Lawsuit Information Center
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 what these lawsuits are about and our thoughts on what a Bard PowerPort class action settlement might look like, this is the latest news in the MDL and state court lawsuits against Bard.
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.
December 2, 2024: Agenda for Case Management Conference
Lawyers for plaintiffs and defendants have filed a joint memorandum ahead of tomorrow’s Case Management Conference. With 879 cases pending in the MDL and additional state court litigation gaining momentum, the memorandum highlights key points of contention around discovery deadlines, fact sheets, and deposition scheduling.
Plaintiffs continue to push for an extension of the discovery deadline, citing delays caused by the defense’s scheduling of critical depositions. Defendants, however, argue that plaintiffs have not demonstrated sufficient cause for an extension, pointing to progress made on fact witness depositions and compliance with prior discovery protocols. Both sides appear deeply entrenched on issues related to Rule 30(b)(6) depositions, with plaintiffs alleging delays in scheduling and defendants challenging the breadth of deposition notices.
Plaintiffs argue that the tight discovery timeline—aggravated by defense-requested delays—limits their ability to prepare adequately for trial. Plaintiffs also highlight the defense’s refusal to release complaint files until investigations are “complete,” which raises real questions about transparency and fairness.
December 1, 2024: 93 New Cases in MDL
After adding nearly 200 cases in October, the Bard PowerPort MDL saw a 53% slowdown in November, with 93 new cases filed. The total number of pending cases now stands at 813. Is this statistically significant? No. There are ebbs add flows in filings that are often based on scheduling. You can expect a light December followed by a surge of new cases in January.
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 entitles after his use of a Bard PowerPort implantable catheter device cause complications like catheter fracture, infection, and thrombosis.
Although the man has died, this is not a wrongful death lawsuits. 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 20,2024: New Stipulation
The parties have agreed to the stipulation we discuss in the November 6 update below. The stipulation aims to simplify the legal proceedings by agreeing that Bard entities can be treated as a single group for liability purposes during the MDL, avoiding disputes over their corporate identities.
The important part is that Becton, Dickinson agrees to satisfy any judgments or settlements if the Bard entities cannot, while reserving rights to challenge liability on specific legal grounds. In return, plaintiffs agree to withdraw some discovery requests and amend their master complaint to eliminate claims based on successor liability.
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).
November 6, 2024: Successor Liability
One issue at the upcoming case management conference will be successor liability. The question is whether successor liability applies to its parent company, Becton Dickinson (BD). Plaintiffs argue that BD should share liability, as it inherited both the product line and potential safety concerns of PowerPort. If the court rules in favor of plaintiffs on successor liability, Becton Dickinson may be responsible for PowerPort-related claims, increasing the theoretical pool of recoverable compensation for plaintiffs.
November 1, 2024: MDL Adds 200 Cases
The Bard PowerPort class action got off to a surprisingly slow start. There is still not the volume our lawyers expected when this litigation began, given how wildly used this implant vascular access device has been. But things are picking up a bit now. Almost 200 new cases were added to the MDL in October, bringing the total number of pending cases up to 720 and marking the third month in a row of high new case volume.
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..
September 19, 2024: California Woman Joins Class Action MDL
A woman from Vacaville, California became the most recent plaintiff to join the class action MDL litigation involving defects in the Bard PowerPort device. The plaintiff had the PowerPort M.R.I. Implantable Port installed in June 2021. According to the complaint, defects in that port catheter caused the plaintiff to develop an infection and pericardial effusion.
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.
August 20, 2024: 9th Case Management Conference In PowerPort MDL
On Friday, the court held it 9th Case Management Conference in this MDL.
The judge was focused on four plaintiffs who have failed to complete their Plaintiff Profile Forms to comply with Court Mandated Order 8. They have been given until August 28, 2024, to correct these deficiencies.
The court also allocated an extra 7.5 hours for plaintiffs in the the depositions of three witnesses with a cap of three hours per witness. This decision underlines the critical role these depositions play in the plaintiffs’ efforts to construct their case.
The session also delved into the contentious topic of successor liability discovery relating to Defendant Becton Dickinson (“BD”). Successor liability is a the legal principle where a company that acquires another company can become responsible for the liabilities of the acquired company. Plaintiff’s want both companies as defendants. The court has permitted plaintiffs to explore five theories of successor liability, affirming the relevance of this discovery to the plaintiffs’ claims against BD and emphasizing the court’s commitment to a thorough examination of all pertinent issues.
The parties are tasked with finalizing a stipulation concerning the liability of the three Bard Defendants and defining the scope of successor liability discovery for BD. They must also agree on the search terms to be used. Should disagreements remain by the October conference – and you can bet there will be – the court plans to require a matrix of disputed issues by October 7, 2024, aiming for a mid-October resolution to keep the discovery on schedule.
August 9, 2024: Judges Asked To Consolidate All AngioDynamics Port Catheter Lawsuits
A panel of federal judges has been asked to consolidate all AngioDynamics port catheter lawsuits filed in U.S. District Courts across the country, seeking to centralize the litigation before one judge for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings. This move mirrors the consolidation seen in the Bard PowerPort litigation. We are not investigating these claims as well.
First introduced in 2003, the AngioDynamics Vortex is an implantable venous access device consisting of a port component and catheter, used to facilitate the injection of medications, nutrients, and other fluids into a patient’s bloodstream. These devices are commonly used in patients requiring long-term intravenous therapy, such as chemotherapy, total parenteral nutrition, or antibiotic treatment. Despite being designed for long-term implantation under the skin, numerous lawsuits allege that the AngioDynamics Vortex port catheter and similar devices are prone to developing microfractures due to the use of barium sulfate in the production of the polyurethane catheter. Barium sulfate, while improving radiopacity, may compromise the structural integrity of the catheter over time.
These microfractures can compromise the structure of the port catheter, increasing the risk of infections, device fractures, and blood clots that could enter the bloodstream and potentially damage the heart and other organs. Additionally, the failure of these devices can necessitate further surgical interventions to remove and replace the faulty catheters, posing additional risks and discomfort to patients.
August 8, 2024: Tennessee Man Alleges PowerPort Caused Infection And Vein Thrombosis
One of the most recent cases to be filed directly in the PowerPort class action MDL using the Short Form Complaint was filed this week by a man from Memphis, Tennessee. The complaint asserts that the man had a BardPort M.R.I. Implantable Port implanted in 2018. He claims that the defective port device caused him to develop both an infection, and vein thrombosis, which would make this a high value case.
August 5, 2024: Over 12% Increase In PowerPort MDL
The Bard Implanted Port Catheter Products MDL saw an increase in active lawsuit from July to August 2024. The number of active cases grew from 299 to 336, a 12.38% increase. This litigation will likely never get as big as our lawyers would have projected over a year ago but it continues to grow larger.
July 31, 2024: Strongest PowerPort Lawsuits
What is the strongest type of lawsuit related to the PowerPort implant system? There are many good types of claims in the litigation as we talk about 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.
July 8, 2024: Lawyers Exchange Prospective Cases To Be Included In First Test Trial
Last week, On July 1, 2024, the lawyers exchanged lists comprising 24 cases to be included in the prospects to be the first test trial in the MDL.
July 1, 2024: 29% Growth In MDL
The Bard Implanted Port Catheter MDL grew by approximately 29% last month, from 232 lawsuits to 299.
We thought this litigation would be bigger at the beginning. But that fact that is not bigger is probably a blessing for plaintiffs when it comes to Bard’s willingness to settle these cases without trying to drag it out for ten years. Bard is in the final process now of settling the hernia mesh lawsuits and it has been very hard to get the company to the settlement finish line.
June 4, 2024: Oklahoma Woman Alleging Port Caused Thrombosis Joins MDL
A woman from Oklahoma became one of the most recent plaintiffs to join the PowerPort class action MDL against Bard. The plaintiff had the PowerPort M.R.I. Implantable Port surgically installed in 2017. The Complaint alleges that defects in the PowerPort device caused thrombosis, along with other health complications. The case was filed directly in the MDL using the short form complaint.
May 14, 2024: MDL Judge Conducts 6th Case Management Conference
The MDL judge conducted the sixth Case Management Conference for ongoing legal proceedings. Several decisions were made, including the scheduling of the next conference for May 24, 2024, to be conducted via Zoom. By May 22, 2024, parties are required to file a joint memorandum updating the court on various topics discussed.
Significant progress was noted in establishing completion deadlines for non-custodial data sources, with deadlines ranging from June 17, 2024, for certain databases, to August 30, 2024, for secondary priority sources. However, a deadline for documents from the DocuShare system remains undecided, and an update is expected at the next conference. Additionally, discussions will continue regarding a potential stipulation on successor liability aimed at reducing discovery obligations for everyone.
Further issues include the management of Plaintiff Profile Forms (PPFs), with some cases potentially being excluded from initial selection processes due to incomplete submissions. This is a problem in every mass tort.
Bard has also raised concerns regarding the proportionality of discovery and the consistency of the medical records and PPFs provided. Specific deadlines have been set for resolving these discrepancies and for plaintiffs to address deficiencies pointed out by the defense. The court expects updates on these matters and full compliance with required document submissions by the specified dates.
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.
April 4, 2024: Judge Issues New Set Of Orders
Judge Campbell issue a fury or orders today. I may not cover it all in this post, but let’s hit the highlights:
- A Second Amended Case Management Order (CMO 7) was approved with minor modifications on the Short-Form Complaint.
- Proposals for CMOs on privilege log protocol, evidence preservation, and deposition protocol were reviewed. The court adopted these with specified changes, including a revised division of deposition time among parties. Depositions are capped at seven hours. How the time is spilt between the parties depends on the type of witness and the court articulated different rules for different types of witnesses.
- Bellwether Selection Process: The existing schedule remains in effect, with a note that any necessary adjustments due to new filings should be promptly discussed with the court.
- Common-Issue Discovery: Agreement on document search methodology and custodian identities was noted, with a rolling basis production schedule set for custodial files. Disagreements on certain production details were addressed, with provisions for further review if needed.
- Plaintiff and Defendant Profile Forms: Ongoing issues with incomplete Plaintiff Profile Forms (PPFs) are a concern. May 1, 2024, deadline for completion. A resolution was reached regarding the information required in Defendant Profile Forms (DPFs).
- Plaintiffs in cases filed, transferred, or removed to this MDL before this Order have 30 days to amend complaints using the Short-Form Complaint, with a failure to comply possibly leading to dismissal after a show-cause order. New cases should directly use the Short-Form Complaint. Non-compliance can to potential dismissal after Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel’s notification to the court. Attorneys filing Short-Form Complaints must have or obtain a District of Arizona CM/ECF log-in, with those lacking one required to file in paper form and apply for Pro Hac Vice admission.
- Defendants waive the service of process for cases using the Short-Form Complaint, with specified procedures for waiver requests.
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.
January 12, 2024: JPML Panel To Meet To Discuss Expanding The Scope Of PowerPort MDL
The JPML Panel will meet later this month to consider slightly expanding the scope of the Bard PowerPort MDL class action lawsuit.
Most PowerPort lawsuits cite a common defect in the Bard PowerPort involving barium sulfate in the catheter material, which is said to degrade over time, causing potential catastrophic fractures.
How would the litigation expand? It may incorporate claims related to defects in the port reservoir into the MDL, which is already established for lawsuits involving Bard port catheter defects.
This is because new Bard PowerPort problems have emerged, targeting defects in the port reservoir, specifically citing the use of polyoxymethylene in the plastic components as a factor in device failures. These unique allegations argue that this material choice, known for oxidative degradation, reduces mechanical properties, making the device prone to complications that include fracturing or bacterial colonization. This can cause severe infections. Plaintiffs contend that the injuries from these reservoir defects are substantially similar to those from barium sulfate-infused catheters.
Bard wants a narrow MDL. The company has sought to prevent the transfer of three recent lawsuits to the MDL that are raising this issue of reservoir defects distinct from the existing PowerPort catheter material defect claims. Bard asserts that merging these port-a-cath suits would necessitate expanding discovery scopes, engaging new experts, and potentially allocating bellwether trials to these specific allegations.
Bard is right. But consolidation of these medical port lawsuits is the best path for everyone (including Bard, actually).
January 8, 2024: New Lawsuit Initiated Against Four Key Defendants
A new lawsuit has been initiated against four key defendants about the PowerPort isp M.R.I. Implantable Port: Becton, Dickinson and Company, C.R. Bard, Inc., Bard Access Systems, Inc., and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc.
A Mesa, Arizona, man underwent implantation of the device in June 2021 and is alleged to have suffered an infection attributed to flaws in the PowerPort isp M.R.I. Implantable Port. The case was directly filed in MDL-3081.
December 1, 2023: Judge Issues Group Of 6 Case Management Orders
Recently, Judge Campbell issued a group of 6 Case Management Orders (CMO 6-12), which cover all of the rules and procedures for how the MDL will proceed over the next 18 months. The orders outline the details of how the cases will move through discovery, followed by a bellwether selection process. Judge Campbell also addressed the creation of a master complaint, the use of short-form complaints, direct filing in the MDL, and plaintiff fact sheets.
It is great to see Judge Campbell pushing this MDL class action lawsuit forward and looking for ways to streamline the litigation process.
One helpful feature that usually takes longer to implement is a process for allowing every Bard PowerPort lawsuit in federal court to be filed directly in the MDL. This eliminates the need to file in different district courts.
A Master Complaint detailing the collective allegations has been filed, enabling plaintiffs to use a Short-Form Complaint for new cases. This short form will specify the particular Bard Power Port model used and the specific injuries claimed.
November 20, 2023: MDL Judge Continues To Push Lawsuits Forward
Judge Campbell continues to push the Bard PowerPort 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 27, 2023: Large Group Of PowerPort Lawsuits To Be Consolidated Into New Jersey State Court
With over 60 Bard PowerPort lawsuits already consolidated into a class action MDL in federal court, a larger group of PowerPort lawsuits will now be consolidated into a New Jersey state court version of an MDL. New Jersey’s MCL (multi-county litigation) process works like the MDL process in federal courts. A group of plaintiffs with PowerPort cases pending in New Jersey have filed a motion asking the New Jersey Supreme Court to form a new MCL for the Bard PowerPort cases. The motion claims that over 500 PowerPort cases will be filed in New Jersey very soon.
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.
June 21, 2023: PowerPort Manufacturer Resisting Push To Consolidate
Despite the escalating number of federal lawsuits against Bard PowerPort, all citing similar allegations of severe complications due to the port catheter design, the manufacturer is resisting the push to consolidate these lawsuits under a single judge for pretrial proceedings. The plaintiffs claim the Bard Ports are flawed by design, leading to fractures, infections, blood clots, and other complications.
June 12, 2023: Recently Filed Motion Requests JPML To Consolidate Bard PowerPort Lawsuits
A recently filed motion asking the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to consolidate all Bard PowerPort product liability lawsuits in federal courts into a new class action MDL. According to the motion, right now, 10 PowerPort lawsuits are pending in various federal districts. However, the motion indicates that the number of cases will increase significantly over the next year.
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
The catheter part of the PowerPort is made from a polyurethane material called Chronoflex AL. This material is a big point of contention in the Bard PowerPort lawsuits. A growing number of lawsuits alleging a flaw in the chemical design and manufacturing of the Chronoflex catheters resulted in the PowerPort being weaker and less durable than it should have been. As a result of these inherent flaws, the PowerPort is prone to fracturing, migrating, and otherwise malfunctioning after being implanted.
The polyurethane in the catheter, known as Chronoflex AL, sourced from a biomaterials supplier named AdvanSourceBiomaterials Corporation, has been controversial. This catheter contains a mixture of polyurethane and barium sulfate, which increases its visibility in radiologic studies. Over time, the barium sulfate particles dissociate from the catheter’s surface, resulting in microfractures and other structural alterations that compromise the catheter’s mechanical properties.
Worse still, allegations have arisen that the manufacturer used an excessively high concentration of barium sulfate particles in the production process, leading to issues such as improper mixing and the formation of barium sulfate and air pockets throughout the catheter body. These manufacturing defects, it’s claimed, led to an irregular catheter surface riddled with fissures, pits, and cracks – a prime location for the accumulation and proliferation of harmful microbes or fungi, significantly escalating the risk of infection and sepsis.
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.
Injuries Linked to the Defective PowerPort
The manufacturing and design problems with the Bard PowerPort make the implant highly susceptible to fracturing after being implanted. The fracturing of the port implant can often cause it to migrate and cause vascular damage. The PowerPort is also prone to a number of other malfunctions.
Fracture and migration of the PowerPort have led to a variety of severe injuries, including bleeding; cardiac/pericardial tamponade (pressure caused by a collection of blood in the area around the heart); thromboembolism; infection; cardiac arrhythmia, severe and persistent pain; and perforations of tissue, vessels, and organs, or the need for additional surgeries to remove the defective device. Many of these complications can even be life-threatening.
So the plaintiffs tend to fall into one of these categories:
Some of the more common injuries related to the failure or malfunction of the Bard PowerPort implant are:
- Infection: Situations where individuals have developed infections or sepsis due to using the Bard PowerPort device, which can lead to severe health consequences and require extensive medical treatment. We like these cases but we think these likely will have the lowest settlement value of these injuries we have listed.
- Catheter Fracture: Instances where the catheter of the Bard PowerPort device has broken or fractured, potentially causing severe health risks and complications. The PowerPort lawsuits alleged this is because the product was made so poorly.
- Deep Vein Thrombosis: Instances where the use of the Bard PowerPort device has led to the formation of blood clots or deep vein thrombosis (DVT), posing a significant risk to the individual’s health and potentially requiring additional medical interventions.
- Catheter Migration: Cases where the catheter of the device has moved from its intended position, leading to potential cardiac issues and other concerns requiring treatment.
- Vascular Damage: Perforation of veins or other tissue by the PowerPort is also a concern. The fear is the device causes perforations or damage to blood vessels or surrounding tissues, resulting in complications and the need for further medical attention.
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 PowerPort 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
The discovery of Bard’s internal documents will be the keystone in the ongoing legal battles surrounding the PowerPort device. Expect many skirmishes in pre-trial discovery, as every piece of information is crucial. Although all relevant documents have yet to be produced, plaintiffs’ lawyers suspect that Bard had long been aware of the significant risks associated with PowerPort. These internal documents are anticipated to reveal this hidden knowledge.
In mass tort cases like this, uncovering evidence that a company knowingly concealed product risks is like finding a smoking gun, with far-reaching implications. Such documents would substantiate claims that Bard acted with gross negligence or even malicious intent, and these findings are critical as they can heavily influence the jury’s decision on punitive damages.
The Possibility of Punitive Damages
The risk of punitive damages drives settlement amounts. Punitive damages are awarded in cases where the defendant’s conduct is found to be especially harmful and deserving of punishment beyond compensatory damages. The goal is to deter similar behavior in the future.
If the internal documents indeed show a profound level of deception, this could significantly increase the settlement amounts in Bard PowerPort lawsuits. Juries could theoretically impose substantial punitive damages to penalize Bard for their actions and to send a clear message to other companies about the importance of transparency and the prioritization of patient safety. In the hernia mesh litigation, which dominates Bard’s legal department resources right now, Bard has been able to avoid punitive damages. Juries have largely ruled against Bard in those cases. But their conduct was not found to be so egregious to warrant the imposition of punitive damages.
So these internal documents are not just crucial pieces of evidence; they are central to the plaintiffs’ case. They highlight the extent of Bard’s awareness and potential misconduct, which, if proven, underscores the gravity of the situation and the justification for higher settlement amounts or larger jury payouts.
Bard PowerPort Lawsuits – Core Claims
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:
- Bard’s negligent failure to provide adequate warnings
- Bard’s negligent design of the PowerPort and
- 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
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
The image is scary. You have a tiny, jagged piece of metal suddenly floating through a patient’s bloodstream, potentially lodging in delicate areas like the heart or lungs. Migration by itself is bad enough, but coupled with a fracture, it’s a recipe for disaster, requiring emergency intervention, complex surgical procedures, and sometimes even posing a life-threatening risk.
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 over $300,000 with some claims exceeding $1 million.
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.
RELATED CONTENT: