Suffering After Your Cartiva Toe Implant Failed? Our Attorneys Can Help You File a Cartiva Implant Lawsuit
Struggling with big toe pain, lost mobility, bone loss, or a second surgery after your Cartiva implant? If you had a Cartiva Synthetic Cartilage Implant placed for hallux rigidus (severe big toe arthritis) and later needed revision surgery — often with toe fusion — due to device subsidence, loosening, erosion, or wear, you may qualify to file a Cartiva implant lawsuit against the manufacturer.
Claims generally involve implants placed between July 2016 and October 31, 2024, with the strongest cases involving implantation in 2018 or later. A successful claim may recover compensation for medical costs, lost wages, pain and suffering, and diminished mobility caused by device failure. A Cartiva implant lawyer can review your implant date, symptoms, and medical records to outline your options.
Rueb Stoller Daniel is a nationwide mass tort firm dedicated to protecting patients harmed by defective devices. Our legal team investigates Cartiva synthetic cartilage implant failures, builds evidence, and fights to hold manufacturers accountable. Contact us today or call 1-866-CALL-RSD for a free consultation with our mass tort attorneys. You pay nothing unless our team wins your case.
How Our Mass Tort Attorneys Build Your Lawsuit
Ongoing toe pain or a second surgery doesn’t automatically prove a defective implant lawsuit. Medical records must link the device to your injuries, and filing deadlines keep running. Rueb Stoller Daniel handles every stage of a potential Cartiva implant lawsuit, from reviewing surgical records to pursuing the responsible parties nationwide.
Reviewing Medical Records and Evidence of Implant Failure
Your attorney gathers operative reports, imaging, therapy notes, and follow-up records to confirm your original diagnosis of hallux rigidus, your implant date, and how Cartiva implant pain has affected your life. Imaging showing subsidence (shrinkage), loosening, erosion, or wear of the device surface can support your Cartiva implant lawsuit, and preserving a removed device may serve as key evidence. We consult medical professionals to determine whether your Cartiva SCI implant failure points to a product defect rather than normal recovery, trauma, infection, or another unrelated cause.
This review shapes your Cartiva implant lawsuit eligibility. Rueb Stoller Daniel offers a free case review to explain what documentation could strengthen your lawsuit. We can determine whether your case can be filed now or should be signed while revision surgery is still pending.
Investigating Product Defects and Manufacturer Responsibility
A Cartiva implant lawsuit requires proving the device was defectively designed or manufactured, its risks were inadequately disclosed, or the manufacturer failed to act on reported complications. Our defective medical device attorneys examine adverse-event reports, regulatory records, the October 31, 2024 Cartiva recall, product instructions, and evidence from similar cases, including device model and lot data when available.
We connect the defect to your harm — extra surgery, bone loss, or chronic pain — and identify the parties legally responsible for compensation.
Filing Within the Legal Deadline
Every claim is subject to a statute of limitations, which varies by state and may be governed by the discovery rule — meaning the clock may start when you learned, or reasonably should have learned, that the device caused your injury. In some jurisdictions, this deadline may be tied to the October 2024 recall date. Waiting could jeopardize your rights, particularly in cases involving earlier implant dates (2016–2017) or device failure occurring more than 8 years after the original surgery, which require closer legal review.
Our team confirms key dates, identifies proper defendants, files your Cartiva implant lawsuit, and manages all communication with defense counsel — while tracking deadlines if your case is coordinated with others.
If you’re unsure what to do after a failed Cartiva implant, don’t wait. Rueb Stoller Daniel is a Cartiva implant lawyer accepting new cases nationwide — contact us to see if you still have time to file.
Cartiva Implant Failures and Complications That May Support a Lawsuit
Persistent pain, reduced mobility, bone damage, or a second surgery may signal that your Cartiva Synthetic Cartilage Implant — originally placed to treat hallux rigidus — has failed. Eligibility for a Cartiva implant lawsuit depends on your implant date, medical history, the device’s condition, and the harm caused. Rueb Stoller Daniel reviews these factors to determine whether you may file a lawsuit now or should sign on while treatment is still ongoing.
Cartiva Implant Pain and Loss of Toe Joint Function
Swelling, stiffness, instability, or difficulty bending the big toe that persists or worsens beyond normal recovery may point to device failure. A Cartiva implant failure lawyer can review your treatment records to determine whether the implant — rather than trauma, infection, or another unrelated condition — caused your loss of joint function.
Revision Surgery or Replacement
Revision surgery due to Cartiva device failure, often performed alongside toe fusion (arthrodesis), is central to most claims. If your revision surgery has already occurred, your case may be ready to file. If revision is still pending, Rueb Stoller Daniel can sign your case now and file once surgery is complete. A Cartiva implant revision surgery lawyer can document why the second procedure was needed and pursue compensation through a synthetic cartilage implant lawsuit.
Bone Loss and Implant Subsidence
Subsidence — when the implant shrinks, sinks, or shifts within the bone — along with loosening, erosion, and surface wear, can cause shortening, instability, and severe pain. Our mass tort attorneys evaluate imaging and surgical records to build a lawsuit against the responsible manufacturer.
Fusion Surgery After Implant Failure
When Cartiva complications can’t be corrected through less invasive treatment, fusion surgery may be necessary — reducing pain but permanently limiting joint movement and requiring extensive recovery. A Cartiva implant fusion surgery lawyer at Rueb Stoller Daniel can pursue compensation for the added procedure and lasting mobility loss.
Compensation That May Be Available in a Cartiva Implant Lawsuit
A failed toe implant can mean another operation, months off work, and lasting pain. A Cartiva implant lawsuit may seek compensation for these losses, with the amount depending on your implant date, medical history, the severity of the failure, and applicable law. A mass tort attorney documents both current losses and future effects — and punitive damages may apply if evidence shows serious manufacturer misconduct.
Medical Expenses for Revision or Fusion Surgery
Compensation may cover imaging, specialist visits, medication, therapy, and past bills related to Cartiva implant pain, along with the cost of removal, revision, replacement, or fusion surgery. A Cartiva implant revision surgery lawyer works with medical experts to project future treatment needs, not just past bills.
Lost Income and Reduced Earning Capacity
Appointments, pain, and surgical recovery can keep you from working. Filing a lawsuit may recover lost wages, bonuses, commissions, and self-employment income, as well as damages for reduced earning capacity if lasting restrictions prevent returning to the same job.
Physical Pain and Emotional Distress
A synthetic cartilage implant lawsuit can address harm beyond medical bills — ongoing pain, sleep disruption, anxiety, and the emotional toll of a failed procedure and second surgery.
Long-Term Impairment and Loss of Mobility
Implant failure may cause stiffness, bone loss, an altered gait, or permanent motion loss. Fusion surgery can relieve pain but permanently limits joint movement. A Cartiva implant injury lawyer pursues compensation for disability, reduced independence, and loss of enjoyment of life.
Why Choose Rueb Stoller Daniel’s Mass Tort Attorneys for Your Cartiva Implant Lawsuit
A failed toe implant can bring persistent pain, reduced mobility, and another operation — while you’re also gathering medical records and tracking filing deadlines. Rueb Stoller Daniel handles these demands so clients pursuing a Cartiva implant lawsuit can focus on recovery.
A Dedicated Mass Tort Legal Team Serving Clients Nationwide
Led by founding and managing partners Gregory D. Rueb, Paul L. Stoller, and Stephen “Buck” Daniel, our team brings a combined 50 years of trial experience representing tens of thousands of clients nationwide in mass tort, catastrophic injury, and wrongful death cases. A Cartiva implant lawsuit requires analysis of your original hallux rigidus diagnosis, implant date, device performance, and any evidence tied to the 2024 recall. Our attorneys serve clients nationwide from offices in Atlanta, Boston, Los Angeles, Orange County, Phoenix, San Diego, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C., coordinating consultations and case updates remotely.
Skilled Defective Medical Device Attorneys Focused on Client Advocacy
Whether your case involves subsidence, loosening, erosion, wear, an ideal 2018-or-later implant date, or an earlier 2016–2017 implant requiring closer review, our attorneys gather operative reports, imaging, and follow-up records to assess whether the evidence supports a synthetic cartilage implant lawsuit — and what compensation may be available.
Nationwide Resources for Complex Product Liability Claims
Cartiva claims often involve extensive technical evidence — device data, regulatory records, recall documentation, adverse-event reports, and manufacturer communications. Rueb Stoller Daniel has the resources to build these complex cases, including claims where revision surgery is still pending or where causation issues like prior trauma, infection, or late-onset failure (more than 8 years post-surgery) require careful legal analysis. The firm has been recognized among Best Law Firms for 2026, with attorneys named to The National Trial Lawyers Top 100 — though past results don’t guarantee a similar outcome in future cases.
Frequently Asked Questions About the Cartiva Implant Lawsuit
Did You Receive Literature or Marketing Materials With Your Initial Cartiva Device?
Cartiva was marketed as a motion-preserving alternative to fusion, often with early studies cited to support high success rates. Any brochures, consent forms, or implant cards you received at the time of surgery can help show what claims were made about the device. If you still have these materials, please provide copies.
Did You Perform Independent Research on the Benefits of Cartiva Compared to Toe Fusion or Other Options?
Many patients researched Cartiva versus fusion before surgery, often finding materials emphasizing motion preservation. If you recall specific sources or claims that influenced your decision, that information helps establish what representations factored into your choice.
What Did Your Surgeon Tell You About the Benefits and Risks of the Cartiva Device?
Surgeons often presented Cartiva as motion-preserving, with risks like subsidence or revision surgery sometimes downplayed or omitted. What your surgeon told you about expected outcomes and risks — along with any informed consent form you signed — helps establish what you knew before agreeing to surgery.
When Did You Become Aware of the Cartiva Recall?
Stryker issued a Class II FDA recall on October 31, 2024, covering implants distributed from July 2016 to October 2024, due to higher-than-expected rates of revision and removal. When you learned of the recall matters, since some states tie filing deadlines to when you discovered — or reasonably should have discovered — the connection between the device and your injury. Even an approximate timeframe is useful.
Contact Our Attorneys Today for a Free Consultation
Persistent toe pain, reduced mobility, bone loss, or the need for revision or fusion surgery may signal your Cartiva device failed. Waiting to speak with a lawyer puts your claim at risk — evidence can be lost, records become harder to obtain, and the statute of limitations may expire while the manufacturer prepares its defense.
Rueb Stoller Daniel is a dedicated mass tort firm accepting Cartiva claims nationwide. Our attorneys review your implant date, diagnosis, device failure type, and treatment history to determine your eligibility. Contact us today or call 1-866-CALL-RSD for a free consultation with our mass tort attorneys. You pay nothing unless our team wins your case.
