's bid to move a spinal cord stimulator injury case to Minnesota.
Updated on Nov. 5, 2026 in Stroke
Judge Jonathan Hawley of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois denied Medtronic's motion to transfer the case to the District of Minnesota in an order issued October 26. The ruling keeps the lawsuit over a Medtronic Intellis LT rechargeable neurostimulator in Illinois.
Why it matters
The court found the case has a greater connection with Illinois, where the device was implanted and the alleged injuries occurred. Medtronic had not shown that the interest of justice favored moving the case out of state.
The order concerns a Medtronic Intellis LT rechargeable neurostimulator, Model 97716, implanted in an Illinois resident in March 2022 to treat chronic neck and back pain. The court's venue analysis turned on where the implant and alleged injuries occurred, while the merits of the injury claims remain unaddressed.
The players
Medtronic
Medtronic is a multinational medical technology company headquartered in Ireland that manufactures implantable devices including spinal cord stimulators.
U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois
The federal trial court based in Peoria, Illinois, which handles civil and criminal cases for central Illinois counties.
The details
Steven Hughes, an Illinois resident, received the Medtronic device in March 2022. Medtronic asked the court to move the case to Minnesota, but Judge Hawley ruled the connection to Illinois was stronger and that Medtronic had not met its burden on the interest-of-justice standard.
Timeline
March 2022: Steven Hughes is implanted with the Medtronic Intellis LT neurostimulator.
October 26, 2026: Judge Jonathan Hawley denies Medtronic's motion to transfer the case to Minnesota.
Legal Context
The ruling applies the federal transfer standard in 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which weighs the convenience of parties and witnesses against the interest of justice. Courts in product-liability suits over implanted medical devices routinely apply this test when a manufacturer seeks to relocate litigation to its home state.
Patients with implanted neurostimulators should understand that the device's injury claims are being litigated in the court where the implant occurred. Anyone considering such a device for chronic pain can ask their physician about the device's reported risks and monitoring requirements.
The takeaway
Where a medical device is implanted often shapes where related injury lawsuits are heard. Patients weighing implanted pain-management devices should review reported risks with their doctor before deciding.
Further reading
For related coverage, see our Stroke section.
Source note: This article includes information reported by Harrismartin.
