Lawsuit Update Center
Bard PowerPort lawsuits allege that implanted catheter devices used during chemotherapy and other long-term treatments can fracture, migrate, cause serious infections, and contribute to dangerous blood clots.
The Bard PowerPort is placed beneath the skin and connected to a catheter that enters a major blood vessel. Plaintiffs claim that flaws in certain catheter materials can cause the device to deteriorate after implantation, exposing patients to vascular damage, emergency surgery, sepsis, thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and other serious injuries.
The federal lawsuits are consolidated in MDL No. 3081 in the District of Arizona. Bellwether trials began in April 2026. The first trial produced a partial defense result but left the central design-defect claim unresolved. The next trial, involving a fractured catheter, is scheduled to begin on August 18, 2026.
Our law firm is reviewing claims from people who had a Bard implanted port and later experienced a serious device complication. Call us at 888-322-3010.
August 2026 Bard PowerPort Lawsuit Status
- Federal litigation: More than 3,500 Bard implanted port lawsuits are pending in MDL No. 3081 in Arizona.
- First bellwether: Bard won the warning, instruction, and consumer-fraud claims in the Cook infection trial, but the jury did not reach a verdict on design defect.
- Next trial: The Divelbliss catheter-fracture trial is scheduled to begin on August 18, 2026.
- Settlement posture: Additional fracture, infection, and thrombosis trials are scheduled through February 2027. Those results will help both sides evaluate liability and potential claim values.
Do You Have a Bard PowerPort Claim?
You may have a potential lawsuit if medical records identify a Bard implanted port and the device later fractured, migrated, caused a serious infection or clot, or required removal or replacement because of a suspected failure.
The strongest claims usually involve a clearly identified Bard product, a documented device complication, and a significant resulting injury such as hospitalization, retrieval surgery, delayed cancer treatment, permanent vascular damage, or death.
Who May Qualify for a Bard PowerPort Lawsuit?
You may have a potential claim if a Bard implanted port was used and you later suffered a serious complication connected to fracture, migration, infection, thrombosis, embolization, or removal of the device.
A lawyer will generally look for three basic parts:
- Device identification: An implant card, operative report, billing record, or product sticker identifies a Bard PowerPort or another Bard implanted port.
- A documented complication: Medical records show fracture, migration, infection, thrombosis, embolism, vascular injury, or another significant port failure.
- Resulting injury: The complication caused hospitalization, surgery, device removal, delayed treatment, permanent injury, significant medical expenses, or death.
A routine port removal without a documented malfunction or injury is unlikely to support a strong product-liability claim. Infection cases also require evidence linking the infection to the port rather than to another source.
Records That Can Help Prove the Claim
- Implant operative report and implant card.
- Hospital billing records or product-identification stickers.
- X-rays, CT scans, fluoroscopy, or ultrasound reports.
- Port-removal or revision operative report.
- Blood cultures and infectious-disease records.
- Records diagnosing thrombosis, embolism, or vascular damage.
- Records showing interrupted chemotherapy or other treatment.
About the Bard PowerPort
The Bard PowerPort is manufactured by Bard Access Systems, now part of Becton, Dickinson and Company. It is a fully implantable vascular access system commonly used by cancer patients and others who require repeated intravenous treatment.
The system has two primary components:
- The port: A small reservoir surgically implanted beneath the skin. A medical provider inserts a needle through the raised center, known as the septum.
- The catheter: A flexible tube that carries medication or fluids from the port into a major blood vessel.
Many lawsuits focus on polyurethane catheter materials containing barium sulfate. Plaintiffs allege that the material can degrade, develop microscopic cracks or fissures, become brittle, and create an irregular surface that may promote bacterial adhesion.
Bard disputes these allegations. The company argues that its implanted ports are properly designed, that known risks are adequately disclosed, and that many reported complications are caused by factors unrelated to the device.
Complications Associated With Bard PowerPort Failures
Catheter Fracture and Migration
A catheter fracture occurs when part of the tube cracks or breaks after implantation. The broken segment may remain near the port or travel through the vascular system into the heart, lungs, or another location.
A fractured or migrated catheter can cause:
- Internal bleeding or vascular trauma.
- Cardiac arrhythmia or cardiac tamponade.
- Blood clots, embolism, or stroke.
- Perforation of a blood vessel, tissue, or organ.
- Surgery or an interventional procedure to retrieve the fragment.
Fracture claims can be strong when imaging or operative records identify the broken catheter and document where it traveled. Examination of the removed device may also allow an expert to evaluate the fracture surface and condition of the material.
Infection and Sepsis
A port infection can begin around the implant site or spread into the bloodstream. Patients undergoing chemotherapy or treatment for a serious illness may already have a weakened immune system, making the infection especially dangerous.
Serious complications may include bloodstream infection, sepsis, septic shock, endocarditis, removal of the device, insertion of a replacement port, and interruption of cancer treatment.
Infection cases require careful causation proof. Culture results, infectious-disease consultations, port-removal records, and examination of the removed device may help connect the infection to the implanted port. Bard may argue that the infection came from the patient’s underlying illness, immune status, medical treatment, home care, or another source.
Thrombosis and Pulmonary Embolism
A clot may form around the implanted catheter and obstruct a major vein. Part of the clot may also travel to the lungs and cause a pulmonary embolism.
Symptoms may include swelling, arm or neck pain, chest pain, shortness of breath, dizziness, and rapid heart rate. Treatment can involve anticoagulant medication, hospitalization, catheter removal, or surgery.
PowerPort Lawsuit News and Updates
The Bard PowerPort litigation is now in the bellwether trial phase. These early trials do not decide every pending lawsuit. They give the parties information about how juries respond to Bard’s defenses, the plaintiffs’ expert evidence, and different categories of injury.
Fracture Bellwether Trial Set for August 18
The second Bard PowerPort bellwether trial is scheduled to begin on August 18, 2026. The Divelbliss case alleges that a Bard implanted port catheter fractured after implantation.
This is the first federal bellwether centered on catheter fracture. Imaging, removal records, and examination of the failed catheter may give the jury more direct mechanical evidence than was available in the first infection trial.
Divelbliss Case Survives Summary Judgment
The plaintiff in the upcoming fracture bellwether defeated Bard’s effort to dispose of the central claims before trial. The ruling clears the way for a jury to consider the design and warning allegations.
Surviving summary judgment does not predict the verdict. It means the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to submit the disputed claims to a jury.
More Than 3,500 PowerPort Claims Pending
More than 3,500 lawsuits were pending in the Bard PowerPort MDL by July 2026. The docket has continued to grow since the first bellwether verdict, with claims involving fracture, migration, infection, thrombosis, embolization, and device-removal surgery.
First Bellwether Ends With Partial Defense Verdict
The first PowerPort bellwether involved Robert Cook, who alleged that his implanted port caused a serious infection. Cook was hospitalized, his cancer treatment was interrupted, and the port was surgically removed.
The jury returned a defense verdict on the failure-to-warn, failure-to-instruct, and consumer-fraud claims. It did not reach a unanimous verdict on whether the PowerPort was defectively designed.
The result was disappointing for the plaintiff and may make infection-only cases more difficult to resolve at strong values. The deadlock left the central design-defect claim unresolved, and the upcoming fracture trial presents a different injury pattern.
Bard PowerPort Litigation Timeline
How Much Could a Bard PowerPort Lawsuit Be Worth?
Severe fracture and migration cases involving retrieval surgery, heart or lung involvement, vascular damage, or permanent injury are likely to be the highest-value PowerPort claims. Serious thrombosis and embolism cases may also have substantial value when the medical records clearly connect the injury to the catheter.
Infection-only cases may be more difficult because Bard can point to the patient’s underlying illness, weakened immune system, medical treatment, line care, and other possible sources of infection. The first bellwether defense result illustrates that causation problem.
There is not enough settlement history to calculate a reliable average PowerPort settlement. Published dollar ranges remain projections until the parties obtain more bellwether results or announce a compensation framework.
| Claim Category | Facts That May Increase Value | Common Defense Issues |
|---|---|---|
| Fracture or migration | Imaging confirms a broken catheter, fragment retrieval, vascular damage, heart or lung involvement, or major surgery. | Pinch-off, implantation technique, trauma, device age, or lack of proof identifying the failed product. |
| Thrombosis or embolism | A clot near the catheter, pulmonary embolism, hospitalization, anticoagulation, stroke, or lasting vascular injury. | Cancer, immobility, medication, clotting disorders, prior thrombosis, and other independent risk factors. |
| Infection or sepsis | Positive cultures tied to the port, sepsis, endocarditis, intensive care, device removal, or interrupted cancer treatment. | Other sources of infection, immunosuppression, line access, hospital exposure, and difficulty proving a design defect caused the infection. |
Other factors affecting value include the exact product model, whether the device was preserved, the strength of the imaging and operative evidence, the number of corrective procedures, permanent injury, lost income, and future medical needs.
Why Plaintiffs Say the Bard PowerPort Is Defective
The lawsuits target Bard Access Systems, C.R. Bard, and parent company Becton, Dickinson and Company. The complaints generally allege defective design, manufacturing defects, inadequate warnings, negligence, breach of warranty, and concealment of known risks.
Plaintiffs allege that Bard received reports involving catheter fracture, vascular perforation, infection, and other device complications. They claim that this information should have prompted stronger warnings, material changes, or use of a safer design.
A central dispute involves catheter pinch-off. Bard argues that certain fractures occur when a physician places the catheter in a position where it can be compressed between the clavicle and the first rib. Plaintiffs contend that fractures also occurred outside classic pinch-off locations and resulted from deterioration or weakness in the catheter material.
Bard denies that its products are defective. The company also raises defenses involving physician technique, the patient’s underlying condition, infections from other sources, ordinary risks of implanted catheters, and the adequacy of its warnings.
Deadline for Filing a PowerPort Lawsuit
The deadline for filing a PowerPort lawsuit depends on state law. It may begin when the device failed, when the injury was diagnosed, when the port was removed, or when you reasonably learned that the device may have caused the injury.
A discovery rule may extend the deadline in some states when the connection between the port and the injury was not immediately apparent. Wrongful-death claims may have a separate limitations period measured from the patient’s death.
Consolidation in the federal MDL does not create one national deadline and does not automatically preserve an unfiled claim. You should have the implant date, complication date, device-removal date, and diagnosis reviewed promptly.
Bard PowerPort Lawsuit FAQ
Contact Our Bard PowerPort Lawyers
If your Bard implanted port fractured, migrated, caused a serious infection or clot, or required removal due to suspected failure, call us at 888-322-3010.
We will review the device records, medical evidence, the filing deadline, and whether your injuries align with the claims being pursued in the federal litigation.
