Active Litigation
Cartiva Implant Lawsuit Facts
TorHoerman Law is actively accepting claims for the Cartiva Implant Lawsuit.
The Cartiva Synthetic Cartilage Implant (SCI) received FDA approval in 2016 as a motion-preserving alternative to fusion surgery for patients suffering from hallux rigidus, a form of arthritis affecting the big toe joint.
The device was marketed as a way to maintain joint movement while reducing pain, but thousands of implants were distributed before reports began emerging of device failures, revision surgeries, and poor long-term outcomes.
Patients are filing lawsuits against the Cartiva implant manufacturer, alleging that the device was defectively designed and that they were not adequately warned about the risks of failure and complications.
Many plaintiffs claim they experienced persistent pain after implantation, while others report that the implant sinks into surrounding bone, loosens over time, or begins implant slipping within the joint.
In numerous cases, the only corrective option was to have the Cartiva implant removed and undergo revision surgery or fusion of the toe joint.
The litigation gained momentum following the Cartiva recall announced in October 2024.
The recall was prompted by post-market reports indicating that the Cartiva implant was failing at rates significantly higher than those represented during the initial FDA approval process.
The FDA’s recall notice identified risks including fragmentation, subsidence, and displacement of the implant.
Subsidence occurs when the implant sinks into the surrounding bone, while displacement refers to movement from its intended position within the joint.
As lawsuits increased nationwide, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation centralized federal Cartiva cases on February 5, 2026, creating MDL No. 3172 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
The MDL allows federal courts to coordinate discovery and pretrial proceedings involving common factual allegations concerning the design, testing, marketing, and safety of the Cartiva implant.
Cartiva lawsuits allege that Cartiva, Wright Medical, and Stryker failed to adequately research the long-term performance of the device and neglected to warn physicians and patients about known risks.
Plaintiffs further allege that Cartiva and Stryker were aware of elevated failure rates but continued to market the implant using inaccurate or incomplete performance data.
Medical evidence cited in litigation includes adverse event reports, revision surgery findings, post-market surveillance data, and published studies documenting substantial rates of implant failure and conversion to fusion procedures.
Allegations in Cartiva Implant Lawsuits include:
- Defective Design and Manufacturing: Plaintiffs allege the implant was prone to subsidence, loosening, displacement, and material degradation, resulting in significant pain and additional surgeries.
- Misrepresentation of Safety and Efficacy: Manufacturers are accused of overstating success rates and presenting performance data that did not accurately reflect real-world outcomes.
- Failure to Warn: Lawsuits claim patients and healthcare providers were not adequately informed about risks including implant failure, revision surgery, fragmentation, subsidence, and displacement.
- Regulatory Non-Compliance: Plaintiffs allege the manufacturers failed to meet obligations related to quality control, post-market surveillance, and reporting of adverse events.
- Negligence: Cartiva lawsuits allege the companies failed to adequately study the long-term performance of the device and failed to act appropriately after receiving reports of complications and failures.
Individuals who have experienced adverse outcomes with the Cartiva implant, such as persistent pain, implant displacement, or the need for additional surgical interventions, are pursuing legal action to seek compensation for medical expenses, pain and suffering, and other damages.
Cartiva Toe Implant Lawsuits aim to hold the manufacturers accountable for the alleged defects and failures associated with the Cartiva SCI.
If you or a loved one suffered complications, significant pain, device failure, or other health problems related to the Cartiva toe implant, you may be eligible to file a Cartiva Implant Lawsuit and seek compensation.
Contact a Cartiva Toe Implant Lawyer from TorHoerman Law today for a free consultation.
Use the chat feature on this page to find out if you qualify to join others filing Cartiva Implant Failure Lawsuits instantly.
What Devices are Included in the Cartiva Toe Implant Recall?
In response to mounting evidence and patient complaints, Stryker Corporation, which acquired Cartiva, Inc., issued a recall of the Cartiva SCI in October 2024.
This recall encompassed all sizes of the implant sold since July 2016 and was prompted by higher-than-expected rates of complications, including implant failure and the necessity for revision surgeries.
The recall specifically includes the following Cartiva Synthetic Cartilage Implant (SCI) devices:
- CAR-06-US: Cartiva SCI 6mm
- CAR-08-US: Cartiva SCI 8mm
- CAR-10-US: Cartiva SCI 10mm
- CAR-12-US: Cartiva SCI 12mm
These devices were distributed from July 2016 to October 2024.
What Companies are Named in the Cartiva Implant Lawsuit?
The Cartiva implant was originally developed and marketed by Cartiva, Inc., a medical device company focused on orthopedic solutions.
In 2018, Cartiva, Inc. was acquired by Wright Medical Group N.V., which then took over the manufacturing and distribution of the device.
Two years later, Wright Medical was purchased by Stryker Corporation, a global medical technology company that now assumes liability for the implant’s ongoing issues.
As a result, multiple companies are being named in lawsuits related to the failed Cartiva implant.
Companies Named in Cartiva Implant Lawsuits:
- Cartiva, Inc.
- Wright Medical Group N.V.
- Stryker Corporation (Stryker B.V.)
