The Cartiva litigation has entered a new phase. On February 5, 2026, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation centralized federal Cartiva cases into MDL No. 3172, titled In re: Cartiva Synthetic Cartilage Implant Products Liability Litigation, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. The master docket is 4:26-md-03172-KGB, and the litigation has been assigned to Judge Kristine G. Baker.
That development is significant because it confirms that Cartiva claims are no longer scattered throughout the country in isolated Cartiva lawsuits. The federal courts have now recognized that these cases involve common factual issues and that they should move through a coordinated pretrial process. For people who received the Cartiva Synthetic Cartilage Implant and later experienced ongoing pain, implant failure, revision surgery, or fusion, this is an important sign that the litigation is advancing in a more formal and organized way.
As of March 2026, the two biggest developments shaping Cartiva litigation are the October 31, 2024 recall action and the creation of MDL 3172 in February 2026. The FDA recall database lists a Class II recall for the Cartiva Synthetic Cartilage Implant, with the recall covering all lots distributed from July 2016 to October 2024. The FDA recall record states that implanted patients may experience a higher-than-expected occurrence of revision, removal, implant subsidence, displacement, pain, nerve damage, or fragmentation.
The MDL means those federal claims will now move through a centralized process rather than continuing in a piecemeal fashion. That does not mean the litigation is over. It means the opposite: the case development process is becoming more structured, and the legal issues surrounding the Cartiva implant are now being managed on a larger scale in one court.
A multidistrict litigation, or MDL, is not the same thing as a class action. In a class action, a single case moves forward on behalf of a larger group. In an MDL, each person still has an individual claim, but common pretrial issues are coordinated before one judge. Those coordinated issues often include discovery, corporate document production, motions involving shared legal questions, and expert evidence.
For Cartiva claimants, that matters because it can make the litigation more efficient while still preserving the individual nature of each case. Each person’s injuries, medical history, revision surgery, damages, and long-term outcome still matter. The MDL simply creates a centralized framework for moving the common parts of the litigation forward.
This does not mean every patient automatically has a claim. It also does not mean the process will move overnight. But it does mean the litigation is established enough that injured patients should not assume they have missed their opportunity or that no viable path exists. In fact, the current posture makes it even more important for affected patients to get their medical records reviewed and preserve their legal options before state-specific filing deadlines become a problem.
The Cartiva cases involve allegations that the implant was defective and/or was sold without adequate warnings regarding the true risk of complications and failure. Patients have reported serious issues including persistent pain, implant subsidence, stiffness, loss of motion, bone erosion, revision surgery, and conversion to fusion. The FDA recall record specifically identifies a higher-than-expected occurrence of revision, removal, subsidence, displacement, pain, nerve damage, or fragmentation.
After creation, MDLs typically move into coordinated case management, leadership appointments, scheduling orders, discovery planning, and development of common evidence. Over time, that process may lead to bellwether case selection, substantive rulings on legal and expert issues, settlement discussions, or remand preparation for cases that do not resolve. That is the normal progression in large product liability litigation, although the pace can vary substantially from case to case.
First, focus on your medical care. If you are dealing with ongoing big toe pain, stiffness, deformity, swelling, difficulty walking, or suspected implant failure, you should continue working with a qualified treating physician or specialist. Preserving your health should come first.
Second, do not wait to explore your legal rights. Statutes of limitations vary by state, and the timing issues can depend on when you discovered, or reasonably should have discovered, that your implant may have caused your injuries. That makes early legal review especially important.
Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, P.A. is actively investigating and pursuing Cartiva implant claims for patients who suffered complications after receiving this device. Our role is to evaluate the medical evidence, determine whether the facts support a Cartiva claim, and help clients pursue compensation. Because this litigation is now centralized in MDL 3172, it is more important than ever that cases be reviewed and positioned correctly from the outset.
Yes. Federal Cartiva cases were centralized into MDL 3172 on February 5, 2026, the litigation is active and moving through coordinated pretrial proceedings.
No. In an MDL, each claimant keeps an individual case, even though common pretrial issues are coordinated in one court.
No. A recall is important, but every case still depends on the patient’s medical facts, injuries, treatment history, and damages. The recall can be relevant evidence, but it is not automatic proof of an individual legal claim.
No. We represent victims anywhere in the nation.
If you are symptomatic, you still may want to have your situation reviewed. If you have a revision in the future, it is important to protect your rights as soon as possible.
The Cartiva litigation is not over. It is now moving in a centralized federal process, and the current posture of the recall and MDL makes this an important time for affected patients to understand their options. If you received a Cartiva toe implant and are now dealing with persistent pain, implant failure, revision surgery, or a recommended fusion procedure, Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, P.A. can review your situation and help you understand whether you may have a claim.
To speak with an attorney about your legal options, call 732-313-2323.
Joshua S. Kincannon
Shareholder
Lynne M. Kizis
Co-Chair, Mass Tort/Class Action Team
Shareholder
