Cartiva Toe Implant Injury Lawyers

If you received a Cartiva Synthetic Cartilage Implant in your big toe and later developed severe pain, stiffness, implant failure, difficulty walking, or the need for revision surgery, you may be wondering whether the problem was your body, your surgeon, or the device itself. Many patients were told that Cartiva could help preserve motion and avoid a big toe fusion. For some, the result was very different. Patients have suffered injuries such as worsening pain, loss of mobility, additional surgery, and, in many cases, the fusion procedure they had hoped to avoid.

At Jeffrey Glassman Injury Lawyers, our Cartiva Toe Implant attorneys help injured individuals and their families understand their legal rights following harmful medical device failures. Cartiva claims are not ordinary foot injury cases. They involve medical records, implant history, FDA materials, surgeon notes, product warnings, post-market safety data, recall evidence, and expert analysis. Our role is to help determine whether your injury may be connected to a defective implant, inadequate warnings, or other product-related failures.

The Cartiva Synthetic Cartilage Implant was approved by the FDA in 2016 for painful degenerative or post-traumatic arthritis, including hallux limitus or hallux rigidus, in the first metatarsophalangeal joint, the joint at the base of the big toe. The device was later subject to a Class II FDA recall involving all lots distributed from July 2016 through October 2024.

If you had a Cartiva implant and later required removal, revision surgery, conversion to fusion, or treatment for worsening pain or mobility problems, call Jeffrey Glassman Injury Lawyers at (617) 777-7777 for a free consultation.

The Cartiva Synthetic Cartilage Implant, often called the Cartiva SCI, is a hydrogel implant used in the big toe joint. It was designed as a synthetic cartilage replacement for patients suffering from arthritis at the base of the big toe. The concept was appealing. Rather than permanently fusing the joint, the implant was promoted as a way to reduce pain while preserving some range of motion.

The FDA describes the product as a metatarsophalangeal joint cartilage replacement implant. Its approval statement allowed use for patients with painful degenerative or post-traumatic arthritis, including hallux limitus or hallux rigidus, with or without mild hallux valgus.

In practical terms, a surgeon placed the implant into the metatarsal head after preparing a cavity in the bone. That matters legally and medically because when the implant fails later, the revision is not always straightforward. Removing the device may leave a bone defect, instability, loss of joint structure, or a more complicated path to fusion.

Cartiva lawsuits generally allege that the implant failed at rates higher than patients and surgeons were adequately warned about. These claims commonly involve allegations of defective design, failure to warn, negligence, breach of warranty, and misrepresentation of the device’s real-world performance.

The central issue is not whether every Cartiva implant failed. Some patients may have experienced relief. The legal issue is whether the manufacturer knew or should have known that the device presented a higher risk of failure, removal, subsidence, displacement, fragmentation, pain, nerve damage, or revision surgery than was adequately disclosed.

In February 2026, federal Cartiva cases were centralized in MDL No. 3172, In re: Cartiva Synthetic Cartilage Implant Products Liability Litigation, in the Eastern District of Arkansas. The federal court states that the cases concern alleged defects in the Cartiva Synthetic Cartilage Implant, a hydrogel implant designed to treat arthritis at the base of the big toe. The JPML found common questions of fact and transferred the litigation for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

An MDL is not the same thing as a class action. In a class action, many people may be treated as one class for certain purposes. In an MDL, each injured person generally keeps an individual case, but similar federal cases are coordinated before one judge for discovery, pretrial rulings, expert issues, and possible settlement structure.

The FDA recall record for Cartiva identifies a Class II Device Recall initiated by the firm on October 31, 2024 and posted by the FDA on December 4, 2024. The recall applied to Cartiva SCI catalog numbers CAR-06-US, CAR-08-US, CAR-10-US, and CAR-12-US, covering all lots distributed from July 2016 to October 2024.

The FDA recall record states that patients implanted with the device may experience a higher-than-expected rate of adverse events, including revision, removal, implant subsidence, displacement, pain, nerve damage, or fragmentation. The FDA also lists the determined cause as device design.

That recall does not automatically prove that every injured patient has a valid lawsuit. It does, however, make a legal review more urgent and more evidence-driven. If your implant was placed during the affected distribution period and you later experienced complications, your medical records should be reviewed by attorneys familiar with defective medical device claims.

Patients contacting lawyers about Cartiva injuries often report symptoms such as:

• Persistent or worsening big toe pain after surgery
• Difficulty walking, standing, exercising, or wearing normal shoes
• Swelling, stiffness, weakness, or instability in the big toe joint
• Reduced range of motion
• A feeling that the joint is not properly supported
• Radiology findings suggesting implant subsidence, displacement, fragmentation, or bone changes
• Need for implant removal
• Need for revision surgery
• Conversion to big toe fusion
• Nerve pain, numbness, burning, or shooting pain
• Long-term loss of mobility or function

Not every painful outcome after surgery is caused by a defective implant. Some cases involve surgical technique, infection, unrelated arthritis progression, trauma, or other patient-specific factors. That is why a careful legal and medical review is essential. A strong Cartiva case usually depends on the timeline, imaging, operative reports, implant records, symptoms, revision findings, and the consistency of the injury pattern with known allegations of failure.

Many patients chose Cartiva to avoid fusion. When the implant fails, however, fusion may become necessary. That can be devastating emotionally and physically. A failed implant may mean the patient endured the original procedure, months or years of pain, diagnostic uncertainty, and then another operation.

A revision procedure may be more complex than the original surgery because the surgeon may need to address bone loss, instability, implant removal, hardware placement, grafting, or altered joint mechanics. Some patients lose the motion-preserving benefit they expected. Others face prolonged recovery, continued pain, work restrictions, and limitations on walking, driving, exercise, or daily activities.

For an injured person, this is not a minor toe problem. The big toe joint plays a major role in balance, push-off, gait, and normal walking. Pain in that joint can affect the entire body, including the ankle, knee, hip, and back, especially when a person changes their walking to avoid pain.

You may qualify for a legal review if:

• You received a Cartiva Synthetic Cartilage Implant in your big toe
• Your implant was placed between 2016 and 2024
• You developed persistent or worsening pain after implantation
• You experienced implant failure, displacement, subsidence, fragmentation, or loosening
• You required revision surgery, removal, or conversion to fusion
• Your doctor told you the implant failed or needed to be removed
• You have imaging, operative notes, or medical records showing implant-related complications
• You still suffer pain, limited motion, difficulty walking, or permanent limitations

Even if you are unsure which implant you received, we may be able to help you identify it through medical records, implant stickers, operative reports, hospital records, or surgeon documentation.

Every case is different, but a Cartiva injury claim may seek compensation for:

• Past medical expenses
• Future medical care
• Revision surgery
• Fusion surgery
• Physical therapy
• Pain and suffering
• Loss of mobility
• Loss of enjoyment of life
• Lost wages
• Reduced earning capacity
• Out-of-pocket expenses
• Permanent impairment
• Emotional distress caused by chronic pain and avoidable surgery

The value of a case depends on the severity of the injury, the need for additional surgery, recovery time, permanency, medical proof, work impact, and how clearly the evidence connects the harm to the device.

If you believe your Cartiva implant failed, preserve everything you can. Do not rely only on memory. Helpful evidence may include:

• The name of the surgeon and the facility where the implant was placed.
• Date of the original implant surgery.
• Date of revision, removal, or fusion surgery.
• Operative reports.
• Implant records or product stickers.
• X-rays, MRIs, CT scans, or radiology reports.
• Follow-up visit notes.
• Physical therapy records.
• Photos or videos showing swelling, gait changes, or mobility limitations.
• Work restriction notes.
• Pain journal entries.
• Receipts for medical expenses, shoes, braces, travel, or assistive devices.
• Names of doctors who told you the implant failed.

If the implant was removed, ask whether the explanted device was preserved. In some product liability cases, the removed device may become important evidence.

Many patients worry that pursuing a Cartiva case means suing their doctor. In many defective medical device cases, the primary claim is against the manufacturer or entities involved in designing, marketing, selling, or warning about the device, not necessarily against the surgeon.

There are cases where medical negligence may also need to be evaluated. Still, Cartiva product liability claims are generally focused on whether the implant was defective and whether warnings to doctors and patients were adequate. We evaluate that distinction carefully because legally correct case framing matters.

Medical device cases require more than general injury experience. They require the ability to organize complex medical records, identify the correct defendants, track developments in federal litigation, work with qualified experts, and explain the injury in human terms.

Jeffrey Glassman Injury Lawyers represents injured people with the seriousness, preparation, and personal attention they deserve. Our firm understands that clients are not just looking for a lawsuit. They are looking for answers. They want to know why they are still in pain, whether they were properly warned, whether another surgery could have been avoided, and what they can do now to protect their future.

When we review a Cartiva case, we focus on the full story: what you were told before surgery, how the implant performed, what your doctors found later, how your life changed, and what evidence is needed to prove your claim.

If you received a Cartiva toe implant and later suffered pain, implant failure, revision surgery, removal, or fusion, you deserve a careful legal review. You may have been told that this device would help preserve your mobility and improve your life. If instead it left you with more pain, more surgery, and more uncertainty, we are ready to listen.

Call Jeffrey Glassman Injury Lawyers at (617) 777-7777 or contact us online for a free, confidential consultation. There is no fee unless we recover compensation for you.