Bard PowerPort Lawsuit Update: MDL 3081 Trials and Claims

Updated July 24, 2026

C.R. Bard’s PowerPort™ series of vascular access devices or implantable ports are the subject of recent injury lawsuits and trials. The lawsuits allege the PowerPort is defectively designed and that Bard failed to adequately warn of risks associated with the implantation of the PowerPort. Bard and its Bard Access Systems subsidiary are now owned by Becton, Dickinson and Company, which is named as a defendant alongside the Bard entities in most filings.

The PowerPorts and port-a-caths are implanted under the patient’s skin and designed to deliver medication and other fluids into the patient’s bloodstream at a high flow rate. Vascular access devices like the PowerPort are most commonly implanted in cancer patients who will need frequent chemotherapy treatment over a long period.

Recent product liability lawsuits against Bard and its subsidiary, Bard Access System, Inc., allege that Bard’s PowerPort vascular access devices are susceptible to breaking, fracturing, or pinching off, increasing the risk of complications such as embolism, deep vein thrombosis (DVT), puncture of a vein, blood clots or infection.

As of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation’s July 1, 2026 report, 3,564 product liability lawsuits are pending against Bard in the federal multidistrict litigation over injuries allegedly caused by its implantable port catheter devices. Roughly 800 of those cases were filed in the first half of 2026 alone, and the litigation has now produced its first jury verdict.

The injury lawsuits filed in federal court were consolidated in August 2023 before the Honorable David G. Campbell, Senior United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, as MDL No. 3081, In re: Bard Implanted Port Catheter Products Liability Litigation.

Key Takeaways

• The Bard PowerPort lawsuits allege the vascular access device is defectively designed, which may lead to serious health risks.
• Individuals who allege they were harmed by Bard’s PowerPort devices are seeking compensation through individual lawsuits, not a class action. Federal cases are centralized in MDL 3081 in Arizona. New Jersey state court cases were designated a multicounty litigation in Bergen County in October 2024, and additional cases are pending in Maricopa County Superior Court in Arizona.
• PowerPort refers to several vascular access devices marketed by Bard under the PowerPort trademark, not one specific device.
• The first bellwether trial, Cook v. Becton, Dickinson and Company, was tried in Phoenix in April and May 2026. The jury returned a defense verdict on the failure to warn, failure to instruct and consumer fraud claims, but deadlocked on the central design defect claim. A motion for a new trial is pending.
• The second bellwether trial, and the first to test a catheter fracture claim, is scheduled to begin August 18, 2026.
• No global settlement has been announced. Any settlement figure circulating online is unverified.

The PowerPort Port-a-Cath Lawsuits

Initially cleared through the FDA’s 510(k) pathway in 2000, the Bard PowerPort is an implantable vascular access device that provides long-term, easy access to a patient’s vascular system so that medication and fluids can be delivered intravenously.

The Bard PowerPort lawsuits revolve around allegations that these vascular access devices manufactured by Bard have design flaws. These injury lawsuits allege that a design flaw in the catheter portion of the PowerPort can cause it to fissure, fracture, or crack and lead to a variety of serious complications for patients, particularly severe infections.

The catheter portion of the Bard PowerPort is comprised of a mixture of polyurethane and barium sulfate called Chronoflex AL. The PowerPort lawsuits allege that the amount of barium sulfate can adversely affect the mechanical integrity of polyurethane, especially in high concentrations.

According to the lawsuits, Bard’s manufacturing process uses too high a concentration of barium sulfate, causing structural changes and degradation of the catheter. Eventually, these structural changes and degradation can weaken the catheter’s integrity, causing it to fracture or “pinch-off,” leading to a variety of serious injuries.

Bard PowerPort patients have filed lawsuits against C.R. Bard and Bard Access Systems after experiencing complications such as the fracture or pinching-off of the catheter, migration of the catheter, and infection, which these patients allege were due to a defect in the design of the Bard PowerPort.

If the catheter breaks or fractures, fragments can enter the blood vessels, causing potentially life-threatening conditions like:

• pulmonary embolism
• vessel perforation
• blood clots
• cardiac tamponade
• infection

Likewise, catheter migration, which occurs when the catheter moves from its original position, can cause potentially life-threatening complications such as vessel perforation, pulmonary embolism, and blood clots.

Bard PowerPort patients who suffered these complications have filed lawsuits that seek compensation against C.R. Bard and Bard Access Systems for:

• medical bills
• pain and suffering
• lost income
• loss of future income
• loss of consortium

PowerPort Lawsuits in Federal and State Courts

The litigation has grown steadily since it was centralized. The MDL held roughly 520 cases in October 2024, about 1,480 in April 2025, more than 2,500 by January 2026, and 3,564 as of July 1, 2026.

Plaintiffs’ counsel have long expected the inventory to keep growing, in part because many patients never connect a port complication to the device itself. Roughly 300,000 of these ports have been implanted nationwide, and Bard has held the large majority of the market, so the filed cases still represent a fraction of the potentially affected population.

In July 2023, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated all the federal Bard PowerPort lawsuits into MDL 3081 or In re Bard Implanted Port Catheter Products Liability Litigation and transferred all of these cases to the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. The cases were assigned to the Honorable David G. Campbell for pre-trial purposes. The panel entered its transfer order on August 8, 2023, and the case is docketed as 2:23-md-03081.

July 2026 Update: Where the Bard PowerPort MDL Stands

Case count. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation reported 3,564 pending actions in MDL 3081 as of July 1, 2026, up from 3,376 a month earlier. The MDL has added roughly 800 cases since January 2026, making it one of the faster growing medical device dockets in the country.

The first trial ended in a split result. Jury selection in Cook v. Becton, Dickinson and Company began April 21, 2026, and opening statements followed the same week. The plaintiff, a Minnesota rectal cancer patient, alleged that his port became infected within roughly two weeks of implantation at the Mayo Clinic, requiring surgical removal and intravenous antibiotics through a PICC line. His attorneys told jurors that Bard had developed safer technologies, including antimicrobial coatings and smoother catheter surfaces, as early as 2005 and repeatedly shelved them.

In May 2026 the jury found for the defense on failure to warn, failure to instruct and consumer fraud, and concluded that the plaintiff’s infection was not caused by the device. Critically, the jury could not reach a unanimous verdict on whether the PowerPort was defectively designed or on the unlawful trade practices claim. Design defect is the central theory across the entire MDL inventory, so the verdict resolved less than the headline suggested. Reporting from the courtroom indicated that jurors believed the device could have been made safer.

A new trial motion is pending. In June 2026 the Cook plaintiff moved for a new trial, arguing that the jury instructions on design defect, failure to warn and superseding cause were confusing, and that jurors believed they were operating under a deliberation deadline. The jury’s questions during deliberations are cited as evidence. If the motion is granted, Bard’s only trial win to date is erased.

The second bellwether starts August 18, 2026. This is the first fracture case to reach a jury, and plaintiffs’ lawyers regard fracture claims as the strongest category in the litigation. The plaintiff, Kimberly Divelbliss, alleges that a Bard silicone Groshong catheter placed through the subclavian vein fractured, and that a roughly seven inch section of catheter was later found lodged in the right atrium of her heart.

The pretrial record in that case is aggressive. The plaintiff contends that Bard internally classified catheter fracture and embolization as a catastrophic, life threatening risk, adjusted its risk calculations in a way that avoided triggering a design change, and developed stronger catheter designs it chose not to sell. The cost of the safer catheter is alleged to have been approximately 47 cents per device, against a company holding roughly 78 percent of the port market at an approximately 84 percent margin. Those are punitive damages facts.

Bifurcation fight. In a proposed final pretrial order filed July 10, 2026, Bard asked the court to split the trial, with the jury deciding liability and compensatory damages first and punitive damages in a separate phase. Divelbliss opposes bifurcation, arguing that the evidence of Bard’s knowledge supports both liability and punitive damages and should be heard together. She has said she would not object to bifurcating only the amount of any punitive award, as was done in the Bard IVC filter litigation.

Remaining trial calendar. Judge Campbell reduced the bellwether program from six trials to five in a May 19, 2026 case management order after the second bellwether plaintiff, Wanda Miller, died on February 2, 2026 and her family elected not to continue the case. The remaining trials are currently set for October 13, 2026, December 1, 2026 and February 2, 2027.

Key evidentiary rulings so far

• Bard cannot argue that FDA 510(k) clearance means the PowerPort was safe. The court also limited Bard’s regulatory expert, barring opinions that the design was safe, that clearance established safety, or that spoke to the FDA’s state of mind.
• Two of the plaintiffs’ interventional radiologists were permitted to testify, with the court trimming opinions about corporate intent, regulatory duties and alternative engineering designs.
• An internal Bard presentation addressing infection rates, the feasibility of antimicrobial coatings and the effect of infections on cancer patients was admitted, with several pages redacted where Bard’s internal marketing language risked unfair prejudice.
• In July 2026 the court excluded part of a defense causation expert’s proposed testimony ahead of the fracture trial, barring a broad opinion that the device did not cause the fracture.

Settlement posture. There is no global settlement, no settlement matrix and no claims administrator. The court has pushed the parties toward settlement discussions as the bellwether program proceeds, but nothing has been finalized. If the bellwether trials conclude without a resolution, the expected next step is remand of individual cases to their originating federal districts for trial.

Bard Port Catheter Cases in State Courts

Not every case is in the Arizona MDL. The New Jersey Supreme Court initially declined multicounty litigation designation in January 2024, citing the limited number of cases at the time. It reversed course on October 15, 2024, designating pending and future New Jersey state court cases involving Bard implanted port catheter products as a multicounty litigation and assigning them to Bergen County for centralized management. That litigation held its first case management conference in May 2025, and joint status reports filed in the MDL in late 2025 identified roughly 146 New Jersey state court cases.

A smaller group of cases is pending in Maricopa County Superior Court in Arizona, and an Arizona state court trial involving an internal jugular fracture claim has been calendared for August 2026. Because Bard is headquartered in New Jersey and the corporate conduct evidence overlaps heavily with the federal cases, the state court dockets are worth watching alongside the MDL.

AngioDynamics Port Catheter Lawsuits

Cases Consolidated in San Diego, California

In a further development, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has centralized all AngioDynamics port catheter lawsuits in the Southern District of California, specifically before U.S. District Judge Jinsook Ohta.

This consolidation, established on October 7, 2024, brings together product liability claims against AngioDynamics and its Navilyst Medical subsidiary, mirroring the approach taken with the Bard PowerPort litigation.

Key details of the AngioDynamics MDL include:

• The MDL is officially designated as MDL No. 3125, In re: AngioDynamics, Inc., and Navilyst Medical, Inc., Port Catheter Products Liability Litigation.
• At the time of consolidation, there were at least 23 lawsuits pending in 16 different district courts, with 33 additional potential actions identified in 19 districts.
• The devices at issue include the SmartPort, Vortex, Xcela and BioFlo lines.

The lawsuits allege that AngioDynamics’ port catheter devices are defective, leading to serious health risks such as:

• Device fractures
• Catheter migration
• Severe infections
• Blood clots
• Organ damage

Plaintiffs claim that these complications arise from the catheter’s manufacturing process, specifically the use of excessive barium sulfate. This excess allegedly causes the material to degrade, leading to pitting or cracking of the catheter surface.

The AngioDynamics MDL has grown considerably since consolidation. It held roughly 152 cases in May 2025, about 300 by January 2026, and 401 pending actions as of the JPML’s July 1, 2026 report.

The AngioDynamics litigation is roughly two years behind the Bard MDL. Judge Ohta entered a bellwether selection protocol in October 2025, and after a 60 day extension each side is to designate nine representative cases by August 2026, drawn from infection, thrombosis and fracture claims. Plaintiff fact sheets for the pool were due in July 2026, with defense fact sheets to follow in September. The court expects to narrow the pool from 18 cases to 8 by December 2026, with preliminary case specific discovery running into early 2027. On that schedule, a first AngioDynamics bellwether trial is unlikely before 2028.

Because the two litigations rest on the same core materials science theory, rulings and verdicts in the Bard MDL are likely to shape how the AngioDynamics cases are valued long before they reach a jury.

Implantable Port and Port a Cath Complications

Adverse Event Reports and Safety Concerns

Due to the risks medical devices may pose to patients, as well as the inability of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to effectively evaluate medical devices for safety and efficacy, any post-release adverse events associated with a medical device must be appropriately documented and publicly reported.

This is the only means by which the FDA, physicians, and the public can identify potential defects or safety issues with a medical device. For years, adverse events reported to the FDA’s publicly accessible Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience database (“MAUDE”) were how surveillance for potential defects and safety issues was done.

However, there are significant deficiencies in this system. Surveillance of the MAUDE database for safety issues is only effective if adverse events associated with a medical device are reported to the database accurately and timely.

Unfortunately, the reporting of adverse events to the MAUDE database is typically done by the medical device manufacturer or physicians, who are often too busy to report most adverse events to either the medical device manufacturer or MAUDE.

Compounding the inadequacies of using the MAUDE database to surveil for potential defects and safety issues with medical devices was the recent discovery that many adverse events associated with medical devices are not even placed into the publicly accessible MAUDE database.

In 2019, Kaiser Health News (now KFF) discovered that the FDA had allowed medical device manufacturers to hide adverse health events from the public via the use of the FDA’s Alternative Summary Reporting program, which permits certain medical device manufacturers, including C.R. Bard, to file adverse event reports into a non-public, internal FDA database instead of the public MAUDE database.

Established by the FDA in 2002, this program has allowed medical device manufacturers to hide millions of adverse event reports from the public. This program also allowed these manufacturers to file “summary reports” instead of individual reports for each adverse event required by the MAUDE database.

Due to public pressure, the FDA ended this secret AER database and released more than 5.7 million adverse event reports not previously known to the public.

A review of the secret AER database by Kaiser Health found that certain medical devices comprised a significant number of the adverse events in this database, including surgical staplers, balloon pumps for blood vessels, and vascular access devices, including Bard’s PowerPort.

Bard was able to hide adverse events due to “compression or pinch-off events” in its PowerPort devices by claiming these complications were “known risks” associated with these devices or were the result of an error on the part of the surgeon in implanting these devices.

This allowed Bard to circumvent reporting these adverse events into the public MAUDE database. The discovery of the 5.7 million adverse event reports hidden from public view by the FDA and certain medical manufacturers, along with the significant number of these events associated with Bard’s PowerPort devices, helped prompt these lawsuits.

Since medical devices like the Bard PowerPort are often critical components in a patient’s treatment plan, healthcare professionals and patients need to know about potential risks and recall information.

Compared to medications and therapy, the stakes are even higher, as improperly functioning medical devices can hinder treatment efficacy, introduce new health risks, and, in severe cases, result in serious injury or death.

Being fully informed about potential safety issues associated with devices like the Bard PowerPort can empower patients and medical professionals to make informed decisions regarding their treatment options.

By staying current on safety issues and advocating for patient well-being, the community can help minimize adverse outcomes and ensure that quality care remains a priority.

Implantable PowerPort Device and Design

When treating cancer, a crucial aspect is the delivery of chemotherapy drugs. Implantable ports and catheter tubes play a significant role in ensuring patients receive medication without constant needle insertions.

A popular device for this purpose is the Bard PowerPort series of vascular access devices manufactured by C.R. Bard and its subsidiary, Bard Access Systems.

The Bard PowerPort Devices are made with various materials but are typically comprised of polyurethane or silicone for the device’s body and a mixture of polyurethane and barium sulfate for the catheter tube.

The barium sulfate is used to allow the catheter to be visible in imaging procedures so that physicians can ensure proper placement of the catheter.

However, as the Bard PowerPort lawsuits allege, the use of this barium sulfate, or at least high concentrations of it, can degrade and alter the catheter’s structural integrity, leading to fracture, breaking, or fragmentation.

These lawsuits further allege that the catheter in the Bard PowerPort devices can also migrate from its original position. The fracture, fragmenting, or migration of the catheter can also lead to a series of severe and potentially life-threatening complications.

Seeking Compensation for Injuries

If you experienced any of the following conditions post-implantation of a PowerPort device, you might be eligible for a lawsuit against the manufacturer:

1. Infections: You may qualify if you suffered sepsis, septic shock, or severe infections that can lead to organ damage or death.
2. Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT): A DVT is a blood clot in a deep vein, typically in the leg. It can be life-threatening if it travels to the lungs, causing a pulmonary embolism.
3. Hemorrhaging or Bleeding Injuries: Uncontrollable bleeding is a serious condition requiring immediate medical attention.
4. Fluid Buildup on the Heart: Known as pericardial effusion, this can cause shortness of breath, chest pain, and other heart-related problems.
5. Irregular Heartbeat: An abnormal heart rhythm known as arrhythmia can lead to serious health complications, including stroke and heart failure.
6. Severe and Persistent Pain: Chronic pain, particularly in the chest or neck, could indicate a device malfunction.
7. Perforations of Tissues, Vessels, and Organs: If the PowerPort catheter has punctured any tissues, vessels, or organs, this is a severe complication.
8. Wrongful Death: If a loved one passed away due to any of the above complications linked to the Bard PowerPort™ device, you may be able to file a lawsuit on their behalf.
9. Other Injuries: If you experienced injuries due to a fractured PowerPort catheter, you may still be eligible to file a claim.
10. Catheter Fracture, Migration or Embolization: If imaging showed that your catheter broke, cracked or moved out of position, or if a fragment had to be retrieved from your heart, lungs or a blood vessel, this is the strongest documented category in the litigation. The first fracture case reaches a jury in August 2026.

The journey toward justice can be daunting, but you don’t have to navigate it alone. If you’ve faced any of these complications following the implantation of a Bard PowerPort device, please speak to an experienced products liability attorney about your potential legal options.

Bard PowerPort and Port-a-Cath Lawsuit FAQ

Reviewed and updated July 24, 2026

How many Bard PowerPort lawsuits have been filed?

As of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation report dated July 1, 2026, there are 3,564 cases pending in MDL 3081, the federal Bard implanted port catheter litigation in the District of Arizona. Roughly 800 of those cases were filed in the first half of 2026. Additional cases are pending in New Jersey state court, where they were designated a multicounty litigation in Bergen County in October 2024, and in Maricopa County Superior Court in Arizona.

Has Bard settled any implantable PowerPort lawsuits?

No. As of July 2026 there is no global settlement, no settlement matrix and no claims fund. Bard has not announced a resolution program, and any specific settlement figure circulating online should be treated as unverified unless it appears in a court filing or a joint statement from the parties.

The litigation is no longer in its early stages, however. Discovery is complete in the cases selected for early trial, expert challenges have been briefed and decided, and the first case has been tried to a jury. Courts typically see meaningful settlement movement only after several test verdicts, which makes the trials scheduled between August 2026 and February 2027 the ones to watch.

What happened in the first Bard PowerPort trial?

The first bellwether trial, Cook v. Becton, Dickinson and Company, was tried in Phoenix in April and May 2026. It was an infection case brought by a Minnesota cancer patient whose port became infected within about two weeks of implantation and had to be surgically removed.

The jury returned a defense verdict on the failure to warn, failure to instruct and consumer fraud claims, and found that the infection was not caused by the device. The jury could not reach a unanimous verdict on whether the PowerPort was defectively designed, which is the central claim across the litigation. That theory therefore remains untested. The plaintiff has moved for a new trial, arguing the jury instructions were confusing and that jurors believed they were operating under a deliberation deadline.

An infection case was always understood to present harder causation questions than a fracture case, because cancer treatment and a weakened immune system give the defense alternative explanations for an infection.

When is the next Bard PowerPort trial?

The second trial is scheduled to begin August 18, 2026, and it is the first catheter fracture case to reach a jury. The plaintiff alleges that her catheter fractured after placement through the subclavian vein and that a section of it was later found lodged in the right atrium of her heart.

Three more trials are currently calendared for October 13, 2026, December 1, 2026 and February 2, 2027. The results will not bind other cases, but they are expected to shape how the litigation is valued.

Has the Bard PowerPort been recalled?

Not for the defect at the center of this litigation. Bard recalled 178 PowerPort devices in October 2019 because some units shipped with a connector intended for a different catheter, an issue that could prolong the implantation procedure. The FDA classified that action as a Class II recall and terminated it in February 2022.

There has been no recall addressing the Chronoflex catheter material or the fracture and degradation allegations, despite continued adverse event reporting to the FDA MAUDE database. A device does not have to be recalled for an injured patient to have a claim.

Is the Bard PowerPort lawsuit a class action?

No. MDL 3081 is a multidistrict litigation, not a certified class action. Each case is filed, developed and valued individually based on that patient’s device, complication and medical records. The MDL exists to coordinate common discovery and pretrial rulings before a single judge. Cases that do not resolve can be sent back to the federal district where they were originally filed for trial.

What are some common injuries and complications linked to the implantable PowerPort?

Bard PowerPort vascular access devices are implanted to give clinicians reliable access to a patient’s veins. The following adverse events have been reported with these devices:

• Catheter break or fracture
• Migration of the catheter or a fragment
• Embolism, including pulmonary embolism
• Bloodstream infection and sepsis
• Embedding in a vein or organ
• Perforation of a vein or organ
• Thrombosis, or blood clot formation

What is claimed in the PowerPort implant lawsuits?

The lawsuits are product liability claims. Plaintiffs allege that the catheter material, a polyurethane blend called Chronoflex AL containing barium sulfate, degrades in the body and becomes prone to cracking, fracturing and migration, and that the resulting surface irregularities can harbor bacteria.

Plaintiffs further allege that Bard knew about reported fractures and infections but continued marketing the device without adopting a safer design or adequately warning physicians and patients about the severity and frequency of complications. Claims for punitive damages are also asserted. Bard disputes that the material made its devices defective.

What are the potential outcomes for plaintiffs in these port lawsuits?

Outcomes vary case by case. A plaintiff who proves that a Bard PowerPort caused the injury may recover compensation for medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering. Punitive damages may be available where a jury finds the manufacturer acted with reckless disregard for patient safety.

Cases are not valued equally. Claims supported by imaging, an explanted device, a retrieval procedure and clear documentation of a fracture, migration or embolization are generally the best documented in this litigation. Infection claims can also be substantial where the patient developed sepsis, required extended hospitalization, or had cancer treatment delayed, but they require evidence connecting the infection to the device rather than to the underlying illness.

No outcome can be guaranteed, and prior results do not predict the result in any other case.

Is it too late to file a Bard PowerPort lawsuit?

That depends on your state’s statute of limitations and on when you knew, or reasonably should have known, that the device caused your injury. Deadlines vary widely from state to state and some run as short as one or two years from discovery of the injury. New cases are still being filed and added to MDL 3081 every month.

If you have had a port complication, have the filing deadline evaluated promptly rather than assuming it has passed.