Cartiva Toe Lawsuit Consolidation To Be Reviewed by MDL Panel in January 2026

Some estimates suggest approximately two-thirds of Cartiva toe implants have failed, resulting in patients needing their big toes fused permanently in place.

A panel of federal judges will hear oral arguments in late January, to determine whether all Cartiva toe lawsuits brought throughout the federal court system should be consolidated before one judge for coordinated pretrial proceedings, in hopes of efficiently resolving the litigation.

Approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2016, the Cartiva SCI (Synthetic Cartilage Implant) was promoted as a first-of-its-kind alternative to traditional joint fusion surgery for patients suffering from hallux limitus and hallux rigidus, two forms of degenerative arthritis that cause stiffness and pain in the big toe joint.

Made of a polyvinyl alcohol-based (PVA) hydrogel, the implant was marketed as a durable synthetic cartilage that could preserve joint motion and reduce recovery time. However, in October 2024, the manufacturer Cartiva Inc. acknowledged that the device had a “higher-than-expected failure rate.” As a result, the company issued a Cartiva toe implant recall, reversing earlier claims that only 13% of implants failed. Subsequent reports and surgeon data have suggested Cartiva failure rates may reach up to two-thirds of all procedures.

The manufacturer now faces a growing number of Cartiva toe lawsuits being pursued across at least five different federal district courts, each involving nearly identical allegations that individuals experienced painful complications when the device failed. Many plaintiffs say they required removal surgery, which in some cases resulted in the big toe being permanently fused, significantly reducing mobility.

In late October, several plaintiffs filed a petition with the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) calling for the creation of a Cartiva toe lawsuit MDL (multidistrict litigation), which would assign one judge to oversee coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings for all claims filed in federal courts nationwide. 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.

However, last month, Cartiva Inc. filed a response that urges the JPML to reject the consolidation request. According to the company, it has spent the last two years working with plaintiffs’ lawyers through tolling agreements that allowed both sides to exchange medical records and work on negotiating Cartiva settlements without immediately filing lawsuits. Therefore, the manufacturer argues that establishing an MDL would disrupt ongoing negotiations, leading to an influx of lawsuits, rather than helping efficiently resolve the litigation.

In a Notice of Hearing Session (PDF) issued on December 19, the JPML announced it will hear oral arguments on centralization of the Cartiva toe lawsuits on January 29, 2026, at the James M. Carter and Judith N. Keep U.S. Courthouse in San Diego, California. Shortly after the hearing, the panel is expected to determine whether the litigation continues on separate tracks or moves into a single, coordinated federal proceeding.

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.

If the JPML agrees to consolidate the Cartiva toe implant lawsuits, all current and future claims filed in federal courts will be transferred to one judge, who will oversee coordinated discovery, pretrial motions, settlement talks and potentially a series of early bellwether test cases.  

However, each case would 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 individual lawsuit may be later remanded back to the U.S. District Court where it was originally filed to be prepared for individual trial dates.