Patients who received the Cartiva synthetic cartilage implant and later experienced chronic pain, implant failure, or revision surgery may be eligible to pursue financial compensation.
Cartiva implant lawsuits involve claims that a synthetic cartilage device used to treat arthritis in the big toe joint failed earlier than expected, causing ongoing pain and mobility limitations for patients.
The Cartiva implant was marketed as an alternative to joint fusion surgery, promising preserved motion and faster recovery. However, many patients allege the device did not perform as advertised and resulted in persistent symptoms requiring corrective procedures.
Plaintiffs claim manufacturers failed to adequately warn surgeons and patients about potential risks, including implant subsidence, loosening, and long-term failure.
The Cartiva Synthetic Cartilage Implant (SCI) is a small medical device made from hydrogel material designed to mimic natural cartilage. It is commonly used to treat hallux rigidus — a form of arthritis affecting the big toe joint that causes stiffness and pain.
Unlike traditional joint fusion surgery, the implant was intended to preserve joint motion while reducing pain. Surgeons insert the device into the metatarsophalangeal joint to replace damaged cartilage.
Patients allege that over time the implant may compress, shift, or fail to integrate properly with surrounding bone, leading to continued discomfort and functional limitations.
Clinical reports reviewed in litigation describe cases where patients experienced persistent swelling, reduced mobility, and pain comparable to or worse than symptoms prior to surgery.
Orthopedic specialists have evaluated whether implant material compression or improper fixation may contribute to device failure. In some cases, imaging studies revealed implant subsidence into bone.
These medical findings play a significant role in determining whether the device met safety expectations and whether additional warnings should have been provided.
Persistent pain following implantation reported by many patients.
Loss of effectiveness requiring additional surgery.
Limited range of motion despite motion-preserving claims.
Implant subsidence or joint deterioration.
Many patients require removal or fusion surgery.
Pain or numbness caused by surgical complications.
You may qualify if you received a Cartiva implant and later experienced device failure, persistent pain, or required revision surgery.
Patients who underwent Cartiva toe implant surgery.
Individuals requiring implant removal or joint fusion.
Patients experiencing ongoing symptoms after surgery.
Cartiva implant claims are being investigated nationwide as patients report similar complications following implantation. Legal proceedings focus on device safety testing, marketing claims, and whether risks were adequately disclosed.
As additional cases are reviewed, settlement discussions and individual lawsuits continue to develop.
Compensation may depend on medical complications, corrective procedures, and long-term impact on mobility and quality of life.
No. Claims are typically handled on a contingency basis, meaning fees are paid only if compensation is recovered.
Not always. Persistent pain or documented complications may also support eligibility depending on medical evidence.
No. Each claim is filed individually while benefiting from shared expert evidence across related litigation.
Submit your information for a free case evaluation. You pay nothing unless compensation is recovered.
Start Free Case Review