Cartiva Toe Implant Litigation is Centralized

The Cartiva Synthetic Cartilage Implant (Cartiva SCI) is a hydrogel implant created to treat painful toe arthritis at the big toe’s base. Recently, plaintiffs in five lawsuits moved under 28 U.S.C. section 1407 to centralize litigation about Cartiva toe implants in the District of Maryland or the Northern District of Illinois. There are plaintiffs in nine potential tag-along lawsuits in seven districts, and some of them also supported centralization in the Northern District of Illinois. If you were harmed by Cartiva toe implants, you should give the seasoned Chicago- based medical device lawyers of Moll Law Group a call to determine whether you have a viable claim. Billions have been recovered in cases with which we’ve been involved around the country.

Call Moll Law Group About Your Cartiva Claim

Each of the plaintiffs was implanted with the Cartiva Synthetic Cartilage Implant. These implants, which are put in place during a minimally invasive 30-minute outpatient procedure, are supposed to provide a cushioning effect, and allow for the replacement of painful, damaged cartilage without fusion of the joint.

In their lawsuits, the plaintiffs alleged that the implant was defective and that, as a result, they suffered from persistent pain and limited range of motion after being implanted with them and then needed further surgery to remove the failed implants and fuse their arthritic joints. Their claims were for strict product liability, negligence, and breach of express and implied warranties.

Cartiva opposed the transfer. It argued that the plaintiffs had different theories of their injuries and that this would result in individual factual questions predominating over the common ones. It also argued, incorrectly, according to the Judicial Panel, that the plaintiffs were alleging different injuries. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, which heard the motion, clarified that all five lawsuits asserted pain and suffering not limited to the failure of the Cartiva SCI and the implant’s migration.

The Judicial Panel found that there would be common factual questions about causation, testing of the implants, whether Cartiva’s labeling was sufficient, Cartiva’s representations to the FDA while the device was being approved, and the circumstances of Cartiva’s eventual recall of the device.

The Judicial Panel determined that the five lawsuits involved common questions of fact and that centralization in the Eastern District of Arkansas would serve the parties’ and witness’ convenience, promoting just and efficient actions in the litigation.

Consult an Experienced Product Liability Attorney

The Cartiva toe implant may be defective in terms of its manufacturing, design, or marketing. When our firm can establish a defendant’s liability for a defective product that caused injuries, we may be able to recover economic and noneconomic damages on the plaintiff’s behalf. These damages can include pain and suffering, emotional distress, mental anguish, medical bills, wage loss, replacement services, loss of consortium and more.

If you or a loved one was harmed by a defective Cartiva toe implant, you should call the seasoned Chicago-based medical device lawyers of Moll Law Group to determine whether you have a viable basis to sue for damages.  We dedicate ourselves to fighting for people around the country. Complete our online form or call us at 312.462.1700.