1612 K St NW Suite 1101, Washington, DC 20006
1612 K St NW Suite 1101, Washington, DC 20006
A consolidated federal 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. Cornerstone Law is reviewing cases nationwide — with no upfront cost to you.
Key Federal Action and Discovery Orders
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:
Implants at Issue
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
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.
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.
Implant material fragmented or shed particulate debris into the surrounding tissue, causing chronic inflammation, bone erosion, and synovitis.
Devices migrated from their implanted position within the joint, disrupting biomechanics, causing adjacent bone damage, and complicating any subsequent revision surgery.
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.
Plaintiffs allege manufacturers possessed internal data showing failure rates higher than publicly disclosed, and that this data wasn't shared with surgeons making implant selection decisions.
Surgeons weren't 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
You may qualify if you received a Cartiva, silicone, or metallic toe implant and subsequently experienced complications requiring additional treatment, hospitalization, or revision surgery.
Legal Theories and Damages
Common Questions
Surgeons aren't always aware a device had a higher internal failure rate than what was disclosed to them. It's worth having your records reviewed regardless of what you were told at the time.
We handle toe implant cases on contingency — no upfront fee, and we only get paid if we recover compensation for you.
Your operative report typically identifies the specific implant and manufacturer used. If you don't have a copy, your surgeon's office or hospital can usually provide one.
Yes. Having a revision or removal surgery doesn't disqualify a claim, the complications and additional surgery are often central to the case.
We represent patients harmed by failed toe implants. Find out whether your implant and complications qualify for a claim.
Get a Free Case ReviewNo fee unless we recover compensation for you. Call 1-800-928-9445.