Cartiva Synthetic Cartilage Implant Lawsuits Centralized in Federal MDL

JPML rejects Cartiva claims that plaintiffs’ injuries are too different and varied to benefit from multidistrict centralization.

All federal lawsuits over Cartiva toe implant failures will be consolidated before a federal judge in Arkansas for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings, as additional complaints continue to be filed.

The Cartiva Synthetic Cartilage Implant (SCI) is a polyvinyl alcohol-based hydrogel implant approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2016, as an alternative to big toe fusion for patients suffering hallux limitus or hallux rigidus, both forms of degenerative arthritis affecting the big toe joint. Cartiva Inc. marketed the implant as a breakthrough treatment allowing patients to retain flexibility in the big toe, which plays a key role in balance and mobility. The alternative is big toe fusion, which locks the toe in a permanently fixed position.

The manufacturer announced a Cartiva toe recall in October 2024, after admitting the implant was linked to “higher-than-expected” failure rates. Those failures often required revision surgery to remove the implant and, in many cases, left patients needing their big toe permanently fused, the very outcome they had sought to avoid.

As a result, the company faces a growing number of Cartiva SCI lawsuits filed nationwide, each involving nearly identical allegations that individuals experienced painful complications when the device failed.

Following the recall, several plaintiffs filed a petition with the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JMPL) in late October 2025, requesting the creation of a Cartiva SCI lawsuit multidistrict litigation (MDL). The petition argued that the lawsuits share nearly identical allegations involving premature loosening, shrinkage or subsidence of the implant, and that consolidation would prevent conflicting rulings as more cases move forward in different federal courts.

Cartiva Inc. opposed centralization, arguing that it has spent the past two years working with plaintiffs’ attorneys under tolling agreements, which temporarily pause lawsuit deadlines and allow both sides to exchange medical records and discuss potential settlements without immediately filing cases in court.

In its argument against centralization, the manufacturer indicates that these efforts have resulted in a quiet but highly successful Cartiva lawsuit settlement process, with most claims settling before they ever reached a courtroom. Cartiva pointed to this track record as evidence that consolidation is unnecessary, and that creating an MDL would disrupt that process and instead trigger a surge of new lawsuits, rather than helping resolve the litigation efficiently.

However, the JPML rejected that argument and, following oral arguments late last month, issued a transfer order (PDF) on February 5, consolidating the litigation in the Eastern District of Arkansas under U.S. District Judge Kristine G. Baker. In its decision, the judges indicated Cartiva “incorrectly argues that plaintiffs allege different injuries.”

“These products liability actions will share common questions of fact regarding (1) causation, (2) Cartiva’s SCI testing, (3) the sufficiency of Cartiva’s labelling, (4) Cartiva’s representations to the FDA during the device approval process, and (5) the circumstances of Cartiva’s eventual SCI device recall. With five actions and nine potential tag-along actions pending in seven districts, centralization will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses, and conserve judicial resources.”

– U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

Centralization is a common step in litigation involving recalled medical devices, particularly implants linked to widespread complications. Plaintiffs argue that creating an MDL would streamline document production, depositions and expert discovery.

Each case will remain an individual lawsuit, and if the parties fail to reach a Cartiva toe implant settlement agreement or other resolution after all the pretrial proceedings are concluded, each complaint may be later remanded back to the U.S. District Court where it was originally filed to be prepared for individual trial dates.