Ongoing Cartiva Lawsuit Settlement Negotiations Cited as Reason to Reject MDL Consolidation

Maufacturer of the recalled Cartiva toe implant argues most discovery has already been completed, and warns that the creation of an MDL could disrupt the potential for additional settlements.

The manufacturer of the Cartiva Synthetic Cartilage Implant (SCI) is pushing back against efforts to consolidate all federal lawsuits brought by patients left with painful injuries when the recalled toe implant failed, telling a panel of federal judges that creating a multidistrict litigation (MDL) would add delays and could disrupt ongoing discussions to settle claims.

The Cartiva toe implant was introduced in 2016, as the first FDA-approved synthetic cartilage device designed to treat hallux limitus and hallux rigidus, which are two painful forms of arthritis that restrict movement in the big toe joint. The device is made from a polyvinyl alcohol hydrogel, and was marketed as a groundbreaking alternative to traditional joint fusion surgery, promising patients that it could relieve pain while preserving mobility and shortening recovery times.

However, concerns about the device’s durability began to mount as more patients reported worsening pain, swelling, extrusion of the implant and a sudden loss of joint stability. By 2023, surgeons in multiple states were raising alarms about unusually high Cartiva failure rates, with some reporting that patients returned within months complaining of symptoms consistent with implant shrinkage or sinking deeper into the bone. These accounts steadily grew, prompting independent reviews that suggested the real-world failure rate was far higher than Cartiva initially acknowledged.

In October 2024, a Cartiva implant recall was issued after the manufacturer admitted that the device had a “higher-than-expected failure rate,” reversing earlier statements that only 13% of implants failed. Newer data painted a more troubling picture, with registry reports and surgeon case series indicating that as many as two-thirds of Cartiva implants may fail over time.

As knowledge of the recall became more widespread, an increasing number of Cartiva injury lawsuits began to be filed throughout the federal court system, and attorneys say they expect the number to grow as more patients learn that their symptoms may be tied to the defective design. Each of the claims involves similar allegations that the synthetic cartilage implant failed prematurely, caused significant pain or instability, and resulted in the need for invasive corrective procedures that altered lifelong mobility.

Following the rise in complaints, a group of plaintiffs filed a motion to consolidate Cartiva lawsuits late last month, asking the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) to transfer all federal claims to a single judge for coordinated pretrial proceedings. Their 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.

Centralization is a common step in litigation involving recalled medical devices, especially implants with widespread complications, and plaintiffs say an MDL would streamline document production, depositions and expert challenges. They also note that several of the currently filed cases have already begun advancing through the court system, which could lead to inconsistent deadlines, discovery disputes and duplicative efforts if the litigation remains scattered across the country.

Opposition to Cartiva Implant MDL Request

However, in a response in opposition to plaintiff’s motion to transfer (PDF) submitted on November 21, Cartiva urged the panel to deny the request for consolidation, arguing that an MDL would complicate the process rather than streamline it.

The company says it has spent the past two years working directly with plaintiffs’ lawyers through tolling agreements that allowed both sides to exchange medical records and negotiate without immediately filing lawsuits. During that time, Cartiva claims it produced tens of thousands of pages of documents and made corporate witnesses available for depositions, much of which has already been reused in other cases.

According to the filing, those efforts have resulted in a quiet but highly successful Cartiva lawsuit settlement process, with most claims settling before they ever reached a courtroom. Cartiva points to this track record as evidence that consolidation is unnecessary, stating that:

“Counsel have cooperated to address the claims under tolling agreements without the need for litigation, and formalized claim review methods including review of patient medical records. This process resulted in negotiations that have been successful in the majority of cases, and that outcome was reached without any formal discovery on Cartiva.”
-Cartiva Inc. – RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TRANSFER

The company further suggests that lawyers who filed the recent MDL motion are not seeking consolidation because the discovery cannot be managed, but rather to attract a larger volume of claimants that may drive new Cartiva lawsuits, and increase pressure for a global settlement, stating:

“Plaintiffs’ Motion is an apparent effort to generate additional claims and leverage ongoing settlement discussions at the eleventh hour”
-Cartiva Inc. – RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TRANSFER

Cartiva also disputes the idea that the cases share enough similarity to justify combining them. While plaintiffs describe a single underlying defect, the company argues that the reported complications stem from a variety of causes that differ from patient to patient and surgeon to surgeon.

Those factors, Cartiva maintains, make each lawsuit heavily dependent on individual medical histories and surgical circumstances rather than a common design flaw. The company warns that creating an MDL would shift attention away from the settlement-focused approach that has resolved most claims so far and would impose new layers of procedure, cost and delay on cases that are already moving forward under established agreements.

Although Cartiva opposes consolidation, the company suggested several alternative courts, such as the Eastern District of Arkansas or the Northern District of Georgia, if the judges choose to create an MDL despite its objections. The JPML is expected to issue a decision in the coming months, and the outcome will determine whether the litigation continues on separate tracks or moves into a single, coordinated federal proceeding.

Cartiva Implant Failure Lawsuits

As the JPML weighs whether to consolidate the lawsuits into a multidistrict litigation, Cartiva implant lawyers are continuing to investigate new claims for those who have suffered injuries.

Financial compensation may be available through a Cartiva implant failure lawsuit settlement for individuals who received the big toe implant and experienced any of the following complications:

• Implant Failure/Fracture
• Subsidence (implant sinks into the bone)
• Toe Fusion Surgery
• Replacement Surgery
• Revision Surgery

All claims are being pursued by Cartiva implant lawyers on a contingency fee basis, which means that there are no fees or expenses paid unless a Cartiva settlement or lawsuit payout is received.