On February 5, 2026, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated federal Cartiva cases as MDL 3172, In re: Cartiva Synthetic Cartilage Implant Products Liability Litigation, before Judge Kristine Baker in the Eastern District of Arkansas. The docket was small at consolidation and is growing as recall-affected patients come forward.
The device
The Cartiva SCI is a small cylinder of polyvinyl alcohol hydrogel — a water-based polymer — implanted into the metatarsal head of the big toe to act as a cartilage substitute in patients with hallux rigidus (arthritis of the joint). It was developed by Cartiva Inc., approved in 2016, and acquired by Wright Medical, which Stryker bought in 2020.
What plaintiffs allege
Design defect. The hydrogel degrades, deforms, and fragments under load, and the implant subsides into bone, causing erosion and instability. Plaintiffs say the material was not suited to a weight-bearing joint.
Failure to warn. The 13 percent revision rate from the approval trial was allegedly far below real-world rates, and the companies allegedly knew from post-market data but did not update labeling or surgeon guidance.
Misrepresentation. Marketing allegedly overstated durability and outcomes relative to fusion.
Stryker's October 31, 2024 Class II recall covered all four implant sizes distributed since July 2016. A recall is not an admission of liability, but it is the event that moved this from scattered lawsuits to an MDL.
Direct2Attorney · Litigation ExplainerWhere the litigation stands
Completed
Through September 2026- MDL centralized February 5, 2026
- Court-ordered mediation began March 2026 before former Magistrate Judge Lisa Lenihan
- Initial organizational hearing held August 26, 2026
- Individual confidential settlements reported
Ahead
Expected- Case management orders and plaintiff fact sheets
- Common discovery into design and post-market data
- Bellwether selection
- Global settlement negotiations, if warranted
Why an MDL for a small docket
The panel centralized the cases because the allegations were nearly identical across districts, the recall created a defined population of potential claimants, and coordinated discovery avoids repeating the same work in courts across the country. Each case remains individual, and any settlement would be tiered by injury: revision surgery, bone loss, and permanent impairment at the top.
What this means if you're considering a claim
This litigation is early, which means claims filed now enter at the stage where the record is being built. The basics are a Cartiva implant, a documented failure or revision, and a live deadline. A free review checks all three.
Think your case belongs in the MDL?
Free, confidential review by a participating firm.
Common Questions
No. Each plaintiff has an individual case coordinated for pretrial purposes.
Stryker and its subsidiaries, with Cartiva Inc. and Wright Medical named in various complaints.
Generally no. Pretrial work is handled by counsel; if a case were tried, it may be returned to your home district.
That is a decision for you and your surgeon based on symptoms. The recall advises monitoring, not automatic removal.
No. Direct2Attorney’s review is free, and participating law firms typically work on contingency, meaning fees are generally paid only if there is a recovery. Confirm fee terms in writing with the firm.
