Cartiva Lawsuits Over Toe Implant Problems Moving Forward in Federal MDL

Nearly two dozen lawsuits have been filed after FDA removed the Cartiva toe implant from the market for high failure rates.

A federal judge and attorneys involved in Cartiva toe implant lawsuits met last month for the first time to discuss how to move the litigation forward after months of delays, including a possible plan to allow direct filing of claims into the Eastern District of Arkansas to speed up the process.

Cartiva Inc. faces nearly two dozen product liability lawsuits, alleging that the big toe implants were defectively designed with unacceptably high rates of failure, which often left patients with reduced mobility and the need for surgical implant removal. Each claim indicates the manufacturer misled patients and the medical community about the safety and efficacy of the implant.

Cartiva Toe Implant Problems

The Cartiva synthetic cartilage implant (SCI) was designed to provide relief from degenerative arthritis conditions that affect the foot, including hallux limitus and hallux rigidus. The polyvinyl alcohol-based gel implant is placed into the big toe instead of the usual solution of fusing the toe in place, which significantly reduces mobility.

The manufacturer originally promoted the device as an alternative to big toe fusion, claiming the implant had an 87% success rate in pre-market testing. However, a Cartiva implant recall was issued in October 2024 after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) found that the real-world success rate for the Cartiva toe was only between 21% and 46%, indicating most of the implants failed.

Cartiva toe implant lawsuits now allege the design failures led to problems including chronic pain, loosening implants, fractures, bone erosion and total implant failures. 

Cartiva Lawsuits MDL

All federal Cartiva lawsuits were consolidated in a multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas in February 2026, where U.S. District Judge Kristine G. Baker is overseeing coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

Following a status conference in early October, Judge Baker issued a court order (PDF) on November 2, outlining several steps to move the litigation forward. These include establishing a proposed attorney fee and compensation structure, as well as developing procedures for preserving surgically removed Cartiva implants as evidence.

During the conference, defense attorneys proposed requiring plaintiffs to file a uniform complaint, similar to a master complaint, that would establish allegations and legal claims common to the lawsuits. However, plaintiffs opposed the proposal, arguing that significant differences between the cases could make a standardized complaint impractical.

“Plaintiffs oppose the use of a uniform complaint specifically asserting, among other points, that there are distinct differences between the cases which makes a master or uniform complaint challenging. Plaintiffs contend that the device was owned and distributed by three different companies and that there is a circuit split on preemption and how it applies to medical devices.”

– U.S. District Judge Kristine Baker

The parties also discussed establishing a direct filing procedure, which would allow new Cartiva lawsuits to be filed directly in the Arkansas MDL rather than first being brought in federal courts throughout the country and subsequently transferred.

Attorneys indicated they were working toward an agreement on direct filing. Judge Baker instructed the parties to submit separate proposals if they cannot reach an agreement before the next status conference, scheduled for December 10, 2026.

As the litigation progresses, Judge Baker is expected to establish a bellwether trial process, selecting a small group of representative Cartiva lawsuits for early trials. These cases would allow juries to hear evidence and testimony likely to be presented in many other claims, helping both sides evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of their arguments.

Although bellwether verdicts would not directly determine the outcome of other lawsuits, they could influence potential Cartiva lawsuit settlement negotiations. If the parties are unable to reach a broader resolution following coordinated pretrial proceedings, individual cases may eventually be remanded to the federal district courts where they were originally filed for separate trials.

To stay up to date on this litigation, sign up to receive Cartiva lawsuit updates sent directly to your inbox.