On August 11, 2008 the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation denied the consolidation of 13 shoulder pain pump personal injury actions to a Multidistrict Litigation that would have been MDL No. 1966. The order denied MDL status, finding a lack of commonality due to "an inderterminate number of different pain pumps made by different pharmaceutical companies." The Court further stated that the "proponents of centralization have not convinced us the efficiencies that might be gained by centralization would not be overwhelmed by multiple individual issues".

The actions sought to be consolidated will continue to be litigated individually in their filing venues. They include the following:

Northern District of AlabamaPaul W. Westbrook v. DJO, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 5:08-263

District of ColoradoStacey Ann Hansen v. DJO, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:08-365

Southern District of IndianaJensen Meharg, et al. v. I-Flow Corp., et al., C.A. No. 1:08-184

Eastern District of KentuckyJessie M. Ritchie, et al. v. SMI Liquidating, Inc., C.A. No. 2:08-19

District of MinnesotaSean McDaniel, et al. v. I-Flow Corp., et al., C.A. No. 0:08-399

Eastern District of New YorkJack Frobes, et al. v. Stryker Corp., et al., C.A. No. 1:08-1897

District of OregonChristina McClellan v. I-Flow Corp., et al., C.A. No. 6:07-1309Gregory Turner, et al. v. Stryker Corp., et al., C.A. No. 6:07-1310Gordon J. Addis v. McKinley Medical, LLC, et al., C.A. No. 6:07-1318Caleb Huggins, et al. v. Stryker Corp., et al., C.A. No. 6:07-1671Danny E. Arvidson, et al. v. DJO, LLC, et al., C.A. No. 6:08-478John Eric Butler v. Stryker Corp., et al., C.A. No. 6:08-588

District of UtahErika Creech, et al. v. Stryker Corp., et al., C.A. No. 2:07-22