Toe Implant Lawsuit News:
New 2025–2026 Developments in Failed Joint Implants
A major consolidated action is underway in the Northern District of Georgia, with motions to dismiss denied and discovery into failure-rate data and implant migration now ordered. State coordinated proceedings are active in Georgia, Texas, and California. Our firm is accepting cases nationwide.
Key Federal Action & Discovery Orders
Where the Litigation Stands Now
The consolidated federal action in the Northern District of Georgia is now in active discovery following denial of the defendants’ motions to dismiss. The court’s discovery orders are targeting the internal data manufacturers had about failure rates and implant behavior that was never disclosed to surgeons or patients.
In re: Cartiva Toe Implant Products Liability Litigation
Case No. 1:25-cv-01422 — Northern District of Georgia
Several motions to dismiss targeting defective design and failure-to-warn claims have been denied. The court has ordered production of failure-rate data, discovery into implant migration and fragmentation, and issued expert-witness scheduling orders. State coordinated proceedings in Georgia, Texas, and California are also active.
Court-Ordered Discovery Includes:
- Failure-rate data — internal records of the rate at which implants loosened, fragmented, or required revision across product lines and implant sizes
- Implant migration and fragmentation records — documentation of known patterns of device movement and material breakdown within the joint
- Expert-witness scheduling — orthopedic and biomechanical experts on implant failure mechanisms are being scheduled for the evidentiary record
Implants at Issue
Which Toe Implants Are Involved?
The litigation focuses on three categories of implants used to treat hallux rigidus and other degenerative toe conditions. Each involves different materials and failure mechanisms, but all share allegations of underreported failure rates and inadequate surgeon warnings.
What Plaintiffs Allege
How Toe Implants Failed & What Manufacturers Concealed
Plaintiffs allege a pattern of device failures combined with manufacturer conduct that kept true failure rates hidden from the orthopedic surgeons who implanted these devices.
Implant Loosening
Devices loosened from the bone over time, causing painful movement within the joint, instability, and loss of the function the implant was meant to restore.
Fragmentation & Wear
Implant material fragmented or shed particulate debris into the surrounding tissue, causing chronic inflammation, bone erosion, and synovitis.
Migration
Devices migrated from their implanted position within the joint, disrupting biomechanics, causing adjacent bone damage, and complicating any subsequent revision surgery.
Bone Loss
Particulate debris and inflammatory response from failing implants led to osteolysis — progressive bone loss — that has left some patients without adequate bone stock for revision procedures.
Underreported Failure Rates
Plaintiffs allege manufacturers possessed internal data showing failure rates higher than publicly disclosed, and that this data was not shared with surgeons making implant selection decisions.
Failure to Warn of Migration & Wear
Surgeons were not adequately warned about the risk of implant migration and material wear, leaving them unable to counsel patients on realistic long-term outcomes or monitor for early failure signs.
Eligibility
Are You a Victim? Who May Qualify?
You may qualify if you received a Cartiva, silicone, or metallic toe implant and subsequently experienced complications requiring additional treatment, hospitalization, or revision surgery.
Qualifying Complications
- Chronic pain at the implant site
- Implant loosening or instability
- Bone erosion or osteolysis
- Inflammation or synovitis from implant debris
- Implant migration within the joint
- Revision or removal surgery required
- Loss of mobility or permanent disability
General Eligibility Factors
- Received a Cartiva, silicone, or metallic toe joint implant
- Implant placed for hallux rigidus or another degenerative toe condition
- Experienced a qualifying complication after implantation
- Complication documented in medical or surgical records
- Required additional treatment or revision surgery
Legal Theories & Damages
Liability & What You Can Recover
Liability Legal Theories
- Defective design
- Manufacturing defect
- Failure to warn
- Negligent misrepresentation
- Fraudulent concealment of failure data
- Breach of warranty
Damages What You Can Recover
- Medical expenses including revision surgery
- Lost income and reduced earning capacity
- Compensation for permanent disability
- Pain and suffering
- Emotional distress
- Loss of mobility and quality of life
Our Firm Is Now Accepting Toe Implant Cases
We represent patients nationwide harmed by failed toe implants. We track every development in the Northern District of Georgia consolidated action and state coordinated proceedings in Georgia, Texas, and California — to ensure our clients are best positioned as discovery produces the internal failure data at the heart of these cases.
We handle these cases on a contingency fee basis — you pay nothing unless we win.