Medical Device MDL-3081 Actively Recruiting • District of Arizona

Bard PowerPort Lawsuit (Implanted Port Catheter)

Growing litigation against Becton Dickinson alleging Bard PowerPort catheters fracture and migrate due to design defects, causing serious injuries including bloodstream infections, blood clots, and requiring emergency surgery. Cases primarily involve cancer patients.

Last Updated: June 1, 2026
18 min read
JPML Data Verified
9 sources cited

Key Takeaways

  • Over 3,376 cases pending as of June 2026 with 279% growth
  • 5,333+ FDA adverse event reports for PowerPort catheters
  • 25 FDA recalls issued between 2018-2021 for Bard ports
  • Cases primarily involve cancer patients requiring chemotherapy
  • Allegations include catheter fractures, migration, and bloodstream infections

June 2026 Updates Latest

3,376 cases pending (3,583 total). First bellwether trial (Cook v. Becton Dickinson) went to trial before Judge Campbell in the District of Arizona — opening statements were delivered April 21, 2026, with plaintiff's counsel telling jurors that Bard knew for decades its devices were dangerously prone to infection yet shelved safer technologies (antimicrobial coatings, non-fouling surfaces, smoother catheter materials) developed as early as 2005. Plaintiff Robert Cook, a Minnesota colorectal-cancer patient, was hospitalized six days and had chemotherapy delayed two weeks after his PowerPort became infected. Cook's expert, interventional radiologist Dr. Darren Hurst, testified his hospital abandoned Bard products in 2014. In early May 2026 the jury returned a defense verdict, clearing Bard and Becton Dickinson on the decided claims (failure-to-warn, failure-to-instruct, consumer fraud); the central design-defect claim is reported to have hung (no unanimous verdict), leaving it unresolved. So it reads as a defense win on the decided claims rather than a clean win on design defect, and the early read is that infection cases may be harder for plaintiffs than fracture or migration cases.

Heading into trial, Judge Campbell had denied nearly all of Bard's summary judgment motion on March 5 — a major plaintiff win. Second bellwether plaintiff Wanda Miller died Feb. 2, 2026 and her July 7 trial date remains under review. Additional trials are queued for October 13, December 1, 2026 and February 2, 2027. Six bellwether cases cover 3 infection, 2 thrombus, 1 fracture across polyurethane, Groshong, and silicone devices. No global settlement has been reached as of June 2026; projected per-case ranges remain $10,000–$300,000+, with the remaining bellwethers (and any retrial of the unresolved design-defect claim) likely to shape settlement discussions.

3,376
Pending Actions
5,333+
FDA Adverse Events
25
FDA Recalls (2018-21)
In Trial
First Bellwether (Apr 21)

Key Facts (June 2026)

Pending Actions 3,376 cases in federal MDL (June 2026)
Growth Rate 1,000+ new cases in 2025 alone
Defendants C.R. Bard, Bard Access Systems, Becton Dickinson (parent)
Presiding Judge Hon. David G. Campbell (D. Arizona)
MDL Created August 8, 2023
FDA Adverse Events 5,333+ reports in MAUDE database
Catheter Fracture Rate 1.1% - 5.0% per medical literature
First Bellwether Trial In active testimony (commenced April 21, 2026)
Can You Still File? Yes, lawsuits are actively being filed

Explosive Case Growth

One of the fastest-growing medical device MDLs. Case count has surged 279% in 2025 as cancer patients report catheter fractures and complications.

Jan 25
891
Feb 25
1,057
Mar 25
1,109
Apr 25
1,242
May 25
1,456
Jun 25
1,688
Jul 25
1,851
Aug 25
1,995
Sep 25
2,046
Oct 25
2,150
Nov 25
2,295
Dec 25
2,463
Jan 26
2,545
Feb 26
2,674
Mar 26
2,828
Apr 26
3,044
May 26
3,187
Jun 26
3,376

Source: JPML MDL Statistics Reports, February 2025-June 2026

Peer-Reviewed Research Finding (2016)

A study from BAM Federal Institute for Materials Research found that loss of barium sulfate filler particles near the catheter surface creates "predetermined sites of fracture"—microscopic notches that make the catheter vulnerable to breaking.

Source: Braun et al. (2016), Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials, PMID: 27552159

1 What Is This Lawsuit About?

The Bard PowerPort is an implanted port catheter—a medical device surgically placed under the skin to provide long-term vascular access for chemotherapy, IV medications, and blood draws. The device consists of a port (reservoir) placed in the chest and a catheter tube that runs into a large vein near the heart.

Plaintiffs allege that Bard's PowerPort devices are defectively designed. The catheters use a polyurethane material called "Chronoflex" containing barium sulfate (to make the device visible on X-rays). Over time, the barium sulfate particles separate from the catheter surface, weakening the material and creating sites prone to fracture.

When these catheters fracture, fragments can migrate through the bloodstream to the heart or lungs, requiring emergency surgery to remove. The lawsuits also allege the surface degradation makes the catheters more susceptible to bacterial colonization, leading to serious bloodstream infections.

Primarily Affects Cancer Patients: Port catheters are most commonly implanted in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy, making this litigation particularly significant for vulnerable patients already battling serious illness.

2 The Alleged Defect: Barium Sulfate & Chronoflex

The core allegation centers on the catheter's material composition and how it degrades over time:

Material Composition

  • Chronoflex AL — Polyurethane polymer used in the catheter
  • Barium Sulfate — Radiopacifying agent added to make catheter visible on X-rays

Degradation Process

  • Barium sulfate particles separate from the polyurethane over time
  • Particle loss creates microscopic notches/pitting on catheter surface
  • These notches act as stress concentrators and fracture initiation points
  • Surface damage also increases bacterial colonization risk

3 Reported Complications & Injuries

The FDA MAUDE database contains over 5,333 adverse event reports for Bard PowerPort devices. Reported complications include:

Catheter Fracture & Migration

  • Catheter breaks into fragments inside the body
  • Fragments migrate to heart or pulmonary arteries
  • Incidence rate: 1.1% - 5.0% per medical literature
  • Requires emergency surgical retrieval

Bloodstream Infections

  • Catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSI)
  • Sepsis (life-threatening systemic infection)
  • Per CDC: CLABSIs cause thousands of deaths yearly
  • Especially dangerous for immunocompromised cancer patients

Blood Clots (Thrombosis)

  • Deep vein thrombosis (DVT)
  • Pulmonary embolism risk from migrating clots
  • Port occlusion requiring intervention

Other Complications

  • Pinch-off syndrome (catheter compression)
  • Cardiac arrhythmias from migrated fragments
  • Unplanned surgical removal
  • Death (in severe cases)

4 FDA Regulatory History

July 2006
First PowerPort 510(k) Clearance

FDA clears PowerPort Implanted Titanium Port via 510(k) pathway (K060812). Class II device; no clinical trials required.

2006-2025
14 Additional PowerPort 510(k) Clearances

Multiple PowerPort variants cleared including MRI-compatible, Groshong catheter, ClearVUE Slim, and ECG-enabled versions.

2018-2021
25 Class II FDA Recalls

FDA documents 25 recalls of Bard PowerPort devices for issues including device design problems, catheter defects, and ECG signal loss during placement.

Ongoing
5,333+ Adverse Event Reports

FDA MAUDE database contains over 5,333 adverse event reports for Bard PowerPort devices, including fractures, migrations, infections, and material separation.

510(k) Clearance Pathway: PowerPort devices were cleared through the FDA's 510(k) process, which allows devices to be marketed if "substantially equivalent" to existing devices—without requiring clinical trials demonstrating safety and effectiveness.

5 Do You Qualify for Compensation?

You may be eligible to file a claim if you meet these criteria:

Eligibility Requirements

  • Had a Bard PowerPort implanted — Including any PowerPort, PowerPort isp, PowerPort MRI, PowerPort ClearVUE, or similar Bard port catheter
  • Experienced a qualifying complication — Catheter fracture, fragment migration, bloodstream infection/sepsis, deep vein thrombosis, or required surgical removal
  • Can document the device and injury — Medical records showing device implantation and subsequent complications
  • Within statute of limitations — Generally 2-3 years from injury discovery, varies by state
Rapidly Growing Litigation: More than 1,000 new cases were filed in 2025, more than doubling the case count from 2024. With bellwether trials beginning in 2026, this litigation is still in early stages and accepting new claims.

6 Frequently Asked Questions

What is a PowerPort and who uses one?
A PowerPort is an implanted port catheter—a medical device surgically placed under the skin (usually in the chest) that connects to a large vein. It's primarily used by cancer patients receiving chemotherapy, but also patients needing long-term IV medications, antibiotics, or frequent blood draws. The device can remain implanted for months or years.
What is the alleged defect?
Plaintiffs allege the PowerPort's polyurethane catheter contains barium sulfate particles that separate from the material over time. This creates microscopic weak points that can cause the catheter to fracture. A 2016 peer-reviewed study confirmed this phenomenon, finding that barium sulfate loss creates "predetermined sites of fracture."
What injuries are included in the lawsuit?
The six bellwether cases include three infection cases, two thrombosis (blood clot) cases, and one fracture case. Other qualifying injuries include catheter migration to the heart or lungs, sepsis, pulmonary embolism, cardiac damage, and any complication requiring emergency surgical removal.
Who are the defendants?
The primary defendants are C.R. Bard, Inc., Bard Access Systems, Inc., and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. The parent company Becton, Dickinson and Company (BD) is also named, as they acquired C.R. Bard in December 2017.
When will trials begin?
Six bellwether trials are scheduled in 2026. The first (Cook v. Becton Dickinson) commenced April 21, 2026 and ended in a defense verdict in early May 2026 — the jury cleared Bard and BD on the decided claims, while the central design-defect claim is reported to have hung. Five additional trials are scheduled through late 2026 or early 2027. These test cases will help establish case values and may lead to settlement discussions.
Have there been any settlements?
No global settlements have been reached yet as of June 2026. The MDL is still in pretrial proceedings. Settlement discussions may begin after bellwether trial outcomes. Attorneys project potential individual settlements could range from $10,000 to over $300,000 depending on injury severity.
Is there a related port catheter MDL?
Yes, MDL-3125 involves AngioDynamics and Navilyst Medical port catheter products. That litigation is pending in the Central District of California before Judge Jinsook Ohta, having been transferred in October 2024. Similar allegations regarding catheter fractures and infections are involved.

Sources & References

9 official sources cited

• FDA 510(k) Premarket Notification Database — Device clearance records (14 PowerPort clearances 2006-2025)

• FDA MAUDE Database — 5,333+ adverse event reports for Bard PowerPort

• FDA Medical Device Recalls Database — 25 Class II recalls (2018-2021)

• Braun U, et al. "Mechanic and surface properties of central-venous port catheters after removal." J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2016 (PMID: 27552159)

• Kondo et al. (2020), CVIR Endovasc — Catheter fracture incidence rates (1.1%-5.0%)

• CDC, "CLABSI Basics" — Central line catheter information (Updated June 2025)

• Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) — MDL statistics and docket reports

• SEC EDGAR Database — Becton Dickinson/C.R. Bard acquisition filings (December 2017)

• U.S. District Court, District of Arizona — MDL-3081 case management orders

Attorney Advertising. The information on this page is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is created by accessing or using this content.

Every case is unique, and results depend on the specific facts and circumstances involved. Past settlement amounts and case outcomes do not guarantee similar results in your case. If you believe you have a legal claim, you should consult with a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction who can evaluate your specific situation.

Read our full disclaimer · Privacy Policy · Terms of Use