Did You (Or A Loved One) Suffer Injury or Complications From A Cartiva Big Toe Synthetic Cartilage Implant (SCI) Device?
Cartiva Toe Implant Lawsuits & Settlements
Reviewed by Jacobs Kolton, Chtd. Attorneys at Law; Updated May 2026
Cartiva toe implant lawsuits involve claims that the manufacturers of the Cartiva Synthetic Cartilage Implant may have failed to adequately warn patients and healthcare providers that the device could be associated with higher-than-expected rates of implant failure and serious complications, including implant subsidence, displacement, fragmentation, severe pain, nerve damage, revision surgery, removal surgery, and/or the need for toe fusion surgery.
Our team of medical device injury lawyers and class action attorneys is investigating potential Cartiva toe implant lawsuit cases and settlement claims of patients who suffered injuries or complications from a Cartiva SCI (Synthetic Cartilage Implant) device a/k/a a Cartiva toe implant.
If you or a loved one suffered injury or complications from a Cartiva toe implant device, you may be entitled to recover compensation from a Cartiva toe implant lawsuit case or settlement claim.
A Cartiva toe implant is a synthetic cartilage implant device (a polymer-based, viscoelastic hydrogel implant composed of polyvinyl alcohol and saline, i.e., a polyvinyl membrane gel or PVA) used to treat patients with arthritis in the joint of their big toe (first metatarsophalangeal joint), including those suffering from hallux valgus or hallux limitus, hallux rigidus, and/or an unstable or painful metatarsophalangeal joint.
It has been estimated that arthritis of the big toe affects about 2.2 million individuals in the United States. The Cartiva toe implant is an alternative to toe fusion surgery (arthrodesis), a procedure that involves cutting and fusing the phalangeal and metatarsal bones together.
Unfortunately, on October 31, 2024, Stryker Corporation, on behalf of Cartiva, Inc., issued a Class II recall of the Cartiva Synthetic Cartilage Implant after reports showed higher-than-expected rates of device failure and complications. Prior thereto, a study by the American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society reported a potentially high failure rate with Cartiva toe implants, including reports of subsidence with lysis near the implant, bone erosion, implant wear, no improvement in pain or mobility and a need for additional surgery.
Injury victims are now coming forward and filing Cartiva lawsuits seeking compensation and justice for the harm they may have endured.
Cartiva Toe Implant Lawsuit: Overview
- What Are The Cartiva Toe Implant Lawsuits About?
- What Is A Cartiva Toe Implant?
- How Many Americans Suffer From Big Toe Arthritis?
- Are Attorneys Investigating Cartiva Toe Implant Cases?
- Who May Qualify For a Cartiva Lawsuit or Settlement?
- Was There A Recall Of Cartiva Toe Implants?
- What Did The Cartiva Recall Notice Say?
- Who May Be Sued For Toe Implant Injury Claims?
- Are There Any Updates On Cartiva Lawsuits or Settlements?
- Can I Recover Compensation From A Cartiva Injury Lawsuit?
- Is There A Deadline To File a Cartiva Toe Implant Lawsuit?
- Request A Free Case Review From A Toe Implant Injury Lawyer
Cartiva Toe Implant Lawsuit and Settlement Claims
Cartiva lawsuit and settlement cases potentially being investigated include claims of patients who had a Cartiva SCI (Synthetic Cartilage Implant) device surgically implanted in one or both of their toes and subsequently suffered injury or complications including, among others:
- Toe implant failure
- Toe implant sinks into bone (subsidence)
- Toe implant displacement
- Toe implant replacement surgery
- Removal of the toe implant
- Toe implant revision surgery
- Toe implant fracture
- Toe implant loosening
- Need for toe fusion surgery
- Bone lysis or osteolysis
- Bone erosion
- Shrinkage of toe implant
- Severe toe pain
- Severe foot pain
- Lack of toe movement
- Reduced range of motion
- Loss of mobility
- Inability to walk
- Lack of stability while standing
- Nerve damage
- Silastic granulomas
- Cysts
- Infection
- Toe discomfort
- Other Cartiva toe implant injury
If you or a loved one suffered injury or complications from a Cartiva synthetic cartilage implant, you may be eligible to recover compensation from a Cartiva toe implant lawsuit case or settlement claim.
Who May Qualify for a Cartiva Toe Implant Lawsuit
Individuals may qualify for a Cartiva Synthetic Cartilage Implant lawsuit case or settlement claim if they (or a loved one):
- Had a Cartiva SCI Toe Implant: Had a Cartiva SCI (Synthetic Cartilage Implant) surgically implanted in one or both of their toes between 2016 and 2024 to treat arthritis.
- Suffered Injury: Suffered complications or injury from the toe implant device, including revision surgery, implant removal surgery, toe implant failure, subsidence, implant displacement, pain, nerve damage, fragmentation, bone erosion or other serious complications.
Other criteria may apply in order to be eligible. Not all individuals or cases qualify for a Cartiva toe implant lawsuit. Individuals may not qualify if (1) medical factors or unclear timing make it difficult to link the injuries to the toe implant; (2) the claim is outside the statute of limitations period (if an individual waits too long they may be legally barred from suing); and/or (3) medical records do not support the toe implant injury claims. Individuals may not qualify for other reasons.
Cartiva Synthetic Cartilage Implant (SCI) Recall
According to the Cartiva recall notice, patients implanted with the Cartiva synthetic cartilage implant may experience a higher-than expected occurrence rate of the following hazards:
- Revision
- Removal
- Implant subsidence
- Displacement
- Pain
- Nerve damage
- Fragmentation
The Cartiva toe implant recall covers all sizes and lots of the Cartiva implant distributed from July 2016 through October 2024. Healthcare providers were also instructed to stop using the device, review inventories, and monitor patients for symptoms of failure, while patients experiencing problems were advised to consult their surgeons and report adverse events.
Cartiva Toe Implant Lawsuit Complaints
The Cartiva toe implant lawsuit complaints allege, among other things, that Plaintiffs received a Cartiva Synthetic Cartilage Implant (Cartiva SCI), a hydrogel implant designed to treat painful arthritis at the base of the big toe, but that the manufacturers failed to adequately warn patients and surgeons about the risk of higher-than-expected device failure, implant subsidence, displacement, fragmentation, chronic pain, nerve damage, loss of mobility, revision surgery, removal surgery, and the potential need for toe fusion after implantation.
Plaintiffs in the Cartiva toe implant lawsuits allege, among other things, that their Cartiva SCI was defective, that they experienced persistent pain and limited range of motion following implantation, and/or that they required surgery to remove their failed implant and fuse the arthritic joint.
Plaintiffs may assert legal claims for strict products liability, negligence, failure to warn, and breach of express and implied warranties.
Plaintiffs in the Cartiva lawsuits may seek compensatory damages, including past and future medical expenses (as well as the cost associated with past and future life care), past and future lost wages and loss of earning capacity, past and future emotional distress, noneconomic damages for pain, suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life, among others.
Companies Who May Be Sued For Toe Implant Injury
Defendants in Cartiva toe implant lawsuits may include:
- Cartiva, Inc.
- Wright Medical Group, N.V.
- Stryker, B.V.
- Other possible defendants
Cartiva Toe Implant Lawsuit & Settlement Updates
Updates about Cartiva toe implant lawsuits and settlements include:
- February 2026: On February 5, 2026, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued an order requiring that Cartiva lawsuits filed in federal court be consolidated and/or transferred into an MDL (multidistrict litigation) for coordinated pretrial proceedings, styled as In Re: Cartiva Synthetic Cartilage Implant Products Liability Litigation, MDL Case No. 3172, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas (Judge Kristine G. Baker).
Compensation For Cartiva SCI Implant Injury Claims
Plaintiffs who bring Cartiva implant lawsuits may be able to recover compensation for injuries suffered, including money damages for:
- Pain and suffering
- Mental anguish/emotional distress
- Loss of wages or earnings due to missed work
- Loss of future earning capacity
- Medical care expenses incurred or to be incurred
- Other out of pocket expenses
- Loss of quality or enjoyment of life
- Other possible toe implant injury or damages
Time Is Limited To File A Cartiva Toe Implant Lawsuit
Deadlines called statutes of limitation and statutes of repose may limit the time that individuals have to file a Cartiva lawsuit to try to recover compensation for injuries they claim to have suffered (e.g., implant revision surgery, implant removal, implant subsidence into bone, implant displacement, implant fragmentation, pain, nerve damage and related complications) due to the Cartiva synthetic cartilage implant (SCI).
This means that if a Cartiva toe implant lawsuit claim is not filed before the applicable deadline or limitations period, the injured party may be barred from ever pursuing litigation or taking legal action regarding their Cartiva injury claim. That is why it is important to connect with a Cartiva toe implant injury lawyer or attorney as soon as possible.
If you or a loved one suffered injuries or complications from a Cartiva toe implant, you may be entitled to recover compensation from a Cartiva toe implant lawsuit case or settlement claim. Contact an implant injury lawyer to request a free case review.
*If you or a loved one are experiencing health issues, side effects or complications from a medical device, we urge you to promptly consult with your doctor or physician for an evaluation.
**The listing of a company (e.g., Cartiva, Inc., Wright Medical Group, NV, or Stryker, BV) or product (e.g., Cartiva toe implant) is not meant to state or imply that the company acted illegally or improperly or that the product is unsafe or defective; rather only that an investigation may be, is or was being conducted to determine whether legal rights have been violated.
***The use of any trademarks, tradenames or service marks is solely for product identification and/or informational purposes.
Fill out the form for a free attorney review.