Bard PowerPort Lawsuit Information

The Bard PowerPort, also referred to as BardPort, is a port catheter device surgically implanted beneath the skin. It provides a convenient access point for attaching a catheter used in the intravenous administration of fluids or medications.

Unfortunately, the Bard PowerPort has been found to have inherent flaws in its design and manufacturing. These flaws can lead to device fractures and migration from its intended position, potentially causing serious injuries, including damage to internal blood vessels.

Individuals who have experienced injuries due to a faulty Bard PowerPort device are now pursuing product liability lawsuits against the manufacturer of these implants. Nguyen Injury Lawyer is currently reviewing new cases from individuals who have had a Bard PowerPort catheter device implanted and subsequently suffered injuries resulting from fractures, migration, or other forms of implant failure.

This page offers the latest news and updates regarding the litigation, explains the nature of these lawsuits, clarifies eligibility criteria, and explores potential settlement amounts and jury awards in Bard PowerPort cases.

Our attorneys are dedicated to these cases and anticipate that this litigation will result in favorable settlements for those who have been harmed. If you have been injured by a defective Bard PowerPort implant, please contact Nguyen Injury Lawyer today at XXX-XXX-XXXX for a free consultation, or reach out to us online.

Bard PowerPort Lawsuit Updates

Nguyen Injury Lawyer is dedicated to providing victims with up-to-date information on this litigation. Before delving into the specifics of these lawsuits and our insights on what a Bard PowerPort class action settlement might entail, here are the latest developments in the MDL and state court lawsuits against Bard.

March 21, 2026 – Significant Expert Ruling

Judge Campbell delivered a crucial evidentiary victory to the plaintiffs by limiting the scope of testimony from Bard’s FDA expert, Kimberly Trautman.

The plaintiffs sought to exclude certain aspects of Trautman’s testimony, arguing that Bard was attempting to present her as a safety expert under the guise of a regulatory witness, which the plaintiffs contended was inappropriate.

The judge partially agreed with the plaintiffs. The most significant ruling prevents Trautman from asserting to jurors that Bard’s port design was safe or that FDA clearance via the 510(k) process implies the devices were safe and effective. This is a major win. She is also barred from testifying about the FDA’s internal considerations, offering general opinions on port complication rates, comparing ports to other central venous access devices as supposedly superior options, or speculating on DuPont’s warnings in its Delrin material safety sheet or on legislative history and FDA intent. This is important because Bard was clearly attempting to use FDA approval as a shield in its defense.

Trautman is still permitted to explain FDA procedures, discuss complaint handling and certain reporting matters, and provide specific opinions on regulatory compliance, labeling, the ASR program, and antimicrobial coating review, subject to certain limitations. However, these are less critical issues. The key takeaway is that the court prevented Bard from using its FDA expert to argue that the PowerPort was safe simply because it remained on the market or received 510(k) clearance. For the plaintiffs, this ensures that the focus remains on the device’s alleged impact on real patients, rather than allowing Bard to hide behind regulatory approval.

February 28, 2026 – Bellwether Plaintiff Passes Away

A plaintiff selected for one of the initial federal Bard PowerPort bellwether trials has tragically died.

The deceased plaintiff was scheduled to appear in a trial in July 2026. According to a joint memorandum submitted to the court, her health deteriorated rapidly in late January due to cancer. She entered hospice care and passed away on February 2, 2026. Plaintiffs’ counsel reported that they were unable to complete a deposition to preserve her testimony before her death because she was unable to communicate. Her estate will now assume control of the claim after the necessary documentation is filed.

The first federal bellwether trial is still scheduled for April 21, 2026, and will involve a different plaintiff. Additional bellwether trials are scheduled for August, October, and December 2026, as well as February 2027. It remains uncertain whether this case will proceed as a bellwether trial.

February 22, 2026 – Significant Expert Ruling on Friday

Judge Campbell issued a mixed ruling on Bard’s attempt to exclude two of the plaintiffs’ key medical experts. The judge permitted interventional radiologists Dr. Darren Hurst and Dr. Jeffrey Weinstein to testify on important matters, but limited aspects of their opinions that Judge Campbell deemed to extend beyond their clinical expertise.

This was not the sweeping exclusion that Bard had hoped for. The court dismissed the argument that the doctors’ reports were improper simply because plaintiffs’ counsel assisted in drafting them. The judge acknowledged that lawyers and experts collaborate, and as long as the doctors substantially participated and endorsed the opinions as their own, the testimony is admissible.

The judge drew a line regarding opinions on corporate knowledge, regulatory duties, and alternative engineering designs. The judge excluded testimony about Bard’s internal intent, its calculation of complication rates, and what specific content “should have” been included in the Instructions for Use. The judge reasoned that doctors cannot transform into corporate executives or polymer engineers.

While this is not ideal, the core of the case remains intact. Bard managed to trim some aspects, but the main body of the expert testimony remains.

February 10, 2026 – Case Count

There are currently 2,325 lawsuits pending in the MDL, which is 20 fewer than last month.

While we do not anticipate reaching the originally projected 10,000 plaintiffs, this litigation is expected to continue to grow, especially if we secure a significant verdict.

January 28, 2026 – When You Need a Port-a-Cath

Attorneys involved in this litigation sometimes lose sight of the broader context as we navigate discovery against Bard. Port failures are not isolated incidents. They disrupt treatment, delay chemotherapy, lead to emergency surgeries, and introduce sepsis risks in patients with already compromised immune systems.

Dealing with a defective PowerPort adds another burden for these patients. A delayed infusion or forced removal of a port can alter outcomes in ways that are not easily quantifiable on a damages spreadsheet. While lawyers focus on causation, patients experience fear, pain, setbacks, and constant anxiety that the very device intended to help them has become another threat.

January 18, 2026 – Status Conference

The 24th MDL Case Management Conference is scheduled for February 19, 2026, at 1:00 p.m. Arizona time. The conference will be held via Zoom.

There is a desire for this litigation to progress more quickly in 2026. Ideally, a trial will be completed in the first half of 2026, which would improve the prospects for settlement in these cases. The Cook trial is still scheduled for February.

January 6, 2026 – Over 2,000 Total Cases

As of January 2026, the Bard Power Port class action MDL includes 2,545 pending cases, with a total of 2,694 cases filed.

Click here for more Bard Powerport Updates and News

December 9, 2025 – MDL Adds Over 336 Cases in November

The Bard Power Port class action MDL is finally gaining momentum. In November, 336 new cases were added to the MDL, bringing the total number of pending cases to 2,463.

November 4, 2025 – Over 150 Cases Join MDL in October

A total of 155 new cases were added to the PowerPort MDL in October, bringing the total number of pending cases in the MDL to over 2,000. This represents the highest monthly volume of new cases to date in this litigation.

September 27, 2025 – PowerPort Lawsuit

In a recently filed PowerPort claim, a woman from St. Petersburg, Florida, has joined the MDL, suing Bard, Becton, Dickinson, and related entities.

The plaintiff alleges that she was implanted with a PowerPort device on two occasions (April 17, 2008, and May 21, 2009) while residing in South Jordan, Utah. She claims that the device caused severe complications, including catheter fracture and thrombosis.

The lawsuit incorporates numerous claims from the MDL’s Master Complaint, including strict liability and negligence related to design and manufacturing defects, failure to warn, breach of warranties, misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, and consumer fraud. She is also seeking punitive damages and has demanded a jury trial.

August 30, 2025 – New Lawsuit

In a new lawsuit within the MDL, a woman from Santa Fe, Texas, alleges that a Bard PowerPort device surgically implanted in her chest led to severe and preventable injuries. According to the complaint, the device’s catheter fractured inside her body, causing infection, thrombosis, and other complications that required medical intervention.

The plaintiff had the PowerPort implanted to facilitate regular vascular access for treatment. However, shortly after implantation, she began experiencing symptoms consistent with device failure, including pain, swelling, and signs of infection. Medical imaging later revealed that the catheter had broken apart. She underwent corrective procedures to address the issue but alleges ongoing complications and permanent damage.

August 20, 2025 – Bellwether Trial Schedule

The Bard Implanted Port Catheter MDL continues to progress steadily. The court held its 19th case management conference, and Case Management Order No. 38 was issued a few days later to outline the next steps.

We are moving toward trial. The judge has now adopted a concrete bellwether trial schedule. These trials, which begin in March 2026 and run through December 2026, will be the first real tests of the evidence before juries. For victims, this means the litigation is reaching a stage where the strength of the claims will be evaluated in the courtroom. While these dates are still months away, they provide a clear path forward and increase the pressure on Bard to confront the risks of trial and consider a settlement.

Planned Trials: March 2026 through December 2026

Last Name	Case No.	Trial Dates
Cook	23-cv-01975	March 2 – March 20, 2026
Miller	24-cv-00621	April 27 – May 15, 2026
Lattanzio	24-cv-00680	July 7 – July 24, 2026
Divelbliss	23-cv-01627	August 17 – September 4, 2026
Hicks	23-cv-01703	October 13 – October 30, 2026
Sorensen	23-cv-02557	December 1 – December 18, 2026

These bellwether trials will serve as initial test cases. Their outcomes will inform strategy and influence potential settlement discussions if Bard is willing to make a meaningful settlement offer to resolve the litigation.

August 1, 2025 – New Schedule

The parties in the Bard PowerPort MDL jointly filed a motion yesterday to amend the existing Case Management Order No. 33 as it pertains to the bellwether trial schedule for Miller v. Bard (24-cv-00612), part of Bellwether Group 1. The proposed changes arise from delays in testing the plaintiff’s explanted port catheter, which arrived at the lab in liquid and must be dried before non-destructive testing can proceed. To avoid disrupting summary judgment and Daubert deadlines, the parties agreed to modify only the interim expert disclosure and deposition dates for this specific case.

Under the amended schedule, the plaintiff’s materials expert disclosures will move from August 4 to August 25, and defendants’ responsive materials expert disclosures will shift to September 22. Additional new dates are set for supplemental disclosures and rebuttals, including deadlines for non-material experts relying on the delayed testing. Expert depositions are now set to begin on October 13, while all dispositive and exclusion motions remain due on October 28, preserving the broader litigation timetable.

Bard PowerPort MDL Updates

The recent schedule adjustment in the Bard PowerPort MDL is not a sign of problems, but rather a practical step to manage evidence efficiently. Both sides agree that this adjustment is crucial for maintaining the case’s integrity without disrupting the overall bellwether trial schedule.

July 19, 2025 – Understanding the Cook Case

The Cook case is significant because it will be the first case to proceed to trial. This case involves an infection allegedly stemming from a Bard PowerPort. In August 2022, the plaintiff received a Bard PowerPort at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, for chemotherapy related to rectal cancer. Less than two weeks later, the plaintiff was hospitalized at United Hospital in St. Paul, and the PowerPort was surgically removed due to an infection. A PICC line was then inserted to administer IV antibiotics.

The lawsuit alleges that the device had a defective design and was manufactured poorly, leading to surface degradation that fostered microbial growth and subsequent infection. The plaintiff claims that neither he nor his medical team received adequate warnings about the risk of infection, specifically those related to the catheter’s material. The lawsuit further contends that Bard was aware of these risks but concealed them, continuing to market the device as safe despite numerous adverse event reports of infections, device fractures, and vascular perforation.

As a result of the device’s failure, the plaintiff experienced emotional distress, physical injury, unnecessary surgery, and an increased risk of future health issues. If you believe you have experienced something similar, contact Nguyen Injury Lawyer at XXX-XXX-XXXX for a free consultation.

July 16, 2025 – Cook Case to Be First Bard Port Catheter Trial

The Bard Port Catheter MDL is moving forward towards its first trial, guided by Case Management Order No. 37. The Cook case is scheduled to be the first, followed by five additional trials. These six cases will form the bellwether pool, with the Cook trial tentatively scheduled for mid- to late-February 2026. This provides approximately seven months for trial preparation. With “several weeks” expected between trials, the trial phase could span a year, unless a global PowerPort settlement is reached beforehand, which remains a possibility. If you want to explore your legal options, contact Nguyen Injury Lawyer through our contact page at https://www.nguyeninjurylawyer.com/contact.

In discovery, Judge Campbell extended the deadline for Kelly Christian’s deposition to August 28, a six-day extension. While seemingly procedural, these types of extensions can indicate underlying issues, such as scheduling conflicts, expert availability, or strategic disagreements. The brief extension suggests the deposition is significant.

The key takeaway is the pace of the MDL. Judge Campbell is establishing a clear path toward trial, urging both parties to prepare these cases for a series of trials. If you have questions about how this might impact your potential case, contact Nguyen Injury Lawyer at https://www.nguyeninjurylawyer.com or call us at XXX-XXX-XXXX.

July 2, 2025 – Identifying Strong PowerPort Lawsuits

Within the PowerPort litigation, some lawsuits are stronger than others. While many claims are valid, certain cases stand out due to their factual and legal strength.

The most compelling claims typically involve patients who received a BardPort or AngioDynamics port within the past ten years and subsequently suffered serious complications. These complications may include device fractures, leaks, or migration—mechanical failures that can result in significant medical issues such as blood clots, infections, or pulmonary embolisms. Often, these problems necessitate surgical removal of the device. Nguyen Injury Lawyer can help you determine the strength of your claim. Contact us today.

Cases are even stronger when the implanted system causes severe conditions like sepsis, endocarditis, internal bleeding, lacerated blood vessels, or organ/tissue perforation. When a device meant to deliver treatment instead leads to life-threatening complications and requires invasive interventions, the underlying claim becomes much more substantial legally and medically. Contact Nguyen Injury Lawyer today for a free consultation: XXX-XXX-XXXX.

June 26, 2025 – Plaintiffs Secure Expert Ruling

Regarding expert disclosures, Judge Campbell ruled that Bard must revise its Rule 26(a)(2)(C) summaries for 16 witnesses. For three key witnesses (Christian, Powers, and Schuessler), Bard’s original summaries were deemed too vague, indicating what the witnesses might say rather than what they are expected to say. This distinction is crucial under the rules.

For the other 13 witnesses, Bard simply referenced depositions without summarizing expected testimony, which also violates disclosure requirements. All revised summaries were due by July 18, before the scheduled depositions. Our attorneys at Nguyen Injury Lawyer are closely monitoring these developments.

May 6, 2025 – Judge Clarifies Bard PowerPort Trial Framework

Judge Campbell provided essential guidance on the upcoming bellwether case selections. Following the sixteenth case management conference, the court outlined the composition of the six cases expected to proceed to early trial. The Court expressed a preference for a mix of case types, including three infection cases, two thrombosis cases, and one device fracture case.

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. Nguyen Injury Lawyer is here to help you navigate these complex legal proceedings. Call XXX-XXX-XXXX for guidance.

This framework aims to ensure a representative sample of claims for early resolution and to help assess the broader liability landscape. The parties were instructed to confer, attempt to agree on the six primary bellwether cases and one alternate, and file their response memoranda by the following day.

April 30, 2025 – The Road to Trial (and Potential PowerPort Settlement)

The parties in the Bard Port Catheter MDL have submitted their proposed bellwether trial selections. Despite some disagreements in the filings, 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 primary disagreement concerns the remaining case slots, particularly the number of fracture cases and the types of catheter materials involved.

Plaintiffs argue that a truly informative bellwether slate must reflect the most common injuries and 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 argue that the slate should be limited to polyurethane catheters, which comprise approximately 75 percent of the MDL inventory.

The dispute centers on whether early trials should reflect the full range of real-world injuries or focus solely 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 disagree on the types of cases that will best inform the resolution. Contact Nguyen Injury Lawyer at XXX-XXX-XXXX for a free consultation.

March 15, 2025 – Status Conference Scheduled

The Bard Implanted Port Catheter multidistrict litigation continues to progress, with the court holding its fifteenth case management conference. 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.

During a previous conference, plaintiffs’ attorneys raised concerns about Bard’s failure to produce the necessary complaint files in 18 cases, violating prior court orders. The court ordered Bard to correct this issue before the next conference. This serves as a reminder that even large corporations must comply with court directives, and failure to do so can result in consequences. Nguyen Injury Lawyer is committed to holding these corporations accountable.

Plaintiffs must also fulfill their court-ordered obligations. While most plaintiffs are complying, some have struggled to submit required profile forms. One plaintiff repeatedly failed to meet deadlines and had her case dismissed with prejudice, meaning she cannot refile it. 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 the court must be notified rather than simply failing to respond.

Bard’s legal team is 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. If you are struggling to meet your obligations, contact Nguyen Injury Lawyer for assistance.

February 18, 2025 – New PowerPort ISP Fracture Lawsuit Filed

A new lawsuit has been filed by a Reno, Nevada, plaintiff against Becton, Dickinson, and Company, 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 the plaintiff 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 the plaintiff’s body, creating a significant risk of infection, thrombosis, and other medical complications. The plaintiff contends that the defendants knew, or should have known, of 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. Nguyen Injury Lawyer believes fracture cases are particularly strong. Contact us at XXX-XXX-XXXX to discuss your legal options.

January 13, 2025 – AngioDynamics MDL Update

The new AngioDynamics Port Catheter MDL, which is similar to the PowerPort litigation, currently includes 90 chemo port lawsuits. Nguyen Injury Lawyer is not currently accepting these cases.

December 31, 2024 – Judge Limits Scope of Corporation Depositions

In one of his first substantive rulings in the PowerPort MDL, Judge Campbell has directed plaintiffs’ counsel to narrow the scope of their planned depositions of corporate representatives for Bard (now Becton Dickinson). Judge Campbell found that the initial deposition requests from the plaintiffs were excessively broad and would have been overly burdensome on Bard and its defense team. In an Order entered just before the holidays, Judge Campbell specified the allowed topics for plaintiffs to depose Bard’s executives. Nguyen Injury Lawyer is monitoring these rulings closely.

December 20, 2024 – Plaintiffs’ Experts

What will plaintiffs’ experts say at trial? Contact Nguyen Injury Lawyer at https://www.nguyeninjurylawyer.com for updates.

Expert Testimony on Chronoflex AL Defects

Plaintiffs in these cases are expected to present expert testimony from biomedical engineers. These experts will explain the critical flaws in the Chronoflex AL material and its propensity for degradation. They will testify that the inclusion of barium sulfate, a radiopaque additive intended to enhance visibility during imaging, actually compromises the catheter’s structural integrity. The experts will detail how barium sulfate creates microscopic fractures within the Chronoflex AL material, making it susceptible to cracking and, subsequently, bacterial colonization, which leads to the reported infections.

Recent Lawsuits and Litigation Updates

November 26, 2024: New Thrombosis Lawsuit Filed

A new lawsuit was filed on Friday in MDL-3081. The executor of the estate of a California man is suing the Bard entities. The suit alleges that the man’s use of a Bard PowerPort implantable catheter device caused complications such as catheter fracture, infection, and thrombosis.

Although the man has passed away, this is not a wrongful death lawsuit. The plaintiff is not claiming that her father’s death resulted from these complications. Instead, the lawsuit seeks compensation for his medical expenses and the pain and suffering he endured due to the defective device before his death. If you believe you have a similar claim, please contact Nguyen Injury Lawyer at XXX-XXX-XXXX or visit https://www.nguyeninjurylawyer.com/contact for a free consultation.

November 25, 2024: Why Are There Relatively Few Plaintiffs in the PowerPort Class Action?

Let’s analyze the numbers involved in the Bard PowerPort class action to understand its potential scope. Approximately 300,000 PowerPort devices were implanted across the country. Bard held an estimated 70% of the market share. These figures suggest that there could be between 8,000 and 12,000 cases of complications arising from these devices. However, only 640 lawsuits have been consolidated in the MDL as of now. Why is there such a difference?

The most likely reason is that the Bard PowerPort litigation is still in its early stages. Awareness of the potential risks and injuries associated with these devices is probably limited. Patients may not realize that their injuries, such as catheter-related infections, fractures, or migration issues, are connected to the PowerPort itself. Similarly, many doctors may not immediately identify the device as a possible cause, especially since complications from implanted medical devices can have various potential origins. If you have experienced complications after receiving a Bard PowerPort, contact Nguyen Injury Lawyer at XXX-XXX-XXXX for guidance.

Will this change over time? Only time will tell.

February 23, 2024: Death Motions Filed in PowerPort Class Action

Two suggestions of death motions were filed this month in the Bard PowerPoint class action. This underscores the severity of the injuries involved in this litigation and the urgent need to secure justice for the victims.

In legal terms, a “suggestion of death” is a formal notification to the court that a party in the lawsuit has died. This is a significant procedural step because the death of a party can significantly affect the continuation and outcome of the litigation. It necessitates amending the parties’ names and adding new counts to the complaint for wrongful death and a survival action. If you have lost a loved one due to complications from a Bard PowerPort, Nguyen Injury Lawyer is here to help. Call us at XXX-XXX-XXXX.

November 20, 2023: Judge Continues to Advance Lawsuits

Judge Campbell is continuing to move 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.

A bellwether trial involves selecting a small number of representative cases from a larger group of similar lawsuits to be tried first. The MDL judge typically presides over these initial trials. If the lawsuits proceed to trial—though a global settlement may be reached beforehand—the outcomes of these trials are used to predict trends and estimate PowerPort settlement amounts for the remaining cases in the larger group.

The proposed trial plan involves each party submitting lists of 24 cancer port lawsuits (48 total) by July 1, 2024, to create the initial plaintiff pool. From this pool, after an initial discovery phase, 15 cases will be selected for Discovery Group 1 by December 17, 2024. Each party will choose five cases, and the remaining five will be selected jointly.

While this process may seem slow, it is actually quite rapid for a class-action lawsuit of this magnitude.

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

The new Bard PowerPort MDL has been assigned to Judge David Campbell in the U.S. District Court for Arizona. Judge Campbell, a conservative appointed by President Bush in 2003, was previously in private practice in Phoenix and is highly regarded.

August 12, 2023: Federal Panel Consolidates Bard PowerPort Lawsuits

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. This action will streamline pretrial discovery and facilitate a potential Bard PowerPoint settlement in the future.

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

July 25, 2023: JPML to Hear Oral Testimonies Regarding Bard PowerPort Class Action

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) is scheduled to hear oral testimonies this week regarding the centralization of Bard PowerPort lawsuits under a single judge for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

This process, known as Multidistrict Litigation (MDL), can benefit plaintiffs by increasing efficiency and consistency in rulings, potentially leading to fairer outcomes for victims. Additionally, MDL helps avoid duplicating discovery efforts, reducing litigation costs for plaintiffs. If you have been affected by a Bard PowerPort device, Nguyen Injury Lawyer can assess your legal options. Contact us at XXX-XXX-XXXX or through our website: https://www.nguyeninjurylawyer.com.

About the Bard PowerPort

The Bard PowerPort is one of several types of port/catheter systems designed, manufactured, marketed, and sold by Bard Access Systems, Inc. (a wholly-owned subsidiary of Becton, Dickinson, and Company). It is a fully implantable vascular access device intended to provide repeated access to the vascular system for delivering medication, intravenous fluids, parenteral nutrition solutions, and blood products.

The PowerPort is 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 implanted beneath the skin, the PowerPort remains inside the patient. Its design allows for repeated use, accommodating multiple power injection cycles over time without compromising safety.

The device consists of two primary components: an injection port and a polyurethane catheter. The injection port, characterized by a raised center or “septum,” is where the needle is inserted to deliver medication. From there, the medication travels through the catheter, a flexible tube, and enters the bloodstream.

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

The Role of Chronoflex AL

At the center of the Bard PowerPort lawsuits is a design flaw: the catheter’s primary material, Chronoflex AL, a polyurethane blend. Plaintiffs argue that this material, sourced from AdvanSource Biomaterials Corporation, was defective from the outset. While it was intended to provide durability and flexibility, it has proven to be dangerously unstable. The Bard port catheter, meant to be a reliable, life-sustaining medical device, has instead been linked to fractures, migrations, infections, and life-threatening complications due to its inherently flawed composition. If you have experienced complications from a Bard PowerPort, contact Nguyen Injury Lawyer at XXX-XXX-XXXX for a free consultation.

A significant issue is the use of barium sulfate in the catheter. This additive was intended to improve visibility in medical imaging. However, it has compromised the catheter’s structural integrity. Over time, barium sulfate particles separate from the catheter, leaving behind microfractures, pits, and cracks, which are weak points that make the device prone to breakage inside a patient’s body. Furthermore, 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 consequences of this defective design have been devastating. Patients trusted the Bard PowerPort for critical medical treatments. But many have faced 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 attorneys at Nguyen Injury Lawyer believe that PowerPort lawsuit settlement amounts could be substantial, given the evidence of negligence and the preventable harm inflicted on thousands of individuals. Visit https://www.nguyeninjurylawyer.com for more information.

What Makes the PowerPort Defective?

Plaintiffs’ lawyers have several theories about why the Bard Powerport is defective.

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

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

However, 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. 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. Plaintiffs’ attorneys argue that by failing to encapsulate or otherwise protect the catheter from the direct impact of the barium sulfate, the predictable result occurred.

If you have suffered complications from a Bard PowerPort, please contact Nguyen Injury Lawyer at XXX-XXX-XXXX.

PowerPort Malfunctions and Resulting Complications

Attorneys for plaintiffs will present expert witnesses, including biomedical engineers and material scientists, to offer testimony regarding the anticipated interactions between barium sulfate and the catheter’s materials at a molecular level. We at Nguyen Injury Lawyer believe the scientific evidence is compelling and easily understood by a jury. This explains the widespread interest in this litigation among numerous law firms.

The Bard PowerPort has been associated with significant design flaws that can lead to four primary complications following implantation. These complications—fracture, migration, infection, and thrombosis—present serious risks to patients. It is these risks that are the basis for many Port-A-Cath lawsuits against Bard.

Fracture

One of the most critical issues with the Bard PowerPort is its propensity to fracture. The device’s design and materials make it particularly brittle, causing the tubing and other components to break under stress. Fractures can result in fragments of the device lodging in the vascular system, leading to severe complications such as:

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

This vulnerability underscores a fundamental design flaw in the PowerPort. Its brittle materials render it unreasonably dangerous for patients, exposing them to severe and entirely avoidable injuries. Our attorneys at Nguyen Injury Lawyer believe that fracture-related injuries are the strongest claims in the Bard PowerPort litigation and will likely result in the highest average settlement payouts.

Migration

Design flaws in the Bard PowerPort also make the device prone to migration after implantation. 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. Corrective surgical intervention may be required 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.

Infection

The Bard PowerPort’s material deficiencies also elevate 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.

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 significant risks of thrombosis that our attorneys at Nguyen Injury Lawyer 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’s Awareness of PowerPort Problems

Soon after the PowerPort’s introduction, Bard began receiving numerous adverse event reports (“AERs”) from healthcare providers indicating post-implantation fractures. Bard also received a significant number of AERs reporting perforations of internal vasculature.

These reports should have made Bard aware that the PowerPort had a substantially higher failure rate than similar products. Bard should also have recognized that the problems were related to flaws in the Chronoflex material used to manufacture 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

Despite the Bard Power Port having a higher failure rate than competitors, the Defendants failed to warn users. Bard PowerPort lawsuits allege that they concealed the severity of PowerPort-related complications.

Instead of improving the PowerPort or issuing warnings, the Defendants aggressively marketed it as safe, despite knowing its issues. As evidence mounted against them, the Defendants’ attempts at damage control appeared insincere and opportunistic. They launched a new product line, marketing it as an “enhanced” version. However, skeptics quickly questioned whether the enhancements were genuine, noting the similarities to the flawed PowerPort.

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

As cases accumulated, the legal complaints became increasingly alarming. A primary allegation centers on the manufacturer’s apparent refusal to modify the PowerPort’s design to enhance its safety. Despite growing evidence of the device’s risks, the defendants are accused of prioritizing profit over patient safety by continuing to market a flawed product.

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

Plaintiffs further assert that the defendants, aware of the device’s flaws, took no corrective action. Instead, they continued to actively and aggressively market the PowerPort as a safe device, despite knowing of numerous reports of thromboembolism and other severe injuries related to its use.

As a result, numerous lawsuits have emerged, arguing for the defendants’ culpability in causing patients unnecessary suffering. These patients were reportedly prescribed and implanted with PowerPorts, unaware that the devices were, according to allegations, defective and prone to precipitating life-threatening complications.

The Importance of Bard’s Internal Documents

The discovery of Bard’s internal documents will be crucial in the ongoing legal battles surrounding the PowerPort device. Expect intense pre-trial discovery, as every piece of information is vital. 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 extremely impactful. Such documents would substantiate claims that Bard acted with gross negligence or even malicious intent. These findings are critical as they can heavily influence the jury’s decision on punitive damages.

The Potential for Punitive Damages

The possibility of punitive damages influences settlement amounts. Punitive damages are awarded in cases where the defendant’s conduct is particularly harmful and deserving of punishment beyond compensatory damages. The goal is to deter similar behavior in the future.

If the internal documents reveal a profound level of deception, this could significantly increase settlement amounts in Bard PowerPort lawsuits. Juries could impose substantial punitive damages to penalize Bard for its actions and send a clear message to other companies about the importance of transparency and prioritizing patient safety. In the hernia mesh litigation, which currently consumes much of Bard’s legal resources, Bard has largely avoided punitive damages, even though juries have often ruled against them. This is because their conduct was not deemed egregious enough to warrant punitive damages.

These internal documents 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 justifies higher settlement amounts or larger jury payouts. If you or a loved one has been injured by a Bard PowerPort, contact Nguyen Injury Lawyer at XXX-XXX-XXXX or visit our website at https://www.nguyeninjurylawyer.com or our contact page at https://www.nguyeninjurylawyer.com/contact to discuss your legal options.

Core Claims in Bard PowerPort Lawsuits

Over the past few years, defects in the PowerPort catheter have led to numerous Bard PowerPort lawsuits. These lawsuits are filed by individuals who had the Bard PowerPort implanted and suffered serious injuries when it fractured or malfunctioned post-implantation.

The lawsuits are filed against the manufacturer, Bard Access Systems Inc., and its parent company, Beckton Dickinson. These product liability lawsuits, now part of a class action in Arizona encompassing all federal cases against Bard, allege that Bard knew of the device’s problems. They further allege that instead of altering the PowerPort’s design to enhance safety or adequately warn of its dangers, Bard continued to actively and aggressively market the device as safe, despite knowing of numerous reports of catheter fracture, infection, and other serious injuries.

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

Key Allegations in Bard PowerPort Lawsuits

While there are many ancillary claims, three main arguments underlie every Bard PowerPort lawsuit:

• Bard’s negligent failure to provide adequate warnings
• Bard’s negligent design of the PowerPort
• Strict liability based on a manufacturing defect

If you have suffered injuries related to a Bard PowerPort, the attorneys at Nguyen Injury Lawyer are here to help. Contact us at XXX-XXX-XXXX or through our website at https://www.nguyeninjurylawyer.com, or visit our contact page at https://www.nguyeninjurylawyer.com/contact for a free consultation.

Who Can File a Bard PowerPort Lawsuit?

You may be eligible to file a Bard PowerPort lawsuit and pursue financial recovery if you meet the following criteria:

• You received an implanted Bard PowerPort device (or another Bard port/catheter device).
• Your Bard PowerPort fractured, migrated, or otherwise malfunctioned after implantation.
• You sustained significant physical injuries directly resulting from issues with your PowerPort implant.

Estimated Settlement Value of PowerPort Lawsuits

At this early stage of litigation, predicting the potential settlement value of Bard PowerPort cases is inherently speculative due to numerous variables and unknowns. However, based on certain assumptions regarding the validity of claims and scientific evidence of causation, we can provide a reasonable estimate of potential values. These estimates are largely based on settlement values from prior mass tort cases involving similar claims and injuries.

The potential settlement value of individual Bard PowerPort claims will depend on various factors, particularly the type of event the plaintiff experienced and the resulting injuries.

The term “occurrence” refers to what went wrong with the PowerPort device, with fracture and migration being the two primary types. Cases involving both fracture and migration are the strongest and have the highest settlement value. Beyond that, the value of individual cases primarily depends on the type of injuries resulting from the migration or fracture of the PowerPort.

The primary injuries linked to the PowerPort are vascular damage, embolism/stroke, thrombosis (blood clot), and infection. Cases involving vascular damage directly resulting from an occurrence event will have the highest settlement value, potentially ranging from $175,000 to $350,000.

The next tier involves cases of thrombosis or pulmonary embolism (blood clots). While these injuries can be serious, they can also be caused by other factors, making it harder to link them directly to the PowerPort. These cases may have a settlement value of around $100,000 to $250,000.

Cases involving only infection will likely be assigned to the lowest settlement tier. This is because infection is often the least serious and most treatable injury, and establishing causation between the infection and the defective PowerPort can be challenging. Infection cases may have a settlement value range of $30,000 to $100,000.

Bard PowerPort Complications and Failures

Design flaws and manufacturing issues with the Bard central venous port have made the device prone to three primary complications or post-implantation failures, which 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 occurs 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, they can cause havoc, blocking blood flow, puncturing blood vessels, or causing 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 same design flaws that make the Bard venous access port prone to fracturing also set the stage for another major complication: post-implantation migration. This is where the device shifts from its original position in the body. This migration generally involves the flexible tubing components that are inserted into the blood vessel. When these parts are compromised, it’s almost as if the device starts to drift, putting the patient at risk. Migration can occur on its own due to the inherent weaknesses of the device, or it can happen in tandem with a fracture—when the structural integrity fails, and the entire port or its fragments start to shift.

A tiny, jagged piece of metal suddenly floating through a patient’s bloodstream, potentially lodging in delicate areas like the heart or lungs, is a scary image. Migration by itself is problematic, 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

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 Settlement Amounts Can You Expect for Bard PowerPort Cases?

The attorneys at Nguyen Injury Lawyer believe these are very strong lawsuits. Many of the claims involve significant injuries, and we believe it can be proven that Bard is responsible. We anticipate that the average settlement payout for PowerPort lawsuits will be between $150,000 and $300,000, with some claims exceeding $1 million. Fracture lawsuits will, on average, likely have higher settlement amounts, but some high-value port-a-cath settlements may also occur in infection lawsuits.

Our projections differ for lawsuits that proceed to trial. There is a possibility of punitive damages, and we believe there are strong claims. The average successful verdict could likely exceed $10 million.

Is it too soon to speculate about settlement figures and jury awards at this early stage of litigation, with pre-trial discovery still incomplete? 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 viewed with healthy skepticism.

Projected Bard PowerPort Compensation Values

Settlement amounts in Bard PowerPort lawsuits are expected to vary widely depending on the specific circumstances, the severity of the injury, and the type of device used. Some individuals experienced fractured ports, while others suffered from infections or dangerous blood clots. Based on similar injury claims and product defect cases, we have compiled a breakdown of potential payouts.

Injury Type	Estimated Payout Range	What Might Influence That Range
Trial Verdicts (Any Category)	$2,000,000 – $10,000,000+	Punitive damages, gross negligence, jury sympathy
Fractured Catheters	$250,000 – $1,000,000+	Proof from imaging or device removal, embolism risk
Serious Infections	$150,000 – $400,000	Hospitalization, antibiotics, port explant surgery
Thrombosis (Blood Clots)	$125,000 – $300,000	Clot location, stroke risk, post-thrombotic syndrome

To be clear, this is not a guarantee or anything close to it. These are working estimates based on the types of injuries lawyers are seeing and how similar product defect cases have played out in the past. Settlements are influenced by a dozen moving parts: some personal, some legal, and some strategic. That said, if you are one of the many patients injured by a faulty port catheter, this range gives you a realistic starting point for understanding what a Bard PowerPort lawsuit payout could look like.

Contact Nguyen Injury Lawyer About a Bard PowerPort Lawsuit

Nguyen Injury Lawyer is currently accepting new cases from individuals injured by a defective Bard PowerPort implant. Contact us today at XXX-XXX-XXXX or get a free online consultation.