Bard PowerPort Lawsuit

The Bard PowerPort (“BardPort”) is a port catheter device implanted just under the skin to allow for easy attachment to a catheter for the intravenous delivery of fluids or medication.

The Bard PowerPort has inherent design and manufacturing flaws that make the device prone to fracturing and migrating out of position. This can cause severe injuries, including internal vascular damage.

Individuals who suffered injuries due to a defective Bard PowerPort device are now bringing product liability lawsuits against the manufacturer of the PowerPort implants. Our firm is currently accepting new cases from anyone who had a Bard PowerPort port catheter device implanted and was injured due to a fracture, migration, or other implant failures.

This page provides the latest news and updates in the litigation, explains what these lawsuits are about and who is eligible, and speculates on potential settlement amounts and jury payouts in Bard PowerPort lawsuits.

Our firm is currently accepting new cases from individuals who were injured by a defective Bard PowerPort implant. Call our Bard PowerPort lawyers today at 800-553-8082 for a free consultation, or reach out online.

---

Bard PowerPort Lawsuit Updates

Our law firm is committed to keeping victims updated on this litigation. So before we get into the substance of these lawsuits and our thoughts on what a Bard PowerPort class action settlement might look like, here is the latest news in the MDL and state court lawsuits against Bard.

May 16, 2025 – New Lawsuit

In a new lawsuit filed this month, a woman from Greensboro, North Carolina, joined the Bard Implanted Port Catheter MDL

The plaintiff was implanted with a PowerPort isp M.R.I. Implantable Port (model number 4808060) on August 2, 2022. She alleges that the device, designed for repeated vascular access, caused complications including catheter fracture, infection, and thrombosis. These injuries have led to significant health consequences and the need for further medical intervention.

May 6, 2025 – Bard PowerPort Trial Plain Articulated By Judge

Judge Campbell provided critical direction on the upcoming bellwether case selections.

Following the sixteenth case management conference, the court tentatively outlined the composition of the six cases it expects to proceed to early trial. Specifically, the Court indicated a preference for a mix of case types, including three involving infections, two involving thrombosis, and one involving a device fracture.

Additionally, the selection should include four cases involving polyurethane devices, one involving a Groshong catheter, and one involving a silicone device. The judge also emphasized that at least one selected case should involve surgical complications.

This framework is intended to ensure a representative cross-section of claims for early resolution and to aid in assessing the broader liability landscape. The parties were instructed to confer, attempt to reach an agreement on the six primary bellwether cases and one alternate, and file their response memoranda by tomorrow.

May 1, 2025:  Strongest PowerPort Lawsuits

What is the strongest type of lawsuit related to the PowerPort implant system?  The litigation has many good types of claims, as discussed below. But some cases are stronger than others.

One of the strongest claims will be from victims who have had the BardPort or AngioDynamics Port implanted within the past ten years and experienced complications such as fractures, leaks, or migration of the device, leading to serious health issues like blood clots, infections, or pulmonary embolisms.

These complications often necessitate surgical removal of the device. Moreover, cases where the implant system caused severe conditions such as sepsis, endocarditis, heart complications, hematomas, hemorrhage, lacerated blood vessels, necrosis, organ or tissue perforation, or required surgical intervention are particularly compelling.

April 30, 2025 – The Path to Trial (which is the path to a PowerPort Settlement)

The parties in the Bard Port Catheter MDL have submitted their proposed bellwether trial selections. Although the tone of the filings suggests disagreement, both sides agree on key points. Each side supports the inclusion of three infection cases and at least one thrombosis case. They also jointly selected the Miller case, involving a polyurethane catheter and a thrombosis injury, as a representative trial. The main point of contention concerns the remaining case slots, particularly the number of fracture cases and the types of catheter materials involved.

Plaintiffs argue, with reason, that a truly informative bellwether slate must reflect not only the most common injuries but also key factual differences across the inventory. They propose including two fracture cases to capture the distinction between subclavian and internal jugular placement, which is central to the design and warning defect issues. They also highlight the overlap between infection and thrombosis injuries, noting that a verdict in an infection case may provide insights into how juries view Bard’s design choices more broadly. Defendants, on the other hand, rely on raw percentages and argue that the slate should be limited to polyurethane catheters, which comprise approximately 75 percent of the MDL inventory.

The dispute is not simply about numbers. It is about whether early trials should reflect the full range of real-world injuries or focus only on the statistical middle. The court’s selection will influence the usefulness of the bellwether results in evaluating appropriate settlement compensation in the broader litigation. The parties agree on the structure but remain far apart on what types of cases will best inform the resolution.

April 1, 2025 – Bard PowerPort MDL Accelerates

After a quiet January, the PowerPort MDL is gaining real momentum. March saw 92 new cases added, totaling 1,205 pending lawsuits. This steady growth suggests that awareness of the device’s potential defects is spreading and that more injured patients are stepping forward.

March 24, 2025 – New Deadlines Set

Judge Campbell issued a new Case Management Order setting deadlines for the discovery of the defendants’ materials and the discovery of design experts. Expert reports are due May 23, 2025. Plaintiffs’ rebuttal expert reports will be due June 20, 2025. Depositions must be taken before August 22, 2025, and motions to exclude will be due in September.  Judge Campbell also instructed both sides to meet and confer regarding the selection of bellwether plaintiffs by April 21, 2025.

March 15, 2025 – Status Conference on Thursday

The Bard Implanted Port Catheter multidistrict litigation continues to move forward, with the court holding its fourteenth case management conference this upcoming Thursday. This is Case Management Conference #15. On Tuesday, lawyers must submit a joint memorandum outlining the schedule for important case milestones, including fact discovery, expert reports, and key motions. This document will provide a roadmap for the bellwether cases, which will help determine how future trials and potential settlements may unfold.

Discovery remains a significant focus of the litigation. The court addressed several discovery disputes, including delays in document production and slow responses to plaintiffs’ interrogatories. One notable development is that plaintiffs’ attorneys will now have the right to attend depositions of Bard’s sales representatives in person. This is an important opportunity for plaintiffs, as these depositions may reveal internal knowledge about the risks associated with Bard’s products. The ability to question sales representatives may provide crucial insight into whether the company was aware of safety concerns and how it communicated those risks.

During the conference, plaintiffs’ attorneys raised concerns about Bard’s failure to produce necessary complaint files in eighteen cases, which violated prior court orders. In response, the court ordered Bard to correct this issue before the next conference. This development serves as a reminder that even large corporations must comply with court directives, and failure to do so can result in consequences.

Plaintiffs have to make sure they are doing their part. While most plaintiffs are fulfilling their court-ordered obligations, some have struggled to submit required profile forms. One plaintiff failed to meet repeated deadlines and had her case dismissed with prejudice, which means she cannot refile the case.  The court has not placed a heavy burden on individual plaintiffs thus far, and cooperation with attorneys is essential. If a plaintiff has a legitimate reason for missing a deadline, such as a medical issue, that can be accommodated, but you have to notify the court rather than simply failing to respond.

Bard’s legal team is now seeking to recover legal fees from plaintiffs who experienced delays in submitting their profile forms. The court has agreed to allow briefing on the issue before making a ruling. This request is an unnecessary distraction, as shifting legal costs to plaintiffs over minor administrative delays serves no real purpose other than to intimidate claimants.

The litigation remains active, with ongoing disputes over discovery, compliance, and procedural matters. Plaintiffs have secured some important victories, including increased access to depositions, but also received a strong message about the importance of timely participation. Meanwhile, Bard continues to resist court orders while attempting to impose penalties on plaintiffs. These issues are likely to persist as the litigation moves toward bellwether trials.

March 3, 2025 – 108 New Cases Added to MDL

After only adding 8 new cases in January, the PowerPort MDL looked like it might be losing its recent momentum. But it jumped back in a big way in February, adding 108 new cases to bring the total number of pending cases up to 1,112.

February 18, 2025 – New PowerPort ISP Fracture Lawsuit

In a new lawsuit, a Reno, Nevada, plaintiff is suing Becton, Dickinson, and Company and its related entities, alleging that a defective Bard PowerPort ISP M.R.I. Implantable Port caused severe medical complications. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, claims that Yates received the port in March 2023 and later suffered a catheter fracture, leading to serious health issues.

According to the complaint, the PowerPort ISP M.R.I. was designed to provide long-term vascular access but was defectively manufactured and prone to material degradation. The lawsuit alleges that the catheter component of the device fractured inside Yates’s body, creating a significant risk of infection, thrombosis, and other medical complications. The plaintiff contends that the defendants knew or should have known about the risks associated with the device but failed to adequately warn patients and medical providers.

The lawsuit asserts claims for strict liability due to design and manufacturing defects, negligence, failure to warn, fraudulent misrepresentation, and violations of consumer protection laws. The plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages for medical expenses, pain and suffering, and other losses, arguing that the defendants prioritized profit over patient safety by continuing to market a dangerously flawed medical device.

As we talk about below, we think the fracture cases are particularly strong.

February 7, 2025 – New Catheter Recall

Federal regulators are alerting healthcare providers to a significant defect in certain Bard Peripheral Vascular catheters, specifically the Rotarex Atherectomy System, which is used to remove blood clots. According to an FDA warning issued on February 6, the rotating tip of these catheters may break under conditions like wear, friction, or high stress, potentially causing serious injury or even death.

The Rotarex system features a rotating helix tip designed to navigate through arteries and clear blockages. FDA reports link the device to 115 cases requiring medical intervention due to tip fractures, including 30 severe injuries and four fatalities.

February 6, 2025 – Eight New Cases Added to MDL

The PowerPort class action MDL saw a slowdown in new filings, with only eight new cases added in January, bringing the total number of pending cases to 1,004. This marks a significant drop from the 78 new cases filed in the previous month. Some of this might just be a function of lawyers digging out of the hole that was created by the holidays.  Our firm continues to receive daily inquiries from patients who have experienced serious complications linked to defective catheters.

January 28, 2025 – AngioDynamics Xcela

January 27, 2025 – New Port-a-Cath Lawsuit Filed on Friday

In a lawsuit filed Friday, a Wixom, Michigan, plaintiff alleges significant injuries caused by the implantation of a PowerPort Implantable Port.  The complaint, directly filed with a short-form complaint in MDL-3081 in Arizona, details, as all of these lawsuits do, how the device’s defective design, manufacturing flaws, and insufficient warnings resulted in severe complications, including thrombosis.  Our lawyers like the thrombosis lawsuits a lot.

The plaintiff asserts that the manufacturers prioritized profits over safety, rushing to market a device that lacked adequate testing and carried undisclosed risks. The device, implanted on October 13, 2017, is alleged to have failed in ways consistent with the broader pattern of harm outlined in the MDL’s Master Complaint. The claims include strict liability for design and manufacturing defects, negligence, failure to warn, and breaches of express and implied warranties.

January 17, 2025 – New Order for Lawsuits to Be Prepared for Trial

A new set of guidelines under Case Management Order No. 29 has been issued concerning the discovery protocols for cases grouped under Discovery Group 1 in the Bard Implanted Port Catheter MDL. This directive builds upon the foundations set by Amended Case Management Order No. 10 and outlines specific protocols and timelines for the discovery phase, applicable to the initial group of bellwether cases.

The order reaffirms that all Amended CMO No. 10 provisions remain in effect for Discovery Group 1 and introduces additional protocols to guide this phase. A notable directive under this order is the requirement for parties to meticulously draft and submit detailed discovery plans for Bellwether Group 1 by no later than April 7, 2025. In the run-up to this deadline, before April 4, 2025, parties are authorized to conduct depositions of crucial figures such as the principal plaintiff, any loss-of-consortium plaintiff, relevant family members, the medical professionals involved in the implanting and explanting procedures, an additional treating physician from each side, and a chosen sales representative or supervisor. So there are a lot of depositions to do in these cases.

The guidelines stipulate specific procedures for examining physicians; by set dates in January 2025, both plaintiffs and defendants must declare the physicians they intend to call as witnesses, ensuring transparency and preparation for subsequent depositions. These depositions are capped at seven hours in total, evenly split between the parties as dictated by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(d)(1). This provision ensures that no side monopolizes the available time, thereby maintaining procedural balance. Additionally, unless explicitly communicated 14 days in advance, all depositions are to be conducted remotely—a more modern approach that promotes efficiency yet allows for traditional face-to-face interactions if deemed necessary.

The order thankfully places a firm prohibition on defendants engaging directly with plaintiffs’ treating physicians to discuss case details, unless it’s for logistical purposes related to deposition scheduling, ensuring that all communications are above board. In contrast, plaintiffs’ counsel retains the right to engage in ex parte discussions with these physicians. Any pertinent documents revealed during such discussions by the plaintiffs’ counsel must be disclosed to the opposition well in advance of the depositions. Moreover, all examining counsel are obliged to exchange potential deposition documents with each other and the deponent’s counsel five days prior to any deposition, with a strict cap of 40 documents to prevent information overload.

January 13, 2025 – AngioDynamics MDL

The new AngioDynamics Port Catheter MDL that mirrors the PowerPort litigation currently involves 90 chemo port lawsuits. Our lawyers are taking these cases, too.

December 31, 2024 – Judge Narrows Scope of Corporation Depositions

In one of his first substantive rulings in the PowerPort MDL, Judge Campbell has forced plaintiffs’ counsel to narrow the scope of their plan for depositions of corporate representatives for Bard (now Beckton Dickson). Judge Campbell found that the initial deposition requests from the plaintiffs were excessively broad in scope and would have been overly burdensome on Bard and its defense team. In an Order entered just before the holidays, Judge Campbell articulated the allowed topics for plaintiffs to depose Bard’s executives.

December 20, 2024 – Plaintiffs’ Experts

What will plaintiffs’ experts say at trial?  Plaintiffs will rely heavily on biomedical engineering experts to dissect the material defects of Chronoflex AL and its propensity for degradation.  Experts will detail how the inclusion of barium sulfate—a radiopaque additive intended to improve visibility in imaging—compromises the catheter’s structural integrity. These experts will articulate that barium sulfate creates micro-fractures within the Chronoflex AL material, making it prone to cracking, fracturing, and, in turn, bacterial colonization that can cause all of these infections we are seeing.

December 4, 2024: Case Management Conference Update

Yesterday, there was a status conference in the MDL. Deadlines for common-issue fact discovery and related expert disclosures were extended to ensure thorough completion of discovery before proceeding to expert phases. The new schedule sets February 28, 2025, as the deadline for fact discovery, with expert disclosures due in March and April 2025, and expert depositions concluding by July 25, 2025.  So we have a ways to go to get to a bellwether trial date, which we will need to move toward a global defective catheter settlement.

The court addressed procedural compliance issues, issuing a show cause order for failure to meet prior case management requirements and requesting confirmation regarding the continuation of claims for certain parties. Additionally, in one case, sanctions are under consideration for rather bizarre non-compliance with discovery obligations by one plaintiffs’ lawyer. The court also directed the parties to resolve disputes about alleged deficiencies in fact sheets and profile forms, with resolutions expected by specified December deadlines.

Further amendments to the Master Complaint and related filings were finalized, and updated case management orders will be issued shortly. The next case management conference is scheduled for January 16, 2025, via Zoom.

November 26, 2024: New Thrombosis Lawsuit

In a new lawsuit filed Friday in MDL-3081, the executor of the estate of a California man is suing the Bard entities after his use of a Bard PowerPort implantable catheter device caused complications like catheter fracture, infection, and thrombosis.

Although the man has died, this is not a wrongful death lawsuit.  The plaintiff does not claim her father died from these complications.  Instead, the lawsuit seeks compensation for his medical bills and pain and suffering from his use of the defective device before his death.

November 25, 2024: Why Does the PowerPort Class Action Have Less than 700 Plaintiffs?

Let’s break down the numbers in the Bard PowerPort class action to get a sense of its potential scale. Approximately 300,000 PowerPort devices were implanted nationwide, and Bard commanded an estimated 70% share of the market. Based on those figures, there could potentially be anywhere from 8,000 to 12,000 cases of complications stemming from these devices. Yet, as of now, there are only 640 lawsuits consolidated in the MDL. Why the disparity?

The most obvious explanation is that it’s still early in the Bard PowerPort litigation. Awareness about the potential risks and injuries linked to these devices is likely limited. Patients may not connect their injuries—such as catheter-related infections, fractures, or migration issues—to the PowerPort itself. Likewise, many doctors may not readily recognize the device as a potential culprit, especially since complications from implanted medical devices often have multiple potential causes.

Will this change?  That remains to be seen.

November 12, 2024:  Latest Case Management Conference

The 11th Case Management Conference for the Bard Implanted Port Catheter Products Liability Litigation (MDL No. 3081) was held last Thursday. Nothing earth-shattering but there are some developments in the litigation.

The court denied the plaintiffs’ request to extend the fact discovery period, instructing that all depositions, excluding the period from December 23 to January 1, be scheduled by the end of January. So there will be a lot of work getting these depositions done to comply with the deadline.

The court also discussed the plaintiffs’ request for an in-camera review of 50 documents claimed as privileged by the defendants, setting a deadline of November 13, 2024, for the defendants to respond to the plaintiffs’ concerns about these documents. A decision on whether an in-camera review will be necessary is deferred until the next conference in December.

The court ordered that the deposition of Jim Beasley, a key former Bard employee for 29 years in the middle of key events with the PowerPort, proceed as scheduled. The necessity of deposing Kimberly Hammond, another Bard witness, will be reevaluated at the next conference based on the information gathered from other depositions to determine if her testimony is essential.

Furthermore, the court required specific compliance with previous court management orders from several plaintiffs and planned to address issues of non-compliance at the upcoming conference.  Plaintiffs that do not provide the information required are going to get the cases dismissed.  Lastly, the parties were instructed to submit revised stipulations regarding successor liability to amend the master pleadings accordingly (see the next update for more on that).

October 22, 2024:  Dispute Over Modification of the Scheduling Order

Plaintiffs’ lawyers want to modify the scheduling order:

Event	Current Deadline	Plaintiffs’ Proposal
Common-Issue Fact Discovery	January 31, 2025	March 28, 2025
Plaintiffs’ Expert Disclosures	February 14, 2025	March 31, 2025
Defendants’ Expert Disclosures	March 31, 2025 (45 days)	May 12, 2025 (42 days)
Plaintiffs’ Rebuttal Expert Disclosures	April 30, 2025 (30 days)	June 18, 2025 (37 days)
Expert Depositions	June 30, 2025 (61 days)	August 1, 2025 (44 days)
Motions to Exclude Common-Issue Experts and for Summary Judgment	July 21, 2025 (21 days)	August 25, 2025 (24 days)
Oppositions to Motions	August 25, 2025 (35 days)	September 29, 2025 (35 days)
Replies in Support of Motions	September 8, 2025 (14 days)	October 13, 2025 (14 days)

Bard’s lawyers disagree. They want to keep the scheduling order in place. Their attorneys claims that the plaintiffs’ concerns about the inability to complete depositions are either speculative, caused by their own delays, or both. They say that nearly all of the depositions have been scheduled or completed, and there should be no issues finishing the depositions by the current deadlines.

October 7, 2024: MDL Panel Consolidates All AngioDynamics Port Catheter Lawsuits

The MDL Panel has consolidated all AngioDynamics port catheter lawsuits filed in U.S. District Courts nationwide into a MDL.  Like the PowerPort cases, all AngioDynamics lawsuits will be centralized before one judge, in this case in the Southern District of California.

This move brings together more than 50 product liability lawsuits that have been filed against AngioDynamics, all alleging that its port catheter devices—often used for administering chemotherapy or other treatments—are defective and pose serious health risks. The claims mirror the PowerPort lawsuits allegations that the devices are prone to fracturing, migrating, or causing severe infections in patients.

See the August 9 update below for more on these claims..

August 26, 2024: Missouri Woman Alleges PowerPort Defect Caused Thrombosis 

A woman from Caruthersville, Missouri became one of the latest plaintiffs to join the Bard PowerPort class action MDL. According to her complaint, filed last week directly in the MDL using the Short Form Complaint, the woman had the PowerPort Implantable Port installed in October 2012. Sometime afterwards she alleges that defects in the PowerPort caused her to develop thrombosis.

April 15, 2024: Texas Woman Alleges Port Caused Atrial Fibrillation 

A Texas woman filed a BardPower Port lawsuit last week claiming that her defective BardPort MRI Implantable Port implanted in 2018 has caused her to suffer atrial fibrillation.

This is not a common injury our lawyers have seen.  We are mostly seeing infection, thrombosis, and catheter fracture claims.

March 7, 2024: Clarification Regarding Recall

There is some confusion over whether there has been a Bard PowerPort recall. In 2020, the FDA issued a Class 2 recall for three Bard PowerPort models. This recall addressed issues like incorrect tunneler components, potentially causing extended surgery times. But the chemo port lawsuits we are talking about addressing the design flaws in the Bard PowerPort were not the reason for that recall.

February 23, 2024: Two Suggestions Of Death Motions Filed In PowerPort Class Action

Two suggestions of death motions were filed in the Bard PowerPoint class action this month, underscoring the severity of the injuries in this litigation and the need to get victims justice sooner rather than later.

A “suggestion of death” within the context of legal proceedings, such as in the Bard PowerPoint class action, is a formal notification to the court indicating that a party involved in the lawsuit has died. This procedural step is significant because the death of a party can have considerable implications on the continuation and outcome of the litigation. It requires changing the name of the parties and requires new counts in the complaint for wrongful death and a survival action.

November 20, 2023: MDL Judge Continues To Push Lawsuits Forward 

Judge Campbell continues to push the Bard PowerPort catheter lawsuits forward.

During a case status conference on Thursday, November 16, the judge reviewed the progress and future litigation management plans. BardPowerport attorneys had previously submitted a joint memorandum on November 9, 2023, detailing the issues for the conference, including a proposal for a bellwether trial plan in the Bard PowerPort litigation.

What are bellwether trials? A bellwether trial is a legal process where a small number of cases are selected from a larger group of similar lawsuits to be tried first.  Usually, the MDL judge will preside over these early trials.  If the lawsuits go to trial – there may be a global settlement before we ever get to a trial – the outcomes of these trials are used to predict trends and calculate PowerPort settlement amounts for the remaining cases in the larger group.

The trial plan involves both parties exchanging lists of 24 cancer port lawsuits (totaling 48) by July 1, 2024, to form the initial plaintiff pool. From this pool, after an initial discovery process, 15 cases will be chosen for what they are calling Discovery Group 1 by December 17, 2024. Each party will select five cases, and the remaining five will be chosen jointly.

If you are not familiar with mass tort litigation, this may seem slow-moving. But it is lightning fast in a class action lawsuit like this.

October 2, 2023: Bard PowerPort MDL Assigned To Judge David Campbell 

The new Bard PowerPort MDL has been assigned to Judge David Campbell in the U.S. District Court for Arizona. Judge Campbell is a conservative appointed by President Bush in 2003. He was in private practice in Phoenix before being appointed to the bench and is widely respected.

August 17, 2023: Kansas Woman Becomes Latest To Join PowerPort MDL

In the most recently filed Bard PowerPort lawsuit in the new MDL class action, a Kansas woman received a Bard Power Port implant through her right internal jugular vein to facilitate her breast cancer chemotherapy. Years later, she reported complications related to her port, which included a hematoma, pain in her arm, and a high fever. The healthcare professionals conducted an X-ray and labs, suspecting a potential bloodstream infection.

She had her infected catheter surgically removed. Due to the flawed device, the lawsuit alleges that she endured and continues to experience multiple adverse effects due to the flawed device. These encompass several hospital visits due to infections, heightened risk of enduring severe, lasting harm, acute emotional turmoil, and a perpetual dread of impending complications, notably bloodstream infections.

Her Bard PowerPort lawsuit alleges that despite being aware of the inherent dangers of the PowerPort, the defendants deliberately kept the plaintiff and her doctors in the dark. Before the plaintiff’s implantation, numerous PowerPort-related infection cases had been reported to the Defendants, absent any errors on the healthcare providers’ end.

Yet, the complaint alleges that the Defendants aggressively promoted the PowerPort as a safe option. Through various marketing channels, such as usage instructions and sales rep interactions with the plaintiff’s doctors, they misleadingly attributed these complications to reasons other than the catheter’s design and material. There was a blatant lack of transparency with the Plaintiff and her physicians regarding the true risk of infections tied to the PowerPort.

August 12, 2023: Federal Panel Rules Bard PowerPort Lawsuits To Be Consolidated Under Single Judge In MDL Class Action

As expected, we now have a Bard PowerPort class action lawsuit. A federal panel of judges has ruled that Bard PowerPort lawsuits filed in federal court will be consolidated under a single judge in an MDL class action.

Whether Bard realizes it or not, this is the best thing for everyone. A class action will streamline pretrial discovery and make a Bard PowerPoint settlement much easier to get down the road.

The case number for this class action is 2:23-md-03081.

July 25, 2023: JPML To Hear Oral Testimonies This Week Regarding Bard PowerPort Class Action 

We will take a step further to a Bard PowerPort class action lawsuit. The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) is poised to hear oral testimonies this week as to whether to make a (sort of) Bard PowerPort class action lawsuit filed centralized under a single judge for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

This process, known as Multidistrict Litigation (MDL), can benefit plaintiffs. The recent months have seen a surge in product liability lawsuits across various U.S. District Courts nationwide, with each suit voicing similar accusations regarding complications from Bard PowerPort or comparable Bard implantable port catheter systems, which are implanted beneath the skin to allow for simplified medication delivery, such as chemotherapy.

The advantage of consolidating these cases into an MDL class action lies in the increased efficiency and consistency in rulings, which can lead to fairer outcomes for victims. Moreover, MDL helps avoid the duplication of discovery efforts, reducing the litigation costs for plaintiffs.

---

About the Bard PowerPort

The Bard PowerPort is one of several varieties of port/catheter systems that have been designed, manufactured, marketed, and sold by Bard Access Systems, Inc. (a wholly owned subsidiary of Becton, Dickinson, and Company). The PowerPort is a totally implantable vascular access device designed to provide repeated access to the vascular system to deliver medication, intravenous fluids, parenteral nutrition solutions, and blood products.

The Bard PowerPort Implantable Port is a medical device crafted, distributed, and sold by an unnamed corporate group. The PowerPort belongs to a category of devices called port/catheter systems. Designed to facilitate repeated access to a patient’s vascular system, it delivers medication, intravenous fluids, blood products, and parenteral nutrition solutions directly into the bloodstream. Surgically inserted beneath the skin, the PowerPort stays implanted within the patient. The port’s design was intended to allow for repeated use, accommodating multiple power injection cycles over time without compromising safety

Its structure comprises two main elements: an injection port and a polyurethane catheter. The injection port, characterized by a raised center or “septum,” serves as the area where the needle is inserted to deliver medication. From here, the medication travels through a flexible tube, the catheter, and enters the bloodstream.

The PowerPort was the first port to receive FDA approval specifically for power injection. This expectation was that it would reduce the risk of port rupture or failure during high-pressure procedures.

Chronoflex AL

At the heart of the Bard PowerPort lawsuits is a fundamental design failure: the catheter’s primary material, Chronoflex AL, a polyurethane blend that plaintiffs argue was defective from the start. This material, sourced from AdvanSource Biomaterials Corporation, was supposed to provide durability and flexibility. But it has proven dangerously unstable. The Bard port catheter, which should have been a reliable, life-sustaining medical device, has instead been linked to fractures, migrations, infections, and life-threatening complications due to its inherently flawed composition.

A major issue lies in the barium sulfate used in the catheter. This choice is now a big issue in this litigation. This additive was intended to enhance visibility in medical imaging. But it compromised the catheter’s structural integrity. Over time, barium sulfate particles separate from the catheter, leaving behind microfractures, pits, and cracks—weak points that make the device prone to breakage inside a patient’s body. Worse still, evidence suggests that Bard used an excessively high concentration of barium sulfate, resulting in improper mixing and the formation of dangerous voids throughout the catheter. These defects increase the risk of infections, sepsis, blood clots, and embolisms, putting patients in serious danger.

The implications of this defective design have been felt by victims.  Patients trusted Bard PowerPort for critical medical treatments. But to many were left to face unnecessary surgeries, severe infections, and life-altering injuries. Plaintiffs in these port catheter lawsuits argue that Bard knew—or should have known—about these risks and failed to warn doctors and patients. As a result, our lawyers think the PowerPort lawsuit settlement amounts could be substantial, given the evidence of negligence and the preventable harm inflicted on thousands of individuals. We talk about this more below.

What Is Wrong With the PowerPort?

Plaintiffs’ lawyers have a number of theories as to why the Bard Powerport is defective.

The central allegation is barium sulfate, when directly incorporated into the catheter material without proper encapsulation or a protective coating, can degrade the material of the catheter.

How it works is barium sulfate is added to the catheter material to make it visible under X-ray imaging. This radiopacity is crucial for proper placement and ongoing monitoring of the device.

Over time, exposure to barium sulfate is alleged to weaken the structural integrity of the catheter. This degradation can occur due to chemical interactions between the catheter material (often silicone or polyurethane) and the barium sulfate, potentially accelerating wear and tear or causing brittleness.

As the catheter material degrades, it may become prone to cracking or breaking. This can lead to serious medical complications, such as:

• Catheter fracture: Pieces of the catheter may break off and travel through the bloodstream, posing a risk of embolism.
• Leakage: Cracks or breaks in the catheter can lead to leakage of drugs or fluids into surrounding tissues, which can cause severe local reactions or improper drug dosing.
• Infection: Compromised catheter integrity may increase the risk of infection, a serious concern given the immunocompromised status of many users (e.g., chemotherapy patients).

Barium sulfate is a relatively hard and abrasive substance. So it makes sense that if not properly encapsulated, the barium sulfate particles embedded in the catheter’s material would lead to increased wear and tear as the catheter flexes and moves within the body.

This abrasion can thin the walls of the catheter, leading to weak spots that are prone to breakage or perforation.  So plaintiffs’ attorney argue that by failing to encapsulate or otherwise protect the catheter from the direct impact of the barium sulfate, we got the obvious result you would expect.

Plaintiffs’ lawyers will produce experts biomedical engineers and material scientists to testify about these expected interactions between barium sulfate and the catheter materials at a molecular level. We believe the science is clear and easy to demonstrate to a jury, which is why you are seeing many law firms interested in this litigation.

PowerPort Malfunctions and Complications

The Bard PowerPort has been linked to significant design flaws, leading to four primary complications after implantation. These complications—fracture, migration, infection, and thrombosis—pose severe risks to patients which is why there are so many port-a-cath lawsuits against Bard.

1. Fracture

One of the most critical issues associated with the Bard PowerPort is its tendency to fracture. The device’s design and material composition render it particularly brittle, making the tubing and other components prone to breaking under stress. When fractures occur, fragments of the device may lodge in the vascular system, leading to severe complications such as:

• Vascular Damage: Broken fragments can tear or puncture blood vessels, potentially causing bleeding or other injuries.
• Embolism Risk: Detached fragments may travel through the bloodstream and block critical arteries, resulting in life-threatening conditions such as pulmonary embolism or stroke.

This vulnerability underscores a fundamental design defect in the PowerPort, as its brittle materials make it unreasonably dangerous for patients, exposing them to severe and entirely preventable injuries.

2. Migration

Design flaws in the Bard PowerPort also make the device prone to post-implantation migration. Migration refers to the device or its components shifting from their original implanted location. This issue often occurs due to the same material brittleness that contributes to fractures. Key risks associated with migration include:

• Tube Displacement: The catheter tubing, designed to remain securely positioned within the vessel, can shift independently or along with fractured fragments, compromising its stability and intended placement.
• Loss of Functionality: When the PowerPort migrates, it often becomes incapable of performing its core functions, such as delivering medication or facilitating blood draws, which may require corrective surgical intervention to restore usability or remove the device.
• Tissue and Vascular Damage: Migrated components can impinge on or damage surrounding tissues and blood vessels, significantly increasing the risk of vascular trauma and associated complications.

3. Infection

The Bard PowerPort’s material deficiencies also increase the risk of serious infections. When the device fractures or degrades, it creates pathways for bacteria to enter, leading to internal infections. These infections are particularly dangerous because they:

• Originate Internally: Infections often develop at the port site, making them difficult to detect and treat early.
• Spread Rapidly: From the initial site, bacteria can enter the bloodstream, potentially causing systemic infections like sepsis.
• Require Aggressive Treatment: Patients with PowerPort infections may need prolonged courses of antibiotics or even surgical removal of the device to prevent further complications.

Infections related to PowerPort malfunctions underscore the systemic risk introduced by its inherent design and material flaws.

4. Thrombosis

Another serious complication associated with the Bard PowerPort is thrombosis, the formation of blood clots within the blood vessels. The design flaws in the PowerPort, including irregular surfaces and material degradation, can disrupt normal blood flow and contribute to clot formation. The big risks of thrombosis that our lawyers are seeing with the Bard PowerPort include:

• Vascular Blockage: Blood clots can obstruct veins or arteries, leading to swelling, pain, and restricted blood flow.
• Pulmonary Embolism: If a clot breaks loose, it can travel to the lungs, causing a potentially fatal pulmonary embolism.
• Long-Term Damage: Chronic thrombosis may lead to post-thrombotic syndrome, characterized by persistent swelling, pain, and reduced limb function.

Thrombosis associated with the PowerPort not only compromises the device’s functionality but also presents life-threatening risks, often requiring anticoagulation therapy or surgical intervention to manage.

Bard Had Reason to Know About the Problems With the PowerPort

Soon after the PowerPort was introduced on the market, Bard began receiving many adverse event reports (“AERs”) from healthcare providers reporting that the PowerPort was fracturing post-implantation. Bard also received large numbers of AERs reporting that the implant was found to have perforated internal vasculature.

As a result of these reports, Bard was aware or should have been aware that PowerPort had a substantially higher failure rate than other similar products on the market. Bard should also have been aware that the problems with the PowerPort were related to flaws in the Chronoflex material used to make the device.

Failure to Warn

Soon after the PowerPort’s release, Defendants received numerous adverse event reports (AERs) about infections and internal perforations. These included severe injuries like hemorrhages, cardiac issues, pain, tissue perforations, and even deaths.

Bard Doubled Down

The Bard Power Port also had a higher failure rate than competitors, but the Defendants didn’t warn users. Bard PowerPort lawsuits allege that they hid the severity of PowerPort-related complications.

So instead of improving the PowerPort or issuing warnings, the Defendants pushed forward and aggressively marketed it as safe despite knowing its issues. As evidence stacked against them, the Defendants’ attempts at damage control seemed insincere and opportunistic. They launched a new product line, marketing it as an “enhanced” version. Still, skeptics quickly pointed out the similarities to the flawed PowerPort, understandably questioning whether the enhancements were genuine.

As a result, the lawsuits allege that the defendants not only failed to warn but also intentionally misled patients and medical professionals about the safety of the Port-a-Cath system, specifically the PowerPort model. Plaintiffs claim the manufacturer knowingly marketed a dangerous product without providing adequate warnings about its potential risks. This alleged failure to inform users of the device’s defects is a central issue in the litigation and forms the basis for seeking punitive damages.

Complaints Continued

With each case, the legal complaints have become increasingly alarming. One of the chief allegations centers on the manufacturer’s apparent refusal to modify the PowerPort’s design to make it safer. Despite accumulating evidence of the device’s risks, the defendants are accused of prioritizing profit over patient safety, choosing to push a flawed product onto the market.

Patients who underwent procedures with the PowerPort were often left in the dark about the device’s dangers. Without this critical knowledge, they were exposed to an increased risk of infection and sepsis as barium sulfate loss from the catheter’s surface continued, allegedly without any warning from the defendants.

Worse still, plaintiffs assert that the defendants, aware of the device’s flaws, did nothing to rectify the problem. Instead, they continued to actively and aggressively market the PowerPort as a safe device despite their knowledge of numerous reports of thromboembolism and other severe injuries related to its use.

In the wake of these accusations, a string of lawsuits has emerged, arguing for the defendants’ culpability in causing patients unnecessary suffering. These patients were reportedly prescribed and implanted with PowerPorts, not knowing that the devices were, according to allegations, defective and prone to precipitating a host of life-threatening complications.

Bard’s Internal Documents Will Be Key

Over the last few years, the defects in the PowerPort catheter have led to many Bard PowerPort lawsuits. These lawsuits are being filed by individuals who had the Bard PowerPort implanted and were seriously injured when the PowerPort fractured or malfunctioned post-implantation.

The lawsuits are being filed against the manufacturer, Bard Access Systems Inc., and its parent company, Beckton Dickinson. The product liability lawsuits, now a class action lawsuit in Arizona that houses all federal cases against Bard, allege that Bard was aware of the problems with the device. They also allege that rather than alter the design of the PowerPort to make it safer or adequately warn of the dangers associated with the PowerPort; Bard continued to actively and aggressively market the device as safe despite their knowledge of numerous reports of catheter fracture, infection, and other serious injuries.

Moreover, the lawsuits claim that Bard’s warnings suggested that fracture of the device could only occur if the physician incorrectly placed the device such that “compression or pinch-off” was allowed to occur. In reality, however, Bard knew internally these devices were fracturing and causing severe injuries due to defects in the design, manufacturing, and lack of adequate warnings. In other words, Bard tried to blame the flaws in the device on the doctors.

Gist of the Bard PowerPort Lawsuit Allegations

So, while there are a lot of ancillary claims, there are three main thrusts behind every Bard PowerPort lawsuit:

1. Bard’s negligent failure to provide adequate warnings
2. Bard’s negligent design of the PowerPort and
3. strict liability based on a manufacturing defect.

Who is Eligible to File a Bard PowerPort Lawsuit?

Anyone who meets the following criteria may be eligible to file a Bard PowerPort lawsuit and seek financial compensation:

• You had a Bard PowerPort device (or another Bard port/cath device) implanted
• Your Bard PowerPort fractured, migrated, or otherwise malfunctions post-implantation
• You suffered severe physical injuries as a direct result of the problems experienced with your PowerPort implant

Estimated Settlement Value of PowerPort Lawsuits

Predicting the potential settlement value of the Bard PowerPort cases at this early stage of the litigation is inherently speculative. There are simply too many variables and unknowns to say with any certainty how things will play out. However, if we make a number of assumptions about the validity of the claims and the scientific causation evidence, we can offer a reasonable estimate of what these cases might be worth. These estimates are based largely on settlement values in prior mass tort cases involving similar types of claims and injuries.

The potential settlement value of individual Bard PowerPort claims will depend on a variety of factors and circumstances, particularly what type of “occurrence” or event the plaintiff experienced and what injuries resulted from that occurrence.

Occurrence basically refers to what went wrong with the PowerPort device, with the 2 primary occurrences being fracture and migration. The strongest cases, and those with the highest settlement value, will be those in which there was a fracture AND a migration. Beyond that, the value of individual cases will depend mostly on what type of injuries resulted from the migration/fracture of the PowerPort.

The primary injuries linked to the PowerPort are: vascular damage, embolism/stroke, thrombosis (blot clot), and infection. Cases involving vascular damage directly resulting from at least one occurrence event will have the highest settlement value. These cases could have a settlement payout value between $175,000 and $350,000.

The next level down will be cases involving thrombosis or pulmonary embolism (blood clots). Although this might be a more serious injury than vascular damage, it can also be caused by many other things making it harder to link to the PowerPort. These cases will have a settlement value of around $100,000 to $250,000.

Cases only involving infection will be in the lowest value settlement tier. This is because infection (usually) is the least serious and most treatable injury. It is also because establishing causation between the infection in the defective PowerPort is very difficult. Infection cases will likely have a settlement value range of $30,000 to $100,000.

Bard PowerPort Complications and Failures

The design flaws and manufacturing issues with the Bard central venous port have made the device prone to 3 primary complications or post-implantation failures. These three primary complications are described below.

Fracture of the PowerPort

The most common complication associated with the Bard PowerPort is a fracture of the device itself. This typically happens because the materials used in the PowerPort’s construction have inherent flaws that cause them to become brittle over time.

As a result, critical parts of the device, such as the tubing and connecting components, are susceptible to cracking or breaking off completely. When these fractures occur, small pieces of the PowerPort can migrate through the patient’s bloodstream and become lodged within the vascular system, creating a cascade of dangerous health issues.

Once these fragments enter the bloodstream, the can cause havoc.  They block blood flow, puncture blood vessels, or cause severe internal bleeding. Patients may suffer from vascular damage, blood clots, or other potentially life-threatening complications that could require invasive surgical procedures to retrieve the broken pieces.

These fractures pose a serious threat to patient safety and can lead to long-term health consequences, making them one of the most alarming and dangerous failures associated with the Bard PowerPort device.

Migration of the PowerPort

PowerPort Infection

It is easy to understand how the flaws in Bard’s implantable port device cause fracture and migration.  But how does it cause infection?

The flawed nature of the material that the Bard PowerPort is made out of allows bacteria to enter when the material fractures or becomes degraded.

This degradation can lead to the development of small cracks and crevices which serve as breeding grounds for bacteria, increasing the risk of severe infections like sepsis.

Furthermore, the visibility of these ports during medical imaging, facilitated by the barium sulfate, is ironically linked to structural vulnerabilities that can result in dangerous blood clots and life-threatening conditions such as pulmonary embolism. 

As a result, infections originating at the port site are the third major complication associated with this device.

What Do You Expect for Bard PowerPort Settlement Amounts?

Our Bard PowerPort lawyers believe these are very strong lawsuits. Many of the claims we have involve significant injuries and we believe it can be proved the Bard is responsible. We think the average settlement payout for the PowerPort lawsuits will be between $150,00 to $300,000 with some claims exceeding $1 million.  The fracture lawsuits will have, on average, higher settlement amounts. But you will see some high value port-a-cath settlements in infection lawsuits.

Our projections are different for lawsuits that go to trial. There is a chance for punitive damages and, again, we think there are strong claim. The average successful verdict would likely be well in excess of $10 million.

At this early stage of litigation, with pre-trial discovery still incomplete, is it too soon to speculate about settlement figures and jury awards? Definitely. Nevertheless, attorneys typically develop initial settlement estimates – right or wrong – and we think it is helpful and transparent to include you in our thinking.  That said these preliminary settlement payout estimates should be be seasoned with healthy skepticism by the reader.

Contact Us About a Bard PowerPort Lawsuit

Our firm is currently accepting new cases from individuals who were injured by a defective Bard PowerPort implant. Contact us today at 800-553-8082 or get a free online consultation.

• Oxbryta Lawsuits
• BioZorb Implant Lawsuits