Lawsuit Information Center
The Bard PowerPort, also called a BardPort, is a port catheter device implanted just under the skin to allow easy attachment to a catheter for intravenous delivery of fluids or medications.
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, blood clots, infection, sepsis, pulmonary embolism, organ injury, and the need for surgery to remove or repair the device.
Individuals who suffered injuries because of 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 because of a fracture, migration, infection, thrombosis, or another implant failure.
This page provides the latest news and updates in the litigation, explains what these lawsuits are about, who is eligible, and what potential Bard PowerPort settlement amounts and jury payouts could look like.
Our lawyers like these cases. We believe this litigation will end in meaningful settlements for victims with strong claims. If you 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. 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 federal MDL and state court lawsuits against Bard.
May 26, 2026: The Strongest PowerPort Lawsuits
Not all lawsuits in the PowerPort litigation carry the same weight. While many claims are valid and rooted in real harm, certain cases stand out as especially strong, both factually and legally.
The most compelling claims tend to involve patients who received a BardPort port within the last ten years and then experienced serious complications. These include device fractures, leaks, or migration — mechanical failures that can lead to significant medical consequences, such as blood clots, infections, or pulmonary embolisms. In many cases, these problems required surgical removal of the device.
Even more persuasive are cases where the implant system caused more severe conditions like sepsis, endocarditis, internal bleeding, lacerated blood vessels, or perforation of organs or tissues. When a device intended to deliver treatment instead causes life-threatening complications and forces invasive interventions, the underlying claim becomes stronger from both a medical and legal perspective.
May 11, 2026: First Bard PowerPort Trial Ends in Partial Defense Verdict and Hung Jury on Design Defect
The first Bard PowerPort bellwether trial ended with a partial defense verdict and a hung jury on key issues. The jury found that Bard and Becton Dickinson were not liable on the failure to warn and failure to instruct claims. The jury also rejected the consumer fraud claim. So on those claims, the defense won.
But the jury could not reach a unanimous verdict on whether the Bard PowerPort was defectively designed or whether the companies engaged in unlawful trade practices. Defective design is one of the central theories in the PowerPort litigation. So while Bard can call this a defense verdict, it was not a clean win on the core product defect theory.
The reported details make the result less damaging for plaintiffs than the headline sounds. Jurors reportedly indicated they would have answered yes if asked whether the PowerPort could have been made safer. Company employees also testified that they had recommended design updates, and testimony addressed Bardās knowledge of infection risk.
The lesson is that infection cases, at least some infection cases, are harder than fracture and migration cases. Bard won the claims the jury decided, but the design defect issue was not resolved. The next bellwether trials are now even more important.
May 4, 2026: Case Count Passes 3,400 Filed Lawsuits
There are now more than 3,400 filed lawsuits in the Bard PowerPort MDL. The litigation has grown because patients are connecting serious complications, including catheter fracture, migration, infection, thrombosis, and embolism, to the implanted port device.
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation publishes updated MDL reports each month. JPML pending MDL reports. The District of Arizona also maintains a public page for In re: Bard Implanted Port Catheter Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3081, with case management orders and court filings.
Older Bard PowerPort Updates š
April 27, 2026: Internal PowerPoint Comes Into Evidence
Judge Campbell admitted a key internal PowerPoint presentation into evidence with partial redactions. The document, drawn from Bardās own internal files, addressed infection rates, the feasibility of antimicrobial coatings, and the impact of infections on cancer patients.
Bard objected to the entire exhibit under Rule 403, arguing the risk of unfair prejudice outweighed the documentās value. The judge agreed with Bard on one narrow point. Several pages referred to Bard as the marketās āKing.ā The court concluded that language could cause a jury to react emotionally to Bardās boastful internal wording rather than focus on the product evidence. Those pages were redacted.
The rest of the exhibit came in. That helped the plaintiffs. Internal documents are often the strongest evidence in medical device litigation because they show what the company knew, what design changes were discussed, and what risks were considered before patients ever heard about them.
April 21, 2026: Opening Statements in Arizona
Opening statements began in the first bellwether trial over Bard PowerPort catheter infections. Plaintiff attorneys told jurors that Bard knew for years that its devices were dangerously prone to infection and chose not to use safer available technologies.
The plaintiff, a Minnesota cancer patient, developed a serious infection from his port catheter in 2022. He was hospitalized for six days and had his chemotherapy delayed by two weeks. His lawyers told the jury that Bard had developed safer technologies, including antimicrobial coatings and smoother catheter materials, years earlier, but did not use them.
April 17, 2026: How We Think the Bard PowerPort Settlement Will Work
We expect a Bard PowerPort settlement. We do not think the settlement numbers will look good for every plaintiff.
That is the bad news. The good news is that if you have a strong case, you can reject a weak settlement offer and keep going. Our lawyers believe there are many cases involving relatively minor injuries, especially cases gathered early when enthusiasm for this litigation was highest. Those cases are more likely to settle. Strong fracture, migration, vascular damage, thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, sepsis, and surgical retrieval cases should not be treated the same way.
If Bard offers one settlement path for all claims, the strongest plaintiffs should be careful. A global settlement can be useful, but it can also flatten value if the case scoring system does not properly distinguish serious injury cases from minor claims.
March 21, 2026: Plaintiffs Get Important Expert Ruling
Judge Campbell trimmed back Bardās FDA expert, Kimberly Trautman. She cannot tell jurors that Bardās port design was safe or that FDA clearance through the 510(k) process means the devices were safe and effective. That is a major ruling because 510(k) clearance is not a finding that a product is safe for implanted patients.
February 28, 2026: Bellwether Plaintiff Dies
A plaintiff selected for one of the early federal Bard PowerPort bellwether trials died after her health declined from cancer. Her estate controls the claim after proper paperwork is filed. This development affected the trial schedule and shows why these cases need to move. Many plaintiffs are cancer patients with serious medical histories.
February 22, 2026: Bard Fails to Knock Out Key Medical Experts
Judge Campbell allowed important testimony from interventional radiology experts while excluding some opinions that went beyond clinical expertise. Bard did not get the sweeping exclusion it wanted. The core medical causation testimony survived.
July 19, 2025: The Cook Case Becomes the First Trial
The Cook case became the first Bard PowerPort trial. This was an infection case. The plaintiff received a Bard PowerPort at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, for chemotherapy related to rectal cancer. Less than two weeks later, he was hospitalized, and the port was removed because of infection.
August 12, 2023: Federal Panel Creates the Bard PowerPort MDL
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation centralized federal Bard PowerPort lawsuits in the District of Arizona before Judge David G. Campbell. The MDL is not a true class action, even though many people call it a Bard PowerPort class action lawsuit. Each plaintiff still has an individual injury claim.
Bard PowerPort
The Bard PowerPort is one of several port catheter systems 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 PowerPort belongs to a category of devices called port catheter systems. The device is surgically inserted beneath the skin and stays implanted in the patient. The whole point is convenience and safety. Instead of putting a new IV line into the patient every time chemotherapy, antibiotics, nutrition, blood products, or fluids are needed, the patient can receive treatment through the port.
Its structure has two main parts: an injection port and a catheter. The injection port has a raised center called the septum. A needle is inserted through the skin and into the septum to deliver medication. From there, the medication travels through a flexible tube, the catheter, and enters the bloodstream.
The PowerPort was the first port to receive FDA clearance specifically for power injection. The expectation was that it would reduce the risk of port rupture or failure during high-pressure procedures. Plaintiffs allege the opposite happened for too many patients.
Chronoflex AL
At the heart of the Bard PowerPort lawsuits is a fundamental design failure: the catheterās 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 plaintiffs allege it proved dangerously unstable.
The Bard port catheter should have been a reliable, life-sustaining medical device. Instead, it has been linked in lawsuits to fractures, migration, infection, thrombosis, embolism, and life-threatening complications because of its alleged material defects.
A major issue lies in the barium sulfate used in the catheter. This additive was intended to enhance visibility in medical imaging. Plaintiffs allege it compromised the catheterās structural integrity. Over time, barium sulfate particles can separate from the catheter material, leaving behind microfractures, pits, cracks, and weak points that make the device prone to breaking inside a patientās body.
Plaintiffs also allege that Bard used an excessively high concentration of barium sulfate, resulting in improper mixing and the formation of dangerous voids throughout the catheter. These alleged defects increase the risk of infection, sepsis, blood clots, embolism, migration, vascular injury, and surgical removal.
Patients trusted Bard PowerPort for critical medical treatments. Too many were left to face unnecessary surgeries, severe infections, treatment delays, 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. Our lawyers believe PowerPort lawsuit settlement amounts could be substantial for strong cases involving fracture, migration, vascular damage, thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and sepsis.
What Is Wrong With the PowerPort?
Plaintiffsā lawyers have several theories as to why the Bard PowerPort is defective. The central allegation is that barium sulfate, when directly incorporated into the catheter material without proper encapsulation or a protective coating, can degrade the catheter.
Barium sulfate is added to catheter material to make it visible under X-ray imaging. Radiopacity is useful for proper placement and ongoing monitoring of the device. The problem, plaintiffs argue, is that the additive can weaken the catheter over time.
As the catheter material degrades, it becomes prone to cracking or breaking. This can lead to severe complications. Pieces of the catheter may break off and travel through the bloodstream. Cracks or breaks can cause leakage of drugs or fluids into surrounding tissue. Compromised catheter integrity can also increase infection risk, which is especially dangerous for chemotherapy patients and other immunocompromised patients.
Barium sulfate is a relatively hard and abrasive substance. If it is not properly encapsulated, barium sulfate particles embedded in the catheter material can contribute to wear and tear as the catheter flexes and moves within the body.
This abrasion can thin the walls of the catheter, creating weak spots that are prone to breakage or perforation. Plaintiffsā attorneys argue that by failing to protect the catheter from the direct impact of barium sulfate, Bard created the obvious result: a device that can fail inside the body.
Plaintiffs will use biomedical engineers, material scientists, interventional radiologists, infectious disease experts, and other specialists to explain the interaction between barium sulfate and catheter materials. We believe the science is understandable to a jury.
Medical literature confirms that implanted venous port systems can suffer catheter complications, including fracture, thrombosis, migration, infection, and other failures. A radiology review of central venous port systems describes early and late complications, including malposition, perforation, thrombosis, infection, and catheter issues. A 2025 review of chest port complications also identifies catheter fracture, thrombosis, migration, and infection as recognized complications.
PowerPort Malfunctions and Complications
The Bard PowerPort has been linked to significant design flaws, leading to four primary complications after implantation: fracture, migration, infection, and thrombosis. These complications pose severe risks to patients, which is why there are so many Port-A-Cath lawsuits against Bard.
Fracture
One of the most serious issues associated with the Bard PowerPort is its tendency to fracture. Plaintiffs allege the deviceās material composition makes the tubing and other components brittle, which makes them prone to breaking under stress.
When fractures occur, fragments of the device can lodge in the vascular system, tear or puncture blood vessels, or travel through the bloodstream. This can create embolism risk, internal bleeding, vascular damage, and the need for invasive retrieval procedures.
Published case literature recognizes that late mechanical complications of totally implantable venous devices include catheter fracture and migration, and that fractured fragments can migrate into the heart or vascular system.
Our lawyers believe fracture-related injuries are among the strongest claims in the Bard PowerPort litigation and will likely produce the highest average settlement payouts.
Migration
Design flaws in the Bard PowerPort also make the device prone to post-implantation migration. Migration means the device or its components shift from the original implanted location. This can occur when catheter components fracture, loosen, or lose structural integrity.
Migration can cause tube displacement, loss of device function, tissue injury, and vascular damage. If the device cannot deliver medication correctly or cannot be safely used, doctors may need to remove it and place another line or device.
When a device intended to simplify treatment instead moves inside the body, the patient often faces emergency imaging, surgical removal, delayed chemotherapy or antibiotics, and significant fear. You do not need a medical degree to understand why a catheter fragment traveling through the bloodstream is terrifying.
Infection
The Bard PowerPortās alleged material deficiencies also increase the risk of serious infection. When the device fractures, degrades, or creates surface irregularities, plaintiffs allege bacteria can colonize the device and enter the bloodstream.
These infections are dangerous because many PowerPort patients are receiving chemotherapy or other treatment that already weakens the immune system. A port infection can lead to hospitalization, IV antibiotics, surgical removal, sepsis, delayed cancer treatment, and, in severe cases, death.
Infection is a major complication of implantable venous access ports. One review of implantable venous access port infections noted that infection is among the major complications, along with thrombosis, catheter obstruction, extravasation, and migration.
The first Bard PowerPort bellwether trial was an infection case. Infection cases can be strong when the medical record ties the infection to the port and when the patient suffered serious treatment delays or hospitalization. But infection cases often face a tougher causation fight than fracture and migration cases because infections can have multiple causes.
Thrombosis
Another serious complication associated with the Bard PowerPort is thrombosis, which is the formation of blood clots in the blood vessels. Plaintiffs allege that irregular surfaces, material degradation, and device failure can disrupt blood flow and contribute to clot formation.
Thrombosis can cause swelling, pain, restricted blood flow, pulmonary embolism, and long-term vascular damage. A pulmonary embolism can be fatal. Patients may need anticoagulation therapy, hospitalization, surgery, or long-term monitoring.
Thrombosis cases can have high settlement value, especially when there is pulmonary embolism, chronic swelling, permanent vascular injury, or ongoing anticoagulation. They can also require careful expert work because cancer, chemotherapy, and other medical conditions can independently increase clot risk.
Bard Had Reason to Know About the Problems With the PowerPort
Soon after the PowerPort was introduced on the market, Bard began receiving adverse event reports from health care providers reporting that the PowerPort was fracturing after implantation. Bard also received reports that the implant perforated the internal vasculature.
The allegations in the PowerPort lawsuits are not simply that the device failed. The lawsuits allege Bard knew the device was failing and kept aggressively marketing it as safe anyway.
Plaintiffs also allege Bardās warnings suggested that a fracture could occur only if the physician placed the device improperly so that compression or pinch off occurred. In reality, plaintiffs argue Bard knew internally that these devices were fracturing and causing severe injuries because of design defects, manufacturing defects, and inadequate warnings. In plain English, plaintiffs say Bard tried to blame doctors for flaws in the device.
Bard PowerPort Lawsuits: Core Claims
Over the last few years, 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, migrated, infected the patient, caused thrombosis, or otherwise malfunctioned after implantation.
The lawsuits are being filed against the manufacturer, Bard Access Systems Inc., and its parent company, Becton Dickinson. The product liability lawsuits, now consolidated in an MDL in Arizona that includes federal cases against Bard, allege that Bard was aware of the device’s problems.
The lawsuits also allege that, rather than altering the design of the PowerPort to make it safer or adequately warning of the dangers associated with the Device, Bard continued to actively and aggressively market the device as safe despite numerous reports of catheter fracture, infection, thrombosis, and other serious injuries.
There are many legal claims in these lawsuits, but three claims are at the center of the litigation:
- Bardās negligent failure to provide adequate warnings
- Bardās negligent design of the PowerPort
- Strict liability based on a manufacturing or design defect
The first bellwether trial showed how hard these cases can be, especially infection cases. The jury rejected the warning and consumer fraud claims in that trial, but it did not reach a verdict on design defect. That keeps the main fight alive.
Who Is Eligible to File a Bard PowerPort Lawsuit?
You may be eligible to file a Bard PowerPort lawsuit and seek financial compensation if you meet these criteria:
- You had a Bard PowerPort device or another Bard port catheter device implanted.
- Your Bard PowerPort fractured, migrated, infected, caused thrombosis, or otherwise malfunctioned after implantation.
- You suffered serious physical injuries because of the PowerPort failure.
You do not need to know the exact model number before calling. That information can often be found in operative reports, implant stickers, device tracking records, hospital records, or explant records. If you had a port removed after infection, fracture, migration, clotting, or unexplained failure, get the records reviewed.
Strong cases often involve imaging showing fracture or migration, surgical records showing retrieval or removal, blood cultures showing infection, records showing sepsis, thrombosis imaging, pulmonary embolism diagnosis, hospital admission, delayed chemotherapy, or long-term vascular injury.
Evidence That Helps Prove a Bard PowerPort Case
A PowerPort lawsuit is built on records. Your symptoms are important, but product cases need documentation that connects the device to the injury.
The best evidence often includes the implant record, device model information, operative report, port removal report, imaging showing fracture or migration, culture results, hospital records, infectious disease records, thrombosis studies, pulmonary embolism records, pathology records, oncology records, and proof that treatment was delayed or interrupted.
If the device was removed, preservation of the explanted device can become critical. The catheter itself may show fracture, degradation, surface irregularities, or other evidence that supports the claim.
Estimated Settlement Value of PowerPort Lawsuits
The potential settlement value of individual Bard PowerPort claims will depend on the type of event the plaintiff experienced and the resulting injuries.
The word āeventā means what went wrong with the PowerPort device. The two most important events are fracture and migration. The strongest cases and the cases with the highest settlement value will be those in which there was both fracture and migration. Beyond that, the value of individual cases depends on the injuries caused by the fracture or migration.
The primary injuries linked to PowerPort cases are vascular damage, embolism, stroke, thrombosis, blood clots, pulmonary embolism, infection, sepsis, and the need for surgical removal.
Highest Value Cases: Fracture, Migration, and Vascular Damage
Cases involving vascular damage directly resulting from a PowerPort fracture or migration should have the highest settlement value. These cases could have a settlement payout value ranging from $175,000 to $350,000, and some extreme cases may go higher.
These are strong cases because the injury mechanism is easier for a jury to understand. A device breaks. A piece moves. It injures a blood vessel. Doctors have to retrieve it or repair the damage. That is a clean story.
Mid-Level Cases: Thrombosis or Pulmonary Embolism
The next level involves cases of thrombosis or pulmonary embolism. These injuries can be severe. The challenge is causation. Cancer, chemotherapy, clotting disorders, hospitalization, and other conditions can also increase clot risk. Bard will use those alternative causes.
Still, if the medical records connect the clot to the PowerPort, these cases can have substantial value. Our estimated settlement range for these cases is around $100,000 to $250,000, with stronger pulmonary embolism cases moving higher.
Lower Tier Cases: Infection Only
Cases involving only infection will likely be assigned to the lowest settlement tier in a global resolution. That does not mean infection cases are weak in every situation. A patient with sepsis, port removal, ICU admission, delayed chemotherapy, or long hospitalization can have a strong case.
But infection-only cases often have a harder causation fight. Infections can happen with any implanted device, and Bard will argue the infection came from access technique, skin contamination, poor port care, the patientās immune status, or other medical factors.
Our estimated settlement range for infection-only cases is $30,000 to $100,000. Serious infection cases with sepsis, treatment delay, or permanent harm can exceed that range.
Will There Be a Bard PowerPort Class Action Settlement?
There will not be a true class action settlement in the traditional sense. These cases are consolidated in an MDL. That means federal cases are grouped before one judge for coordinated discovery and pretrial rulings. Each plaintiff still has an individual claim.
A global settlement can still happen in an MDL. If it does, the settlement will likely use tiers or points. The strongest cases will score higher based on injury type, device failure proof, surgery, hospitalization, sepsis, clot injury, vascular damage, treatment delay, and permanency.
Our view is direct: weak cases may resolve through a global settlement. Strong cases should not accept weak money.
Why Fracture and Migration Cases Are Stronger
Fracture and migration cases are often stronger than infection-only cases because they provide a clearer product defect story. A catheter breaks. A fragment migrates. Imaging shows it. Doctors remove it. The patient suffers an injury.
That does not mean every fracture case wins. Bard will still fight causation, alternative explanations, placement technique, product identification, and damages. But a fractured catheter is the kind of concrete product failure jurors understand.
Infection cases are harder because infection can be caused by access technique, patient immune status, skin bacteria, hospital exposures, or cancer treatment. That is why the first bellwether result was not shocking. Infection cases require especially strong medical proof tying the infection to device design or material failure.
What You Should Do If You Had a Bard PowerPort Failure
If your PowerPort failed, you should get the records. Do not rely on memory or discharge paperwork alone. The records tell the story.
Ask for the operative note from implantation, the device sticker or implant log, imaging reports, actual imaging if available, port removal records, infectious disease records, blood culture results, clot studies, hospitalization records, oncology records, and any pathology or device evaluation records.
If the port was removed, find out whether the hospital or surgeon preserved the device. If the device still exists, preserving it can be critical. Do not allow the device to be destroyed without legal review.
Then talk to a lawyer who is handling Bard PowerPort claims. You need someone who understands both the product defect theory and the medical causation fight.
Frequently Asked Questions About Bard PowerPort Lawsuits
Contact Our Bard PowerPort Lawyers
If you had a Bard PowerPort implanted and later suffered fracture, migration, infection, sepsis, thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, vascular injury, surgical removal, or treatment delay, our lawyers can review your claim.
Call 800-553-8082 today for a free consultation, or contact us online.
You trusted a medical device to help you receive treatment. If that device failed and hurt you, the manufacturer should answer for it.
turer should answer for it.