Is Your Cartiva Toe Implant Causing You Pain? Our Mass Tort Lawyers Are On Your Side
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 Cartiva implant lawsuit may recover compensation for medical costs, lost wages, pain and suffering, and diminished mobility caused by device failure. Our mass tort attorneys can review your implant date, symptoms, and medical records to outline your options under District of Columbia law.
Rueb Stoller Daniel represents Washington, D.C. patients injured by defective medical devices as part of a nationwide mass tort practice. 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. You pay no attorney’s fee unless we win compensation for you.
How Our Legal Team Builds Your Cartiva Implant Lawsuit
Ongoing toe pain or a second surgery doesn’t automatically prove a defective implant claim. Medical records must link the device to your injuries, and D.C.’s filing deadline keeps running while you wait. Rueb Stoller Daniel handles every stage of a potential Cartiva implant lawsuit, from reviewing surgical records to pursuing the responsible manufacturer.
Reviewing Medical Records and Evidence of Implant Failure
Your attorney gathers operative reports, imaging, therapy notes, and follow-up records to confirm your original hallux rigidus diagnosis, your implant date, and how Cartiva implant pain has affected your life. Imaging showing subsidence, loosening, erosion, or surface wear can support your lawsuit, and preserving a removed device may serve as key evidence. We consult medical professionals to determine whether your 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 in D.C. Rueb Stoller Daniel offers a free case review to explain what documentation could strengthen your case, and whether it should be filed now or 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 device model and lot data when available.
We connect the defect to your harm, bone loss, or chronic pain — and identify the parties legally responsible for compensation, rather than assuming a poor surgical outcome was simply unavoidable.
Filing Within D.C.’s Legal Deadline
District of Columbia product liability claims are generally subject to a three-year filing deadline. This deadline will not run until you know, or reasonably should have known, that you suffered injury due to the defendant’s wrongdoing — a date that may be tied to the October 2024 recall rather than your original surgery date. Because D.C.’s discovery rule turns on when the connection between the device and your injury became known or knowable, cases involving earlier implant dates (2016–2017) or failures diagnosed years after surgery still deserve close legal review to determine when the clock actually started.
Our team confirms key dates, identifies proper defendants, files your lawsuit, and manages all communication with defense counsel — while tracking deadlines if your Cartiva implant lawsuit is coordinated with claims from other jurisdictions.
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 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 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. Our mass tort attorneys 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 lawsuit may be ready to file. If revision is still pending, Rueb Stoller Daniel can sign your case now and file once surgery is complete.
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. Our attorneys pursue compensation for the added procedure and lasting mobility loss.
Compensation Our Mass Tort Attorneys Seek in Cartiva Implant Lawsuits
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, and the severity of the failure. Our attorneys document 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. We work 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 product liability 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. Our attorneys pursue compensation for disability, reduced independence, and loss of enjoyment of life.
Why Choose Rueb Stoller Daniel’s Mass Tort Attorneys for Your Lawsuit
A failed toe implant can bring persistent pain, reduced mobility, and another operation — while you’re also gathering medical records and tracking D.C.’s filing deadline. Rueb Stoller Daniel handles these demands so clients can focus on recovery.
A Dedicated Mass Tort Legal Team Serving Washington, D.C. Clients
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 hallux rigidus diagnosis, implant date, device performance, and any evidence tied to the 2024 recall. Our attorneys serve clients from offices in Atlanta, Boston, Los Angeles, Orange County, Phoenix, San Diego, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C., coordinating consultations and lawsuit updates remotely.
Skilled Defective Medical Device Attorneys Focused on Client Advocacy
Whether your lawsuit 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 lawsuit — and what compensation may be available under Washington, D.C. law.
Nationwide Resources for Complex Product Liability Claims
Cartiva implant lawsuits 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 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 Cartiva Implant Lawsuits
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 under District of Columbia law, since D.C.’s statute of limitations will not run until you know or reasonably should have known that you suffered injury due to the defendant’s wrongdoing, rather than from your original surgery date. Even an approximate timeframe is useful.
Contact Our Mass Tort 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 Cartiva implant lawsuit 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 from Washington, D.C. patients. 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 lawsuit.
