Cartiva Implant Lawsuit: Where MDL 3172 Stands (2026)

Where the Cartiva MDL Stands Now

The Cartiva MDL now has a full leadership team and a clear next checkpoint. After the August 26 conference, Judge Baker appointed Paul James as plaintiffs' liaison counsel, Alex C. Davis and Randi Kassan as co-lead counsel, and eight more lawyers to a plaintiffs' steering committee. Dana Ash and Sean Burke of Duane Morris LLP lead the defense, and the court's MDL 3172 page lists every appointee.

The docket keeps growing. Between April 16 and June 24, 2026, the court logged five more conditional transfer orders, each moving additional federal cases into Arkansas.

The court ordered both sides to file updated position statements by October 1, 2026. The judge asked them to try to agree on six issues: how removed implants will be preserved, whether to use a standard complaint, whether new cases can be filed directly in the MDL, a possible tolling agreement to pause filing deadlines, service of lawsuits, and tracking related state court cases.

At the October 8 hearing, the court expects to set a deadline for the defendants' first motions or formal answers. It also plans to set a date for the plaintiffs' leaders to submit a detailed fee proposal. For people with a pending case, this means the litigation is still in its setup phase, and no trial dates exist yet.

What the Cartiva Implant Lawsuit Is About

The Cartiva Synthetic Cartilage Implant is a small cylinder made of polyvinyl alcohol and saline. Surgeons press it into the head of the metatarsal bone at the base of the big toe to stand in for worn cartilage. The FDA granted it premarket approval on July 1, 2016 for painful arthritis in that joint, which doctors call hallux limitus or, in later stages, hallux rigidus.

The selling point was motion. Fusion surgery joins the bones so the joint stops hurting, but the toe can no longer bend. Cartiva offered pain relief while keeping the joint flexible.

Plaintiffs say the device was defective. According to the panel's order, they report lasting pain and limited motion after surgery, followed by operations to take out the failed implant and fuse the joint. Their complaints also describe the implant shifting, swelling, bone loss, and lost mobility. Each plaintiff brings claims for strict product liability, negligence, and breach of express and implied warranties. Strict liability means a maker can be held responsible for a defective product even without proof that it was careless.

The panel found five shared questions: whether the implant caused the injuries, how Cartiva tested it, whether its labeling was adequate, what Cartiva told the FDA during approval, and what led to the recall. Cartiva argued the injuries were too different to group together. The panel disagreed and chose Arkansas because Wright Medical Group N.V., Cartiva's corporate successor, was based nearby in Memphis.

The named defendant is Cartiva, Inc. It was a wholly owned subsidiary of Wright Medical Group N.V., and Stryker bought Wright Medical in 2020. An MDL is not a class action. Each person keeps a separate case, but one judge handles shared pretrial steps such as evidence exchange and expert disputes.

What Studies Found About Cartiva Failures

The results that won approval looked strong. In the MOTION clinical trial, 14 of 152 implants (9.2%) were removed and converted to fusion within two years, and pain relief matched fusion.

Later research told a different story. A 2020 study of 15 patients in Foot & Ankle Orthopaedics found the implant had sunk into the bone, called subsidence, in 79% of patients with usable X-rays by the final visit, about 19 months after surgery. Bone erosion showed up in 40%, and 43% said they felt no better. The authors reported a high failure rate.

A 2024 comparison study in Foot and Ankle Surgery followed 33 patients for about two years. Nearly 3 in 10 Cartiva patients (29.4%) needed another operation, compared with none in the fusion group. The researchers still favored fusion because it lasts.

A failed implant can leave a patient worse off than before. The MOTION trial authors noted that when great toe implants fail, the later fusion is harder and may shorten the toe or need a bone graft.

The 2024 Cartiva Recall

Stryker's October 2024 notice said new published data and postmarket reports showed higher rates of revision, removal, subsidence, displacement, pain, nerve damage, and fragmentation than the 2016 approval data. The recall covered all lots in 6 mm, 8 mm, 10 mm, and 12 mm sizes, sold under catalog numbers CAR-06-US, CAR-08-US, CAR-10-US, and CAR-12-US.

The FDA record shows the implant shipped nationwide, including 35 named states, and to 28 other countries and territories. Stryker asked surgeons to watch recalled patients for new or worsening pain, trouble walking, stiffness, swelling, skin reactions, or a weak big toe joint.

A recall does not prove that the device caused any single injury. Still, the panel named the recall as one of the core shared issues in the MDL.

Cartiva Settlements and What Comes Next

No Cartiva settlement has been announced, and no bellwether trials have been scheduled. Bellwether trials are early test trials of a few chosen cases that help both sides gauge how juries react. The MDL remains at its organizing stage.

Next steps usually follow a set path: deadlines for the defendants' first motions, a restart of evidence exchange, expert reports, and then test trials. In device MDLs, settlement talks often turn serious after early trial results. The court's order already gives lead counsel on both sides the authority to handle settlement negotiations when the time comes.

Compensation in product cases generally covers medical bills, revision surgery, lost wages, and pain and suffering. The value of any future deal would likely depend on how many surgeries a person needed and how much function they lost.

Who May Qualify for a Cartiva Claim

Typical cases involve a patient who received a Cartiva implant, especially one from the recalled July 2016 to October 2024 period, and then faced ongoing pain, stiffness, loosening, or sinking of the implant. Many later needed a revision, removal, or fusion. A surgeon's recommendation for another operation may also matter. These claims target the manufacturer, not the surgeon who placed the device.

Filing Deadlines and Evidence to Gather

Time limits apply. A statute of limitations bars claims after a set period, and that period varies by state and by the type of claim. The clock may start on the date of injury or the date the person discovered it, or reasonably should have. The MDL parties are discussing a tolling agreement that could pause some deadlines, but none has been announced.

Strong claims usually rest on medical records. Helpful documents include:

• The operative report or implant sticker showing a Cartiva catalog number
• X-rays or scans showing subsidence, loosening, or bone loss
• Records of revision, removal, or fusion surgery
• The removed implant, if the hospital kept it
• Medical bills, pay stubs, and notes on missed work

Preserving removed implants is one of the issues before the court, so the physical device may become important evidence.

Talk to a Lawyer About a Failed Cartiva Implant

If a Cartiva implant failed and led to more surgery, it may help to learn your options before a deadline passes. ConsumerShield offers a free case review and matches you directly with experienced lawyers who specialize in cases like yours. A lawyer can review your records and explain whether a claim fits the MDL.