Cartiva toe implant lawsuit: who may qualify and what comes next

Who may qualify?

You may be able to file a claim if you got a Cartiva implant in your big toe joint and it later failed. In the cases so far, people say they had ongoing pain and could not move the toe well. They say they then needed surgery to take the implant out and fuse the joint (join the bones so they heal as one).

The people suing describe the same kinds of problems. Their filings list implant failure, an implant that moved, swelling, pain, bone loss and loss of movement. A lawyer can look at your surgery records and tell you whether your facts fit.

The recalled implants were shipped from July 2016 to October 2024. If your toe surgery was in that time and used an implant, ask your surgeon's office which one it was.

What is happening in the case right now?

On February 5, 2026, a panel of federal judges grouped the federal Cartiva cases. They sent them to Chief Judge Kristine G. Baker in the Eastern District of Arkansas. One judge now handles the shared early work, but each person's case is still their own.

When the panel ruled, it counted five cases plus nine related ones in seven federal districts. By the panel's October 1, 2026 report, 21 cases were waiting before Judge Baker. The group's name is MDL 3172; an MDL is a set of federal cases handled together before one judge.

The panel said the cases share key questions. These include what caused the injuries, how Cartiva tested the implant, and whether its labels were good enough. They also include what Cartiva told the FDA during approval and how the recall came about.

Cartiva asked the panel not to group the cases. It argued that the injuries were too different from person to person. The panel disagreed and said all five first cases describe the same kinds of harm.

Since February, the panel has added more cases to the group in six later orders. Judge Baker met with lawyers for both sides on August 26, 2026. On August 31, she named the lawyers who will lead each side.

The judge set a status hearing by phone for October 8, 2026. She said she expects to set a date then for the company's first formal answers to the claims. She also asked both sides to work on setup questions, such as whether new cases can be filed straight into the Arkansas group.

What could I get?

No one has announced how much any person will get. We found no public offer or payment plan in the court and FDA records we read. Past results don't guarantee a similar outcome.

The people suing say they had pain, lost movement and needed more surgery, and they ask to be paid for that harm. What any one person might recover would depend on their own records and how the case turns out.

If a lawyer takes a share of what you recover, that share and agreed costs come out of it first. Ask how the share is figured, and whether costs are taken out before or after it. No one has announced when any money might be paid.

Is there a deadline?

Yes. How long you have depends on the law that applies and the type of claim. A lawyer can tell you which date applies to you.

Rules differ from state to state. Do not assume your time has run out before someone checks your dates. It can help to know the date of each surgery and when you were first told the implant had failed.

Judge Baker asked both sides to talk about a possible agreement to pause filing deadlines. No such agreement was announced in the August 31 order. A lawyer can tell you whether one ever applies to you.

What records can help?

Records that show which implant you got can help a lawyer check your claim. Ask the hospital or surgery center for your operative report (the surgeon's notes on what was done). Also ask for the implant record, which may include a sticker or label with the product code.

Device labels carry a code called a UDI (unique device identifier). The FDA recall record lists the codes for each covered size, so a lawyer can compare them. Anyone can look up a device code in the FDA's free AccessGUDID database.

If the implant was taken out, ask for those records too. These include the second operative report, X-rays, and notes from any fusion surgery. Keep a simple list of your surgery dates and follow-up visits.

The judge has asked both sides to discuss how removed implants are kept. If yours was taken out, ask the hospital whether it kept the implant. Tell your lawyer what they say.

How could federal approval affect these cases?

The Cartiva implant reached the market through the FDA's premarket approval, or PMA, process. The FDA calls PMA its strictest review for medical devices. That matters because of a 2008 Supreme Court case called Riegel v. Medtronic.

In Riegel, the Court said federal law blocks many state-law injury claims about devices with PMA approval. It said a state cannot add safety rules that are different from, or in addition to, the FDA's rules for that device. Lawyers call this preemption, meaning federal law overrides a state-law claim.

The Court also said claims based on a company breaking FDA rules are not blocked by that part of the law. These are called parallel claims (state claims that match federal duties). One shared question the panel named is what Cartiva told the FDA during approval.

The transfer order did not decide whether any claim is blocked. As of the judge's August 31, 2026 order, no date had been set for the company's first formal answers. A lawyer can explain how this rule could apply to your facts.