Bard PowerPort Lawsuit | June 2024

Legally Reviewed

This article has been written and reviewed for legal accuracy and clarity by attorney Matthew Dolman and is as accurate as possible. Matthew is a licensed attorney with twenty years of legal experience. His practice includes mass tort claims and representing plaintiffs in product liability lawsuits. Matt and his team of experienced personal injury lawyers have collected $250,000,000.00 in compensation for injury victims and have represented over 7500 individuals. Matthew is a port catheter injury lawyer who handles claims throughout the United States. This content should not be taken as legal advice from an attorney.


Fact-Checked

Lawsuit Legal News does everything possible to make sure the information in this article is up-to-date and accurate. If you need specific legal advice about your case, contact us. This article should not be taken as advice from an attorney.


Patients undergoing extensive medical treatments requiring routine blood draws, blood transfusions or the administration of medications and intravenous fluids need a port implanted into their bodies to allow medical professionals to administer medicine, chemotherapy, and other fluids regularly. Numerous patients who received fluids through defective port catheters manufactured by Bard Access Systems, a subsidiary of Becton, Dickinson, and Company, are pursuing product liability lawsuits against this company.

Attorney Matthew Dolman, Top-rated MDL Lawyer
Attorney Matthew Dolman, Top-rated MDL Lawyer

A common theme among Bard PowerPort Lawsuits is seriously injured patients stating the Bard PowerPort device (which is implanted to allow medical providers easier access to administer intravenous substances) has critical design flaws causing it to deteriorate or migrate (move throughout the body). As a result, patients have sustained various life-threatening injuries, including perforations of organs and blood vessels as a result of a defective Bard PowerPort device.

The pending lawsuits allege that Bard knew about the risk of migration and infection along with other severe injuries yet ignored these potentially serious problems. 

It is crucial to begin the process of filing your claim as soon as possible. Our dedicated team of Bard PowerPort injury lawyers stands ready to navigate you through this journey, securing the financial compensation you deserve. Reach out today at 866-535-9515 or fill out our simple online form to schedule a free consultation.

Bard PowerPort Lawsuits Table of Contents

Bard PowerPort Lawsuit Basics

The Bard PowerPort is a port catheter device most commonly used for chemotherapy treatments. Bard PowerPort lawsuits are an attempt to hold Bard (Bard Access Systems, Inc.) and its parent company (Becton, Dickinson & Co.) liable for their failure to warn patients and the medical community about the PowerPort catheter's propensity to cause injuries like blood clots and severe infections. Further, we have seen many instances of catheter fracture and migration.

Port Catheter Lawsuit Allegations

Plaintiffs allege in numerous PowerPort lawsuits that Bard concealed device failures from medical professionals and the general public. Further, these lawsuits allege that Bard knowingly engaged in deceptive conduct.

Patients are seeking financial compensation for their legal damages, including medical bills, lost wages, and pain and suffering, with the help of experienced Bard PowerPort lawyers like the team behind Lawsuit Legal News (LLN).

LLN Mission: Provide Bard PowerPort Lawsuit Updates

Our team at Lawsuit Legal News aims to keep this page up to date regarding the Bard PowerPort Lawsuit progress, including changes in the litigation, updates on the court proceedings, and any information that points toward a possible settlement. Over 100 lawsuits are involved in the Bard PowerPort Multidistrict Litigation (MDL). It has become readily apparent that certain Bard PowerPort devices can fracture and break apart inside the body.

Bookmark this Bard Power Port Lawsuit page to stay informed.

June 6, 2024 - What's Upcoming in the Bard PowerPort MDL

In an MDL case, a joint memorandum is a document filed collaboratively by both the plaintiffs' and defendants' attorneys. It addresses specific issues that the judge wants clarified or handled and is part of the MDL’s purpose of streamlining the pretrial process.

The purpose of a joint memorandum is to present both sides' perspectives on specific topics the judge wants addressed in the MDL. It encourages an efficient solution to common issues across all the consolidated lawsuits and, ideally, minimizes redundant discovery efforts. Just like the MDL in general, a joint memorandum saves time and resources for both parties and the Court by focusing on what both parties already agree on and highlighting what areas are still contested and need to be addressed with the judge. Essentially, it’s a document written by both parties That tells the judge here is what we agree on, and here is what we don't agree on so that the judge knows exactly what needs to be addressed without going over any issues that the defendants and plaintiffs have already agreed on. 

As it stands right now, the joint memorandum ordered by Judge Campbell for July 8, 2024, will address the following points:

Both parties have reached an agreement on search terms for electronically stored information (ESI), like electronic documents, emails, etc. This means they found common ground on the terms to look for in the ESI for the first 30 people involved in the case (aka custodians). By July 1, 2024, the defendants need to mostly finish finding this information for those 30 people. The parties are set to report on the status of their discussions by July 8, 2024, in a joint memorandum. If the parties can’t agree on this issue before June 13, 2024, they will need to involve the Court to schedule a quick conference. The same is also true with any other time-sensitive discovery issues that are being handled by both parties.

Discussions are still ongoing for the second group of 30 custodians, with a deadline of August 15, 2024.

However, no agreement has been reached yet on which date all important documents from DocuShare (a document-sharing system) need to be turned over. The defendants will need to give an update on this issue at the next case management conference.

Finally, efforts to reach a ‘stipulation on successor liability’ will need to be included in the July 8 report. This means both parties’ lawyers are trying to agree on whether successor liability is applicable in this case. This case involves Bard but its unclear what role Becton, Dickinson and Company (BD) who acquired C.R. Bard, Inc. in December 2017 will play.

All of this is to say that there are many discovery disputes—as we have covered in many of the updates below—and the court is eager to start moving forward to bellwether trials so that the legal theories and evidence can be tested with a real jury. But first, discovery needs to be worked out, especiall in the issues addressed above.

Next Steps:

  • July 1, 2024: Deadline for defendants to complete most of the ESI production for the first 30 custodians.
  • July 9, 2024: The Eighth Case Management Conference will be held.
  • August 15, 2024: Deadline for the second round of 30 custodians.

May 28, 2024 - Case Management Order #23 Offers Solutions to Ongoing Discovery Battles in Bard PowerPort Lawsuit 

Judge Campbell issued the latest case management order (#23) on May 24th, which offered several ways to resolve current discovery disputes between both parties. 

The Court identified two PowerPort lawsuits defendants claim have provided inconsistent information. Defense lawyers were provided two days to email the plaintiff's lead counsel and spell out exactly what inconsistency remains. In turn, plaintiffs have fourteen days to provide a clear and complete response. Failure to comply could result in the plaintiff's paying defense attorney's fees. 

Defendants referenced six lawsuits wherein the plaintiff has failed to provide all medical records listed on plaintiff profile forms. Defense lawyers for the defendant manufacturer have been provided two days to email lead plaintiffs' counsel and precisely identify the missing records. Plaintiffs are then afforded fourteen days to comply. 

Judge Campbell also addressed a number of Bard PowerPort lawsuits wherein plaintiffs have failed to amend their PFF's after March 15th to assert port body claims. Further, the order provides analysis on why disclosing the existence of a port body claim is essential to the bellwether process. 

Finally, Judge Campbell has scheduled the 9th case management conference in the Bard PowerPort Lawsuit for 10:00 a.m., July 9, 2024. The Bard PowerPort lawsuits allege the defendant manufacturer concealed the dangers and risks of harm associated with the implantable port catheter device. Further, the lawsuits allege Bard was well aware of risks associated with catheter fracture resulting in catheter migration.

May 13, 2024 - Judge Campbell Issues Case Management Order #22 to Deal With Plaintiff Profile Forms in Bard PowerPort Lawsuit

The defendants have raised multiple issues related to incomplete plaintiff profile forms. Defendants are seeking to exclude such cases from potential bellwether trials. There are now over 200 Bard PowerPort lawsuits filed in the MDL. 

Judge Campbell has scheduled a remote status conference for May 24th, to go over issues concerning incomplete plaintiff profile forms and the proportionality of discovery. Bard has again raised issues concerning the amount of documents plaintiffs are seeking in discovery. The issue of proportionality is common in mass torts and it will be interesting to see how Judge Campbell handles this matter.

May 7, 2024 - Joint Status Report Updates the Bard PowerPort Lawsuit and Ongoing Discovery Process

A joint status report filed today indicates there are now 223 Bard PowerPort Lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. The report indicates a number of Bard PowerPort lawsuits flooded the MDL before the April 1, 2024, deadline, to be considered for the bellwether selection process. Further, the report indicates another status conference has been set for May 24th to ensure the discovery process continues without significant issues.

May 10, 2024 - Selecting Cases for the Bellwether Trials

C.R. Bard, BD, and Becton Dickinson marketed the PowerPort catheter as safe and effective. However, the 250+ lawsuits filed into the MDL say that is not true. The plaintiffs claim that the manufacturers knew or should have known that the Bard PowerPort catheter is prone to degrading, splintering, or moving, and these defects have caused them to suffer serious infections, blood clots, and other complications.

As we know, both parties are currently collecting and sharing evidence of these claims in the discovery process. Once both parties have all the information they need, which is one of the things they are discussing today (May 10, 2024), they will start to select the cases they will use in the bellwether trials. They will initially need to report 24 possible cases to the Judge by July 1, 2024. 

Then, the defense and plaintiffs will have to agree on just six final cases that will actually be heard in the bellwether trials. This list of six claims is due by March 10, 2025. 

After the bellwether cases are selected, both parties will work to prepare those cases for trial by collecting evidence, conducting depositions, and anything else they need to succeed.

Then, the test trials can begin. We think the trials will begin in late 2025 or early 2026.

Once we have the results from the bellwether trials, we will have a much better understanding of how this lawsuit will go in general. The bellwether trials are literally sample cases that are selected specifically because they represent the 250 claims as a whole and because they present the most compelling evidence (or defense if your Bard’s lawyers).

At that point, we can give you a better understanding of how the settlement negotiations are likely to go.

May 9, 2024 - Hearing Scheduled to Address Missing Items from the Plaintiffs

Both parties are scheduled to meet with Judge Campbell tomorrow (May 10, 2024) to discuss issues with the discovery process. The defense wants the courts to compel the plaintiffs to produce missing Plaintiff Profile Forms (PPF), as well as missing and incomplete medical records, so they can fully evaluate the claims. 

In the May 7 status report, the defense mentioned that they received an influx of cases in the days before the April 1, 2024, deadline (as we discussed below) and that some of the claims submitted lacked adequate information in the PPFs. 

According to the report, there are currently 31 cases that have deficient PPFs.  

A Plaintiff Fact Sheet (PFS) is a questionnaire filled out by the plaintiff and their attorney with relevant information about their case. There is also a shortened version of the PFS called a Plaintiff Profile Form (PPF), which is a quick summary of the case’s details. These forms are used in MDL cases because conducting normal discovery through interviews and depositions would be nearly impossible, considering the number of cases.

The PFS and PPF both include similar information; one is just more thorough than the other. They include things like:

  • Case caption and date filed
  • Plaintiff contact information
  • Date of birth and social security number
  • Specifics about the medical device in question (manufacturer number, lot number, date of implant)
  • Alleged injuries
  • Doctors and healthcare providers
  • Relevant medical history
  • Employment history
  • Extended medical history
  • Pharmacy history
  • Insurance providers

Any fact sheets or profile forms that are not submitted by the Judge's deadline will not be allowed to move forward. However, collecting that evidence is not always easy for the plaintiff attorneys since you cannot force your client to produce the information you need. This is likely the reason these PPFs were incomplete and the attorneys are trying to hold out to give their client a fair chance at collecting the information.

May 7, 2024 - Status Update Reports Over 250 Possible Barth PowerPort Cases in the MDL

Complaints continue to be filed over allegations that the Bard catheter port implants are defectively designed and cause devastating infections and injuries.

In a Bard PowerPort lawsuit status report (PDF) submitted by both parties on May 7, lawyers reported that at least 223 cases had been filed into the MDL, with another 29 possibly being transferred soon. This means there are about 250 total claims in the MDL, which also means there are 250 cases eligible to be chosen for the bellwether trials.

Both parties must now select which of these 250 cases to use for the bellwether trials. The bellwether trials in this litigation will consist of 24 cases that will act as test trials to gauge the veracity of the claims and the jury's reaction. Judge Campbell has given the parties until July 1, 2024, to submit their list.

The report also updated the court on the status of proceedings between the two parties. 

According to the attorneys, both parties are getting along well, discovery is going smoothly, and any issues that have arisen during this process have so far been resolved. 

The report noted that an influx of Bard PowerPort lawsuits were filed right before April 1st, the cutoff for filing claims that attorneys wanted to be eligible for the bellwether trials. Of course, the defense took this opportunity to brag to the judge that they worked day and night to deal with these new cases so that they didn’t waste any of the Honorable Judge’s time.

There will be another case management conference held on May 24 to update the court on how things are going between the two parties.

May 1, 2024 - New Injury Alleged in Bard Power Port Lawsuit, 187 Cases Now Filed in Bard PowerPort MDL

In April, a woman filed a lawsuit claiming a defective Bard Power Port caused atrial fibrillation. At Lawsuit Legal News, we are seeing mostly infection, catheter breakage, and thrombosis injuries, so it will be interesting to see how this lawsuit fares in the MDL arena.

Also, about 50 new cases were added to the Bard PowerPort MDL last month, compared to just 33 the month before. This is likely not a sign of anything, as lawyers across the country need to do their due diligence before they request to transfer a case into the MDL.

April 10, 2024 - Pretrial Discovery Battle Over CEO's Documents

There's a struggle going on in the Bard PowerPort lawsuit over documents that the plaintiffs want to include in the lawsuit, but the defendants are pushing back. This is exactly what an MDL is designed to handle. This pretrial dispute will be handled one time in the District Court by Judge Campbell, and that ruling will stand. Now imagine if all of these cases were filed separately across the nation and dozens of courts had to all hear the same arguments over this contended discovery. It would be a huge waste of time and would also create contradicting decisions. Since this is a great example of why multidistrict litigation is so helpful, I thought I would include it in this update.

The plaintiffs in the Bard lawsuit want the former CEO, Tim Ring, to hand over his work documents so that they can be entered into evidence. The plaintiffs argue that Tim Ring's documents—because of his role as CEO and handling of the upper levels of the company's dealings—may include crucial information that is relevant to the plaintiff's case. They argue that these documents could provide vital insights into the company’s decisions and knowledge related to the defective bard powerport devices.

The defense lawyers for Bard do not want the former CEO to be required to turn over his documents. They argue that the plaintiffs could gather the same information from other sources and that going through a mountain of documents that a high-level executive would create would be too much work. They claim the few relevant documents they might find in Ring's files are not worth the work to get them.

The truth is, they are pushing back because larger corporations, like Bard Access Systems, try to keep their upper management out of lawsuits whenever possible. Attorneys have been known to reveal lots of secrets when they dig through C-level executives' documents, correspondence, and memos. Bard's attorneys know that it's possible the plaintiffs will find damaging evidence.

The Judge's decision on this matter could be a big deal because it may uncover what Bard's executives knew about the defective catheters with Bard PowerPort devices, what they chose to do or not to do about the problem, and the extent of what they knew about the injuries, chronic pain, and severe complications that their implantable powerport devices were causing.

This information can play a big role in deciding the outcome of the lawsuit.

April 8, 2024 - Bard PowerPort Judge Issues Case Management Order #20 Focused on Discovery Protocol

April 8, 2024 - Judge Campbell just issued CMO #20, which spells out how specific materials related to the defective port catheter are to be preserved by all parties going forward. CMO #20 is a preservation order that is specifically focused on explanted devices or portions of such or any tissue explanted or excised from the device and in the possession of the plaintiff's counsel, experts, or vendors retained by the plaintiff, along with medical facilities. The lone exception is medical facilities that have received such materials from the plaintiff's treating physician acting in the normal scope of business.

This order is focused on the preservation and storage (i.e., the chain of custody) of the pertinent evidence enabling plaintiffs to illustrate injuries caused by defective implantable ports which are already known for catheter occlusion. Despite the fact that a Bard PowerPort recall has not occurred as of date, we have a number of clients alleging their PowerPort fractured, resulting in serious complications to the patient's vascular system or internal organs. 

Bard PowerPort lawsuits allege Bard failed to provide adequate warnings of the health risks associated with the implantable port catheter. A number of our clients who experienced catheter fractures required surgery. We believe the manufacturing and design flaws make the implantable port catheter device prone to pinch off or fracture and migrate to other areas of the body, which generally requires surgery.

April 2, 2024 - Bard PowerPort MDL Grows Slowly

April 2, 2024 - Unlike other defective product mass tort cases, such as litigation involving CPAP machines, hair relaxers, and toxic baby food, this PowerPort MDL involves a limited number of potential plaintiffs. Thankfully, only a small number of patients require a surgically implanted port, so fewer people are at risk of harm from these defective bard powerport devices.

However, this litigation continues to grow, with 10 new cases joining the MDL in the past 30 days bringing the total number of plaintiffs to 116.

March 25, 2024 - Judge Campbell Approves Plaintiff Fact Sheet in PowerPort Lawsuit

March 25, 2024 - Bard PowerPort MDL Judge David Campbell approved a plaintiff fact sheet (also referred to as "PFS")  that both parties previously submitted.  The PFS is a thorough document that allows a plaintiff to explain their background and answer several questions about their medical history, the underlying reason why they received the Bard PowerPort device, and the existence of medical records supporting their claim.  

Judge Campbell also modified a prior section requiring plaintiffs to disclose specific information alleging the reservoir or port was defective as opposed to many claims that allege the ports had defective material that comprised the catheter.

March 17, 2024 - Judge Campbell Orders Bellwether Trial Selection to Proceed in Bard Port Catheter Lawsuit

March 17, 2024 - The LLN team expected this would be a fast-moving lawsuit, especially regarding bellwether trials. Judge Campbell's latest order confirmed our suspicions when the judge issued an order indicating he would not tolerate any delays in the bellwether process. 

Attorneys for C.R. Bard and its parent company, Becton Dickinson, argued that not enough lawsuits have been filed to find enough representative claims for selecting bellwether trials. There are presently 113 lawsuits alleging a defective port catheter device resulted in migration which caused vascular damage (including perforations of blood vessels), severe infections, organ damage, organ perforation, deep vein thrombosis (DVT), and pulmonary embolism, among other very serious injuries. 

Judge Cambell's order requires both plaintiffs and defendants to use the Marker Group for the collection of medical records on behalf of the plaintiffs. Each plaintiff's medical records will be kept on a secured database that both parties can use throughout the duration of this lawsuit. 

Additionally, Judge Campbell clarified the required details in the plaintiff's fact sheet (PFS) after both parties agreed on the terms. The plaintiffs have until March 27, 2024, to file an amended master complaint and add port reservoir allegations. 

The parties now have until March 10, 2025, to select six bellwether trials and perform case-specific discovery beginning this summer. We anticipate the very first bellwether trial in the Bard PowerPort litigation will take place in the fall of 2025. 

We do not believe a Bard PowerPort settlement is likely in 2024. In fact, extensive discovery and the selection of bellwether trials may force C.R. Bard and Becton Dickinson to the settlement table beginning in early 2025.

Bard Power Port Lawsuit MDL being held at Sandra Day O'connor US Courthouse_Dolman Law Group

March 4, 2024 - Two Plaintiffs in the Bard PowerPort MDL Have Already Died. Case Count Rises to 106

March 4, 2024 - If a plaintiff dies while their personal injury lawsuit is pending, a formal notification must be filed with the court. This notification is called a Suggestion of Death. When this happens, the official plaintiff's name is changed to the deceased person's representative. Also, additional legal counts may be added to request damages for the person's wrongful death and/or a survival action for the family.

Unfortunately, two of the original Bard PowerPort MDL plaintiffs have passed away, and suggestions of death have been filed. These sad occurrences remind us about how severe these injuries can be and the need for swift justice for the victims of these defective devices.

As of the start of March, seven more lawsuits have been filed in the MDL, bringing the total number of cases to 106.

February 17, 2024 - JPML Rules Defect Claims Concerning Bard PowerPort Reservoir are a Part of MDL

February 17, 2024 - The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has determined that the inclusion of the Bard PowerPort Reservoir defect claims would allow for "just and efficient conduct of the litigation" in a transfer order filed in the past week.

Defendants such as C.R. Bard, Inc.; Becton, Dickinson & Company; and Bard Access Systems, Inc., argued that allowing PowerPort reservoir defect claims would impermissibly expand the scope of the Bard port lawsuit. Plaintiffs allege the port reservoir component of the Bard PowerPort device is made of Polyoxymethylene (POM) and is prone to oxidative degradation, which results in fissures, cracks, and defects. In turn, this can lead to catheter failure.

February 12, 2024 - Port Catheter Lawsuit Discovery Hearing in March

February 12, 2024 - Judge Campbell has set a hearing for March 1, 2024, in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona (Phoenix). The purpose of this hearing is to resolve any present discovery issues. Both parties were tasked at the last hearing with finalizing a preservation order. The preservation order would apply to all ports that were explanted due to an injury.

March 4, 2024 - Two Plaintiffs in the Bard PowerPort MDL Have Already Died. Case Count Rises to 106

March 4, 2024 - If a plaintiff dies while their personal injury lawsuit is pending, a formal notification must be filed with the court. This notification is called a Suggestion of Death. When this happens, the official plaintiff's name is changed to the deceased person's representative. Also, additional legal counts may be added to request damages for the person's wrongful death and/or a survival action for the family.

Unfortunately, two of the original Bard PowerPort MDL plaintiffs have passed away, and suggestions of death have been filed. These sad occurrences remind us about how severe these injuries can be and the need for swift justice for the victims of these defective devices.

As of the start of March, seven more lawsuits have been filed in the MDL, bringing the total number of cases to 106.

February 17, 2024 - JPML Rules Defect Claims Concerning Bard PowerPort Reservoir are a Part of MDL

February 17, 2024 - The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has determined that the inclusion of the Bard PowerPort Reservoir defect claims would allow for "just and efficient conduct of the litigation" in a transfer order filed in the past week.

Defendants such as C.R. Bard, Inc.; Becton, Dickinson & Company; and Bard Access Systems, Inc., argued that allowing PowerPort reservoir defect claims would impermissibly expand the scope of the Bard port lawsuit. Plaintiffs allege the port reservoir component of the Bard PowerPort device is made of Polyoxymethylene (POM) and is prone to oxidative degradation, which results in fissures, cracks, and defects. In turn, this can lead to catheter failure.

February 12, 2024 - Port Catheter Lawsuit Discovery Hearing in March

February 12, 2024 - Judge Campbell has set a hearing for March 1, 2024, in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona (Phoenix). The purpose of this hearing is to resolve any present discovery issues. Both parties were tasked at the last hearing with finalizing a preservation order. The preservation order would apply to all ports that were explanted due to an injury.

February 2, 2024 - Bard PowerPort Lawsuits Steadily Grow

February 2, 2024 - Only 69 federal lawsuits were included in the Bard PowerPort MDL in 2023. In the first month of 2024, 30 new cases joined the MDL, bringing the total number of pending lawsuits to 99. January 2024 saw the largest monthly volume of new cases so far in this consolidated litigation. Although this MDL will not be large because the pool of injured people is relatively small, we expect many more new filings in the coming months.

Judges to Consider Adding Claims Alleging Separate Defect to Existing Bard PowerPort MDL

January 17, 2024 - Thus far, patient complaints regarding Bard PowerPorts have largely focused on the defect in the polyurethane catheter tubing. Plaintiffs say that Bard Access Systems created a flawed product by using the incorrect ratio of barium sulfate to polyurethane which caused the tubing to deteriorate. Furthermore, they claim the manufacturer then suppressed reports of related infections and blood clots from the public for years.

A different group of plaintiffs is now making a case that their PowerPort implantable port lawsuits should be considered under the current Bard PowerPort multidistrict litigation, which represents 73 claims as of January 2024. 

Their allegations also pertain to the shoddy materials Bard used in their PowerPort designs. The new plaintiffs say that they have experienced life-threatening infections related to malfunctioning port reservoirs. They attribute their injuries to Bard's use of polyoxymethylene, which compromised the port, leading to cracks that accumulated harmful bacteria. Ultimately, it will be up to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to decide if

  1. the claims are reasonably similar,
  2. whether adding these cases to the Bard PowerPort MDL is fair to both parties and
  3. if doing so best serves the interests of the court.

New Lawsuit Alleges Bard Port Caused Infection

January 9, 2024 - A man in Mesa, Arizona, recently filed a lawsuit in the Bard PowerPort MDL against four defendants regarding problems he suffered as a result of a PowerPort isp M.R.I. implantable port. The man allegedly developed an infection that he attributes to manufacturing flaws in the PowerPort implantable port. The lawsuit names Bard Access Systems, Inc., Becton, Dickinson and Co., C.R. Bard, Inc., and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. as defendants.

While a significant portion of Bard port lawsuits relate to infections, we are noticing a growing number of cases related to a product defect claim concerning the port itself. In fact, flaws in the material and construction of the Bard port have led to much more troubling outcomes. 

The port is comprised of polyoxymethylene (POM) which is subject to oxidative degeneration. As the material degrades, the port can fracture and literally break apart. In turn, the defective port catheter's fractured pieces can then migrate through the body and pierce internal organs. This material can be found in every last Bard PowerPort device. 

PowerPort Lawsuit Judge Extends Deadline For Joint Order Regarding Evidence Preservation

January 5, 2024 - Judge Campbell has allowed the parties in the Bard PowerPort lawsuit more time to provide a joint order addressing the preservation of relevant evidence. Safeguarding the evidence is critical for plaintiffs to establish that Bard Access Systems has been aware of the defect in their product's polyurethane tubing for years but did not make this knowledge public. Also, a status conference is set for January 8, 2024.

2023 Closes With 71 Bard PowerPort Lawsuits in MDL

As of the end of 2023, 71 lawsuits have been transferred or filed directly into the Bard PowerPort MDL, which is centralized in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona and assigned to Judge David G. Campbell. 

Many of these lawsuits were filed in various Federal Courts around the nation and transferred into this MDL back in September. These 71 lawsuits revolve around plaintiffs who sustained similar complications from the implanted port catheter system. 

Plaintiffs allege design defects resulted in the breakdown of barium sulfate particles from Bard PowerPort's surface. The team at Lawsuit Legal News has also seen devices that have malfunctioned or migrated to other areas of the victim's body. In some cases, particles from the catheter entered the bloodstream, resulting in a host of issues. These injuries include:

  • Arterial thrombosis
  • Bloodstream infection
  • Organ damage
  • Cardiac perforation
  • Perforation of blood vessels
  • Deep vein thrombosis
  • Thromboembolism
  • Pulmonary embolism
  • Organ perforation
  • Cardiac tamponade
  • Cardiac arrhythmia and
  • Hematomas

Bard PowerPort MDL Judge Addresses Discovery Process and Deadlines

December 3, 2023 - Judge Campbell issued multiple case management orders laying out the process and timelines for discovery through the bellwether trials. Bellwether trials are a group of cases that are heard and decided by a jury to help both sides in a lawsuit evaluate how juries will view the scientific evidence and determine responsibility.

The results of bellwether trials help determine whether other cases will settle and for how much. The discovery process will run from November 20, 2023, through January 31, 2025. Expert witness reports will be presented at that point, and trials will likely begin in mid-2025.

Bard PowerPort MDL Master Complaint Approved for Port Catheter Lawsuits

November 16, 2023 - A status conference in the Bard PowerPort MDL was held, and Judge Campbell approved and entered a master complaint form following the hearing. This uniform document will allow plaintiffs to file a bard powerport catheter lawsuits directly into the MDL rather than filing in a different federal court and requesting a transfer to the MDL.

Protective and Preservation Orders Requested by October 27

October 17, 2023 - Judge Campbell has asked counsel for both sides to submit protective orders and preservation orders by October 27, 2023. Further, he asked both parties to come to terms on a short-form master complaint, which will allow plaintiffs to file a Bard PowerPort lawsuits directly into the MDL. 

Leadership Appointed in Bard PowerPort Litigation

September 19, 2023 - Judge Campbell appointed leadership counsel to run the Bard port catheter lawsuit. In total, 39 lawyers will sit on the plaintiff's steering committee for the Bard Implanted Port Catheter Products Liability Litigation. Three lawyers were selected as lead counsel, eleven attorneys make up the Plaintiff's Executive Counsel ("PEC"), and twenty-five additional lawyers were selected to serve on the Plaintiff's Steering Committee ("PSC") and several sub-committees.

JPML Consolidates Bard PowerPort Lawsuits Into an MDL

August 8, 2023 - The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) has centralized all Bard port catheter lawsuits filed in Federal Courts throughout the nation to the United States District Court for the District of Arizona before Judge Dan G. Campbell. The purpose of consolidation is to streamline pretrial proceedings such as discovery. Judge Campbell had previously presided over the Bard IVC filter MDL, so he is well suited for this role. The MDL has been entitled "Bard Implanted Port Catheter Products Liability Litigation." We expect advertising to start soon, and the growth of Bard PowerPort cases in the MDL will soon follow.

JPML Hearing Set to Determine Fate of Bard PowerPort Class Action Lawsuit

July 15, 2023 - The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation is set to meet in two weeks to hear a motion to consolidate the Bard PowerPort catheter device class action lawsuit. We project the Judicial Panel will select the United States District Court for the District of Arizona as the home jurisdiction for consolidating the Bard PowerPort class action.

February 2, 2024 - Only 69 federal lawsuits were included in the Bard PowerPort MDL in 2023. In the first month of 2024, 30 new cases joined the MDL, bringing the total number of pending lawsuits to 99. January 2024 saw the largest monthly volume of new cases so far in this consolidated litigation. Although this MDL will not be large because the pool of injured people is relatively small, we expect many more new filings in the coming months.

Judges to Consider Adding Claims Alleging Separate Defect to Existing Bard PowerPort MDL

January 17, 2024 - Thus far, patient complaints regarding Bard PowerPorts have largely focused on the defect in the polyurethane catheter tubing. Plaintiffs say that Bard Access Systems created a flawed product by using the incorrect ratio of barium sulfate to polyurethane which caused the tubing to deteriorate. Furthermore, they claim the manufacturer then suppressed reports of related infections and blood clots from the public for years.

A different group of plaintiffs is now making a case that their PowerPort implantable port lawsuits should be considered under the current Bard PowerPort multidistrict litigation, which represents 73 claims as of January 2024. 

Their allegations also pertain to the shoddy materials Bard used in their PowerPort designs. The new plaintiffs say that they have experienced life-threatening infections related to malfunctioning port reservoirs. They attribute their injuries to Bard's use of polyoxymethylene, which compromised the port, leading to cracks that accumulated harmful bacteria. Ultimately, it will be up to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to decide if

  1. the claims are reasonably similar,
  2. whether adding these cases to the Bard PowerPort MDL is fair to both parties and
  3. if doing so best serves the interests of the court.

New Lawsuit Alleges Bard Port Caused Infection

January 9, 2024 - A man in Mesa, Arizona, recently filed a lawsuit in the Bard PowerPort MDL against four defendants regarding problems he suffered as a result of a PowerPort isp M.R.I. implantable port. The man allegedly developed an infection that he attributes to manufacturing flaws in the PowerPort implantable port. The lawsuit names Bard Access Systems, Inc., Becton, Dickinson and Co., C.R. Bard, Inc., and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. as defendants.

While a significant portion of Bard port lawsuits relate to infections, we are noticing a growing number of cases related to a product defect claim concerning the port itself. In fact, flaws in the material and construction of the Bard port have led to much more troubling outcomes. 

The port is comprised of polyoxymethylene (POM) which is subject to oxidative degeneration. As the material degrades, the port can fracture and literally break apart. In turn, the defective port catheter's fractured pieces can then migrate through the body and pierce internal organs. This material can be found in every last Bard PowerPort device. 

PowerPort Lawsuit Judge Extends Deadline For Joint Order Regarding Evidence Preservation

January 5, 2024 - Judge Campbell has allowed the parties in the Bard PowerPort lawsuit more time to provide a joint order addressing the preservation of relevant evidence. Safeguarding the evidence is critical for plaintiffs to establish that Bard Access Systems has been aware of the defect in their product's polyurethane tubing for years but did not make this knowledge public. Also, a status conference is set for January 8, 2024.

2023 Closes With 71 Bard PowerPort Lawsuits in MDL

As of the end of 2023, 71 lawsuits have been transferred or filed directly into the Bard PowerPort MDL, which is centralized in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona and assigned to Judge David G. Campbell. 

Many of these lawsuits were filed in various Federal Courts around the nation and transferred into this MDL back in September. These 71 lawsuits revolve around plaintiffs who sustained similar complications from the implanted port catheter system. 

Plaintiffs allege design defects resulted in the breakdown of barium sulfate particles from Bard PowerPort's surface. The team at Lawsuit Legal News has also seen devices that have malfunctioned or migrated to other areas of the victim's body. In some cases, particles from the catheter entered the bloodstream, resulting in a host of issues. These injuries include:

  • Arterial thrombosis
  • Bloodstream infection
  • Organ damage
  • Cardiac perforation
  • Perforation of blood vessels
  • Deep vein thrombosis
  • Thromboembolism
  • Pulmonary embolism
  • Organ perforation
  • Cardiac tamponade
  • Cardiac arrhythmia and
  • Hematomas

Bard PowerPort MDL Judge Addresses Discovery Process and Deadlines

December 3, 2023 - Judge Campbell issued multiple case management orders laying out the process and timelines for discovery through the bellwether trials. Bellwether trials are a group of cases that are heard and decided by a jury to help both sides in a lawsuit evaluate how juries will view the scientific evidence and determine responsibility.

The results of bellwether trials help determine whether other cases will settle and for how much. The discovery process will run from November 20, 2023, through January 31, 2025. Expert witness reports will be presented at that point, and trials will likely begin in mid-2025.

Bard PowerPort MDL Master Complaint Approved for Port Catheter Lawsuits

November 16, 2023 - A status conference in the Bard PowerPort MDL was held, and Judge Campbell approved and entered a master complaint form following the hearing. This uniform document will allow plaintiffs to file a bard powerport catheter lawsuits directly into the MDL rather than filing in a different federal court and requesting a transfer to the MDL.

Protective and Preservation Orders Requested by October 27

October 17, 2023 - Judge Campbell has asked counsel for both sides to submit protective orders and preservation orders by October 27, 2023. Further, he asked both parties to come to terms on a short-form master complaint, which will allow plaintiffs to file a Bard PowerPort lawsuits directly into the MDL. 

Leadership Appointed in Bard PowerPort Litigation

September 19, 2023 - Judge Campbell appointed leadership counsel to run the Bard port catheter lawsuit. In total, 39 lawyers will sit on the plaintiff's steering committee for the Bard Implanted Port Catheter Products Liability Litigation. Three lawyers were selected as lead counsel, eleven attorneys make up the Plaintiff's Executive Counsel ("PEC"), and twenty-five additional lawyers were selected to serve on the Plaintiff's Steering Committee ("PSC") and several sub-committees.

JPML Consolidates Bard PowerPort Lawsuits Into an MDL

August 8, 2023 - The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) has centralized all Bard port catheter lawsuits filed in Federal Courts throughout the nation to the United States District Court for the District of Arizona before Judge Dan G. Campbell. The purpose of consolidation is to streamline pretrial proceedings such as discovery. Judge Campbell had previously presided over the Bard IVC filter MDL, so he is well suited for this role. The MDL has been entitled "Bard Implanted Port Catheter Products Liability Litigation." We expect advertising to start soon, and the growth of Bard PowerPort cases in the MDL will soon follow.

JPML Hearing Set to Determine Fate of Bard PowerPort Class Action Lawsuit

July 15, 2023 - The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation is set to meet in two weeks to hear a motion to consolidate the Bard PowerPort catheter device class action lawsuit. We project the Judicial Panel will select the United States District Court for the District of Arizona as the home jurisdiction for consolidating the Bard PowerPort class action.

PowerPort Basics: How Are Bard PowerPort Catheters Used?

In general medical terms, a catheter is a thin tube made from medical-grade materials that allows the movement or drainage of fluids and gases within the human body. Catheters can be inserted to treat diseases or medical conditions or to perform surgical procedures.

Bard PowerPorts are catheter devices that are surgically implanted under the skin, usually in the arm or chest. The PowerPort has one or more sealed basins and a catheter tube. The tubing is inserted into a large central vein and allows fluids such as chemotherapy or IV medications to be pumped directly into the bloodstream.

This method improves the way medication is introduced into the body system. However, flawed catheter tubing can cause various severe problems. These problems are now forming the basis of the Bard PowerPort product liability lawsuits.

Why Would a Medical Provider Use a Bard PowerPort?

Once a port is implanted, a healthcare provider can use a Huber needle to help treat a patient with minimal pain because these non-coring needles are typically high gauge, meaning they have smaller diameters. The port functions as a prolonged access site for medical providers to administer everything from antibiotics to chemotherapy, as well as to withdraw blood. This eliminates the need for constant large needle sticks each time a new fluid is given, which also reduces patient discomfort.

The power injection capability means that the device can also be used for Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography (CECT) scans. This is a type of CT scan where a liquid, which functions like a dye, is injected into the patient to create a distinction between different areas on the scan, allowing doctors to better visualize problem areas.

Bard PowerPorts may be chosen over other methods for other reasons, as well, including:

  • Reduced infection risk - The Bard PowerPort catheter is fully internal. Traditional injections are at higher risk for infection because of their exposure to bacteria.
  • Comfort and quality of life - Reduces the need for frequent needle sticks and provides a more comfortable experience for patients (in theory).
  • High flow rate - Because certain treatments require fast infusion of medication or fluids, the PowerPort makes a good option in the Doctor's eyes, for its ability to quickly deliver medication to the patient.
  • MRI compatibility - If regular imaging studies are needed, a doctor may choose Bard PowerPort, as they won't have to remove the device every time an MRI is needed.
  • Discretion and mobility - The patient can freely move around without tubes or wires inhibiting them throughout the day.

Doctors saw the benefits of using Bard PowerPorts for their patients because of the many positives. Patients relied on the safety of these catheters to make their lives easier, their appointments free from pain, and their lives more comfortable.

Unfortunately, many patients have only experienced more complications as a result of using the device, not the increased comfort and ease of use that the brand marketing focuses on. Our committed team of Bard PowerPort injury lawyers is prepared to guide you through, ensuring you receive the compensation you deserve. Contact us today at 866-535-9515 or fill out our brief online form to arrange a complimentary consultation.

Understanding How Bard PowerPorts Are Defective

Bard PowerPort Defects, Complications, and Failures

Chronoflex Tubing Is Big Part of PowerPorts' Failure

Bard PowerPorts may have a dangerous design flaw related to its catheter tubing. The catheter component of the Bard PowerPort is constructed from a polyurethane material known as Chronoflex AL. The tubing needs to be semi-flexible in order to be inserted into a blood vessel, but the combination of materials that make it pliable also makes it prone to failure and compromises the structural integrity. The flexible tube is known as a catheter which is attached to a port. More specifically, Bard PowerPort catheter tubing is partially made of barium sulfate, which acts as a contrast for X-rays, and polyurethane, a class of polymers commonly used in foam. This tubing is called Chronoflex AL, supplied by AdvanSource Biomaterials Corporation to Bard for the PowerPort devices.

When improperly mixed or combined in an incorrect ratio, the barium sulfate can cause the polyurethane catheter to break down. As the catheter deteriorates, it can create serious problems by:

  • Fracturing and splintering off into the body
  • Moving from its original location and/or
  • Developing pits that can collect bacteria and cause an infection

In the Bard PowerPort Lawsuits, plaintiffs allege that the level of barium sulfate used in the catheter tubing was too high, leading to serious medical problems.

More specifically, the concentration of the barium sulfate is alleged to be too dense to blend properly with the polyurethane materials. As a result, the barium sulfate was not evenly distributed when it was combined with the polyurethane, creating deposits and air pockets that weaken the tubing. This effectively made the Bard PowerPort catheter tubing brittle instead of flexible and prone to breakage. These defects also resulted in a rough catheter surface, which serves as a breeding ground for harmful bacteria. This significantly raises the risk of infection and sepsis, making the PowerPort not only unreliable but potentially dangerous for patients.

Fracturing and Breaking of the PowerPort

One of the primary complications associated with the Bard PowerPort is the propensity for the device to fracture or break. These structural failures often occur due to the inherent flaws in the Chronoflex AL material. As microfractures develop over time, they compromise the integrity of the catheter, making it prone to complete breaks. When a catheter fractures, it can lead to severe medical complications. Pieces of the broken catheter can migrate through the bloodstream, potentially lodging in vital organs and causing blockages or other critical issues. Patients may experience sudden pain, swelling, and bruising at the catheter site, necessitating emergency medical interventions. The fracturing of the PowerPort not only undermines the device’s primary function of facilitating safe and effective drug delivery but also poses significant health risks, prompting numerous lawsuits from affected patients seeking compensation for their injuries and subsequent medical costs.

Migration or Moving of the PowerPort

Another significant issue with the Bard PowerPort is its tendency to migrate or move from its original implantation site. This migration is often a consequence of the structural weaknesses and improper manufacturing practices associated with Chronoflex AL. When the catheter weakens and fractures, it can dislodge from its position, traveling to unintended parts of the body. This movement can lead to blockages in blood vessels or organs, causing severe health complications. Symptoms of PowerPort migration include abnormal swelling, pain, and difficulty in administering medication through the port. In some cases, additional surgeries are required to retrieve the migrated catheter and prevent further damage. The unpredictable movement of the PowerPort exacerbates the risk to patients, rendering the device unreliable for long-term medical use and contributing to the growing body of litigation against Bard.

Infections Caused by PowerPort

Infections are a major concern with the Bard PowerPort, often stemming from the flawed surface integrity of the Chronoflex AL catheter. The presence of microfractures, pits, and cracks on the catheter surface creates an ideal environment for microbial colonization. These structural imperfections allow bacteria and fungi to accumulate and thrive, significantly increasing the risk of infection at the implantation site. Infections can lead to severe complications, including sepsis, which is life-threatening if not promptly treated. Patients may experience fever, chills, redness, and swelling around the port site. In many cases, infections necessitate the removal of the PowerPort and intensive antibiotic treatment, further complicating the patient’s health and treatment regimen. The high incidence of infections linked to the PowerPort underscores the critical nature of the device’s defects and the resultant legal actions from affected individuals.

Blood Clots Caused by PowerPort Design

The design and material flaws of the Bard PowerPort also contribute to an increased risk of blood clots. The irregular and rough surface of the Chronoflex AL catheter, marked by microfractures and fissures, can disrupt normal blood flow and promote clot formation. These clots can obstruct the catheter, rendering it ineffective for drug administration and increasing the risk of serious complications such as deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism. Symptoms of blood clots include swelling, pain, and discoloration of the skin around the catheter site. If a blood clot dislodges, it can travel to the lungs, heart, or brain, leading to potentially fatal outcomes. The propensity for blood clots associated with the PowerPort’s defective design further highlights the device’s hazards and the urgent need for accountability and rectification by the manufacturer.

Which Injuries Are Associated With Defective Bard PowerPort Device?

Patients with defective Bard PowerPort catheter implants have reported several severe and potentially life-threatening injuries related to the decomposition and migration of the devices. The law firm associated with Lawsuit Legal News is working with numerous clients who allege their port fractured, the device failed, and broken pieces migrated as a result of Bard's defective design.

Most of the patients' injuries pertain to cardiovascular damage caused by the flawed ports. With implantable port devices, one of the major risks is blood clots. These clots can travel to the heart, lungs, or brain and cause serious issues, including stroke, heart attack, and more. Thus far, Bard PowerPorts have been connected to a wide variety of injuries. Malfunction and migration of the Bard PowerPort implant have led to the following injuries:

  • Tachycardia (Unusually Fast Heartbeat): This is a condition in which the heart rate exceeds the normal resting rate, potentially leading to complications if left untreated. It is generally manageable with medical intervention and not immediately life-threatening unless accompanied by other complications.
  • Severe and Persistent Pain: Intense and ongoing pain that can stem from the detachment of the catheter device, often requiring comprehensive pain management strategies. While debilitating, pain itself is not life-threatening but is a symptom that requires investigation and management.
  • Hematoma or Hemorrhage: A collection of blood outside of blood vessels caused by a break in the wall of a blood vessel. They can vary in severity but are often treatable unless they occur in critical areas or are extensive.
  • Pneumothorax (Collapsed Lung): Occurs when air enters the space around the lungs, leading to lung collapse and potentially respiratory failure. Serious and needs prompt treatment but typically not immediately life-threatening with proper medical care.
  • Hemothorax: Blood accumulation in the pleural cavity (blood pooling between the chest wall and lungs) that can compress the lungs and impair breathing. It is similar in severity to pneumothorax and requires immediate medical intervention.
  • Pulmonary Pseudoaneurysm: An injury in the lung's blood vessel wall resulting from trauma or medical procedures. It requires medical attention to prevent complications but is generally not as immediately dangerous as aneurysms in critical arteries.
  • Cardiac Arrhythmia: Cardiac Arrhythmia is an abnormal heart rhythm that can range from benign to life-threatening. It impacts how effectively the heart pumps blood. Severity can vary widely; some forms are relatively benign, while others require urgent care.
  • Vascular Damage: This is an injury to the blood vessels that can compromise blood flow and lead to various complications, including clotting and tissue death. This can lead to serious complications depending on the extent and location of the damage.
  • Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT): Formation of a blood clot within a deep vein, typically in the legs, which can cause pain, swelling, and serious health issues if the clot travels to the lungs. Potentially life-threatening due to the risk of pulmonary embolism if the clot dislodges.
  • Blood Clots: Abnormal formation of blood clumps inside blood vessels, which can restrict or block blood flow and lead to serious health complications. The risk level depends on the clot's location and size. It can become life-threatening if it travels to vital organs.
  • Infections From Bacterial Growth: These infections occur when bacteria proliferate uncontrollably in or on the body, potentially causing severe systemic infections. If not treated promptly, they can range from local infections to life-threatening septicemia.
  • Cardiac Punctures: Injury to the heart muscle caused by a puncture, which can lead to severe bleeding and other cardiac complications. Serious condition needing immediate care to prevent major complications, though somewhat controllable if caught early.
  • Perforations of Organs and Blood Vessels: Refers to holes or tears in organs and blood vessels, often leading to leakage and significant internal damage. Immediate medical intervention is crucial; can rapidly become life-threatening.
  • Cardiac Perforations: Cardiac Perforations refer to a tear or hole in the wall of the heart, which can lead to critical blood leakage and necessitate immediate medical intervention. They are extremely serious and carry a high risk of mortality without immediate surgical intervention.
  • Pulmonary Embolism: A blockage in one of the pulmonary arteries in the lungs usually caused by blood clots that travel from the legs or other parts of the body. It can block the blood flow to the lungs, which can be extremely dangerous and may be immediately life-threatening.
  • Cardiac or Pericardial Tamponade: A critical condition where fluid accumulates in the pericardium (the sac around the heart), severely restricting heart function. Acute and life-threatening, requiring emergency treatment to prevent heart failure.
  • Organ Damage: Organ damage can refer to an injury to any organ that can compromise its ability to function properly, potentially leading to life-threatening situations. As the defective device, or more accurately, pieces of it, move throughout the body, it can affect almost any organ. The severity and risk depend on the organ involved but can be life-threatening if vital organs are affected.
  • Heart Attack or Myocardial Infarction: A heart attack occurs when blood flow to a part of the heart is blocked for a long enough time that part of the heart muscle is damaged or dies. Immediate medical intervention is critical to survival; can be fatal if treatment is delayed.
  • Stroke: This occurs when the blood supply to part of the brain is interrupted or reduced, preventing brain tissue from getting oxygen and nutrients and leading to brain cells dying. Extremely critical condition that can lead to death or severe long-term disabilities if not promptly treated.

Bard PowerPort Defects Cause Complications For Patients Who Are Already Battling Existing Health Conditions

Patients who have Bard PowerPort catheters are usually already seriously ill, which means that a malfunctioning catheter tube can be even more dangerous to their health. For example, patients receiving chemotherapy typically have fragile immune systems, so if a defective PowerPort used to administer their treatment causes an infection, it can quickly become deadly.

If you suspect any problems with your Bard PowerPort or experience signs of an injury from the device, contact your healthcare provider immediately. The most important reason you should notify your doctor about any port-related problems is to protect your body and avoid further injury.

However, from a legal perspective, if you fail to seek medical care when needed, an insurance company or medical device manufacturer can try to challenge your credibility to reduce your legitimate legal claim. They may argue your injuries are not as severe as you claim and try to reduce or deny the compensation you truly deserve.

Bard PowerPort Lawsuit Plaintiffs Allege the Company Was Aware of Critical Issues But Buried the Evidence

Plaintiffs have accused Bard Access Systems of intentionally withholding information about the defective catheter tubing used in the Bard PowerPorts. Healthcare providers reported problems with the device after their patients began developing blood clots and infections that were traced back to the deteriorating port catheter tubing. 

These healthcare professionals did the responsible thing and informed Bard Access Systems and Becton Dickinson & Company about their patients' injuries. In fact, these concerns have been repeatedly conveyed to Bard Access Systems as "adverse event reports" since Bard PowerPorts became publicly available more than 20 years ago.

Similar port products made by other companies received considerably fewer complaints, reinforcing the theory that Bard should have reasonably known that the catheter tubing of their PowerPorts was faulty.

How Bard Access Systems Evaded Accountability for Decades

Despite receiving physicians' notifications about potentially harmful port defects, Bard Access Systems used its special clearance to avoid publicizing these reports. The Bard PowerPort had received FDA approval to be marketed before completing the usual level of testing under the agency's §510(k) provision

This provision allows early marketing of devices that are deemed similar enough to other products that are already FDA-approved. This designation also allowed Bard to circumvent standard FDA reporting protocols that would have otherwise made the adverse event reports publicly accessible.

Instead of taking responsibility and issuing a recall, Bard Access Systems and its parent company, Becton Dickinson & Company, did not warn providers, continued to market and manufacture the defective PowerPorts, and inaccurately claimed that any fracturing of the catheter tubing was attributable to surgical error. Bard's conduct will likely be used against it to establish liability in the personal injury claims brought against them. 

PowerPort Product Liability Lawsuits Are Based on Failure to Warn and Defective Design Theories

What are the Bard PowerPort lawsuits alleging, and how does that fit within product liability laws?

Bard PowerPort Lawsuit Allegations

We plan to demonstrate the Bard PowerPort devices are defective and dangerous. This can lead to potential infections. Further, Bard Powerport implanted port failures can cause organ damage, deep vein thrombosis, and potentially death.

Product liability cases differ from regular personal injury cases because they depend on proving that a product is defective and requires certain elements. Here's a breakdown of why a product might be considered defective:

  1. Design Defect: We plan on proving that the catheters had a design defect, which occurs when the way a product is designed makes it unsafe. Imagine a toy with small parts that are choking hazards for young children. In this case, it's the design of the toy that makes it unsafe. The same would go for something like a lithium battery in a cell phone that was effectively designed, causing it to catch fire.
  2. Flawed Manufacturing Practices: Defects can also occur during the production process due to human errors, machine errors, and all kinds of other things that can go wrong in a huge factory. For instance, a car might have faulty brakes because they were assembled improperly on the manufacturing line.
  3. Negligent Distribution: Defects can also be caused by improper handling or storage as the product moves through the distribution chain. A medication, for example, could go bad if it's not stored in a cool, dry place during distribution. This could make the product either not work at all or cause it to work incorrectly. This would still be considered a defective product.
  4. Failure to Warn: Finally, the manufacturer has a responsibility to warn the public about the potential risks associated with using the product. For example, if an implanted medical device broke down and released harmful chemicals into the body, causing serious injuries, and the manufacturer knew or should have known that this could happen, then the product would be considered defective.

In the Bard PowerPort lawsuits, plaintiffs could potentially argue that Bard Access Systems was negligent based on multiple legal theories. Adverse event reports have revealed many injuries from Bard PowerPorts, the most worrisome of which are catheter fractures, catheter breakage, and catheter migration.

Let our attorneys help you get the compensation you deserve if you suffered injuries due to a Bard catheter PowerPort. Contact us today at 866-535-9515 or fill out our online form to arrange a complimentary consultation.

Product Liability Theories That Support a Bard PowerPort Lawsuit

One of the strongest legal arguments relates to the polyurethane catheter tubing that was poorly conceptualized because the ratio of the two key ingredients ultimately renders the product defective. In addition to the ratio problem, the manufacturing process did not fix or compensate for this error, and the barium sulfate was allowed to clump instead of mix evenly with the polyurethane material, resulting in tubing that is inclined to break down.

Finally, Bard Access Systems and Becton Dickinson & Company did not warn the medical community using these devices or the patient consumers receiving the ports about the problems associated with Bard's PowerPorts. Medical device manufacturers have a duty to safeguard potential users.

By law, a product manufacturer has a legal duty of care to warn consumers if the maker is aware, or should have been aware, of trouble related to the product. In Bard's case, the company was notified about the polyurethane catheter tubing issues, so Bard Access Systems should be legally obligated to warn prescribing doctors and patients about the potential danger of their defective port catheter.

When the maker of a faulty product fails to fulfill their duty of care to consumers by creating a dangerous product and concealing harmful defects, they can be held liable for compensating the injured plaintiffs who were harmed by their malfunctioning or dangerous medical device. Many injured plaintiffs are currently seeking compensation in the Bard PowerPort lawsuit multidistrict litigation.

Which Damages Can You Request in a Bard PowerPort Claim?

When life-threatening injuries are involved in a product liability claim, the financial damages can be extensive. Bard PowerPort plaintiffs may suffer ongoing costs related to health issues resulting from a defective polyurethane tube, such as a serious infection, organ damage caused by a blood clot, or permanent disability from a stroke.

Product liability lawsuits allow the injured party to seek compensation for economic and non-economic damages to help restore the injured person's life to how it was before they were injured by a defective medical device.

If your PowerPort polyurethane catheter tubing fractured or your port moved from its original placement, you are probably facing bills for additional treatment, having to take time off work to receive medical care or to rest and recover, and incurring other unexpected costs.

We speak to clients almost every day who tell us stories of unexpected medical bills, increases in childcare costs because they can't handle what they used to, increased food costs because they don't have the energy to cook for their family like they once did, and on top of all of this, they are missing work to attend doctors appointments and to recover and aren't being compensated for that missed time off work.

Many of these clients get paid by the hour, and if they aren't at work, they don't get paid. We also see many single parents who are living paycheck to paycheck and just cannot handle this type of burden. At its very core, that is what a personal injury attorney does—we help people to recover financial compensation, not just because they can, but to compensate them for all these expenses that suddenly came up due to no fault of their own.

We understand that these financial costs can add up quickly, but you can request compensation for these losses, and we can help.

These expenses are called damages in personal injury law, and it is the term you will hear when are referencing anything from a medical bill to pain and suffering. Damages can be divided into two main categories, economic damages and non-economic damages.

Economic damages are those things you can put a price on, like a bill, childcare payment, or lost wages. Non-economic damages are those things that you cannot put a price on but still deserve compensation, like stress, pain and suffering, and a loss in the quality of your life.

Examples of potential damages you may be able to recover in a Bard PowerPort lawsuit include:

  • Medical bills
  • Lost wages
  • Cost of a new catheter port
  • Pain and suffering
  • Loss of quality of life

And if the defective catheter port caused your loved one to pass away, you can also be compensated for wrongful death damages.

Steps to Take if You've Experienced Serious Side Effects as a Result of Using a Bard PowerPort Catheter

If you've used a Bard PowerPort catheter within the last decade and experienced serious side effects or developed issues as a result of use, you may be able to file a bard powerport lawsuit to receive compensation for your damages. If you've experienced serious side effects or developed cancer or other serious medical conditions as a result of use, you should take the following steps.

  1. Gather any medical documentation that you have regarding your Bard PowerPort catheter and any follow-up treatment that was required as a result of the serious side effects.
  2. If you're uncertain whether or not your condition resulted from using the Bard PowerPort, speak to your doctor about your side effects and symptoms.
  3. Schedule a free consultation with an experienced mass tort lawyer. An experienced Bard PowerPort lawyer will be able to walk you through the lawsuit process, making your job simple and stress-free.
  4. Continue receiving any treatment necessary for your condition while waiting for the results of your lawsuit.

Why You Need a Bard PowerPort Lawyer to Represent You

If you have a Bard PowerPort, there’s a greater possibility that you are navigating a serious health issue like cancer. If you have experienced an additional injury caused by a defective PowerPort, it is unlikely that you have the time or capacity to effectively represent yourself in a product liability claim. Defective device claims are especially complicated and require a high level of legal education and skill to successfully navigate the personal injury litigation process.

An experienced Bard PowerPort lawyer can help build your claim. We are well-versed in the defects and issues related to the implanted port device. In fact, we presently represent a number of individuals who sustained very serious injuries as a result of catheter migration, catheter fracture, and other harm like infections and blood clots.

Medical device companies and their insurers are motivated to protect their profits and their reputation. Accepting fault in a product liability lawsuit undermines both of these priorities. To safeguard their interests, companies like Bard Access Systems, along with Becton Dickinson and Company, as well as their insurance carrier, will utilize a sophisticated legal team, which means you should too. A personal injury attorney will be prepared for the complex workload that accompanies this type of claim.

Experienced Bard PowerPort lawyers will also have the resources to build a solid case on your behalf. Your injury attorney must be equipped to deal with procedural issues, gather and present evidence in a compelling manner, and provide the negotiating experience needed to recover the compensation you need.

Hiring a reputable product liability attorney to represent you shows the defendant’s legal team that you have someone fighting on your behalf to secure a settlement or verdict that accurately reflects your specific losses rather than accepting the first offer just to settle the case. You’re more likely to be taken seriously and receive a reasonable settlement with the help of a skilled personal injury lawyer affiliated with Lawsuit Legal News. Call 866-535-9515 or complete our online form for a free consultation with one of our Bard PowerPort Injury Lawyers today.

Not all personal injury lawyers have experience negotiating defective medical device claims, but extensive experience is essential to ensure your claim is protected and fairly compensated. 

The Lawsuit Legal News team represents clients seeking compensation for dangerous medical devices like metal-on-metal hip implants and CPAP breathing machines, and we won't back down from handling complex mass tort issues.

We can provide insightful, reliable legal advice about how to approach your Bard PowerPort lawsuit. As your defective medical device lawyers, we will work tirelessly to secure maximum compensation for your losses by demonstrating the defendant’s negligence, proving that they are liable, documenting your damages, and strategically advocating for the maximum amount of compensation for you during settlement negotiations or during through a trial and verdict.

Contact an Experienced Personal Injury Lawyer at LLN About Your Bard PowerPort Lawsuit

As a patient, you should be able to trust that medical devices are safe and effective, but unfortunately, this is not always the case. The flaw in Bard PowerPort catheter tubing has jeopardized the health and financial futures of numerous vulnerable patients over the past decades, while the manufacturer failed to issue a warning to alert the public about the risks. 

At Lawsuit Legal News, we believe that when a company like Bard Access Systems prioritizes profits over patient safety, it should be held accountable for the harm it causes. Our team of accomplished medical device lawyers will leverage evidence to show that the company's negligence led to life-threatening injuries that unfairly burden sick patients with additional medical bills, lost wages, and pain and suffering, along with other damages like emotional distress. You don’t have to suffer the financial and emotional consequences of your Bard PowerPort injuries without fair compensation.

If you were injured as a result of a Bard PowerPort implanted catheter migration, we would like to speak with you immediately. We are representing victims in catheter migration cases throughout the United States. We can determine if you are eligible to file a Bard PowerPort lawsuit. If your device migrated or fractured in any manner, you may be eligible to file a port catheter lawsuit.

The Bard Powerport multidistrict litigation is quickly progressing after plaintiffs’ attorneys proposed a leadership structure. It is crucial to begin the process of filing your claim sooner rather than later. Our team of Bard Powerport injury lawyers can guide you through the personal injury claims process to secure financial compensation.

Call 866-535-9515 today or complete our simple online form for a free consultation with one of our compassionate and tenacious Bard PowerPort Injury Lawyers.


FAQs about the Bart Powerport Lawsuit

Bard Power Port Defendant. The Bard PowerPort suit claims that the device has been damaged and can be susceptible to infection as well as thrombocytopenia, and even resulting in death. 25 avril 2020.

What are the symptoms of a defective Bard PowerPort?

It's important to understand that a defective Bard PowerPort may not cause any immediate symptoms, especially in the early stages of the device breaking or migrating. However, there are some potential problems that can manifest or things you can watch out for:

  • Catheter Issues: The most obvious sign or symptom is if you notice something wrong with the catheter itself.
    • Feeling or Noticing the Fracture: This can cause severe pain and bleeding and may require surgery to remove fragments.
    • Noticing a Migration: The catheter can move from its intended position, potentially causing problems with blood flow or organ damage.
  • Signs of Infection: This could include fever, chills, redness, swelling, or tenderness around the implant site.
  • Blood Clots: A defective catheter can increase the risk of blood clots, which can lead to serious complications like pulmonary embolism or stroke.
  • Other potential issues: Shortness of breath, chest pain, difficulty breathing, or abnormal heart rhythms.

If you have a Bard PowerPort and experience any of these symptoms, it's critical that you see your doctor or go to the hospital right away.

What is the lawsuit about chemo port catheters? What is the lawsuit against Bard catheters?

One of the companies that produce the ports used in chemotherapy (PowerPort catheters), specifically Bard Access Systems, is being sued for negligence and failing to warn patients that the devices could be faulty and may cause serious infections or clots. So far, there have been several cases of catheter fractures and movement which have led to serious injuries.

How much is the Bard PowerPort lawsuit payout?

The Bard PowerPort lawsuit is currently in its early stages, and there haven't been any finalized settlement amounts in any of the cases, and there definitely have not been any verdicts yet. However, attorneys involved in the Bard litigation are estimating that potential settlement amounts could range from $10,000 to over $250,000. This range depends on different factors, including the specific injuries and circumstances of a plaintiff (because, remember, the cases will be tried separately after the initial trial issues are solved in the MDL) and the progression of the lawsuits through the courts. In some cases like this, the defendants do not feel pressured to pay out a large amount, and in other cases, it's clear that if they do not settle for a set amount, they could end up paying much more due to the cost of litigation. These figures are just educated guesses based on outcomes from similar product liability lawsuits in the past. These dollar amounts, or even the accuracy of the guesses, are not guaranteed.

Remember, it's important to consult with an experienced mass tort attorney to discuss the specifics of your situation and to understand your options when it comes to filing a defective catheter port lawsuit.

Are Bard PowerPorts safe?

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has received hundreds of adverse event reports about the Bard PowerPorts, which has caused concerns and led to legal actions. For now, the products continue to be marketed as safe and effective without recalls or additional warnings required by the FDA or put out by the manufacturer, as of the latest update.

While Bard PowerPorts are widely used in chemo and for other serious illnesses and can function effectively under proper conditions, anyone with a PowerPort or who is thinking of getting one should be aware of the risks and discuss all possible options with your healthcare providers.

Has Bard even been sued before for medical negligence or defective products?

Bard is actually made up of a few companies. They include:

  1. Bard Access Systems
  2. C. R. Bard, Inc.
  3. Becton, Dickinson and Company (aka BD)
  • Hernia Mesh Lawsuits: Both Bard and its parent company BD have faced lawsuits related to their hernia mesh products. These lawsuits allege that the mesh caused injuries such as infection, organ perforation, and chronic pain.
  • PowerPort Lawsuits: Bard Access Systems is currently facing lawsuits related to its PowerPort devices. These lawsuits allege the devices fail, migrate, and create complications during insertion or removal procedures.
  • Transvaginal Mesh Lawsuits: C. R. Bard, Inc. has been involved in lawsuits related to its transvaginal mesh products. These lawsuits allege injuries such as organ perforation, chronic pain, and mesh erosion. Most of these cases were settled for roughly $200 Million.
  • Fault Heart Catheters (1993): C.R. Bard Lawsuits faced criminal charges for faulty heart catheters that malfunctioned. They settled out of court.
  • Over Marketing Practices: In 2020, BD settled a multiple state lawsuit with 48 different Attorneys General for $60 million over marketing practices related to their pelvic mesh products. The case centered on Bard violating state consumer protection laws by making misleading claims and failing to disclose the risks associated with their surgical mesh product that was used to treat women who suffered from conditions known as stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse.

In BD's 2019 annual financial report they disclosed that they set aside $2.5 billion for various product liability cases, which could include the PowerPort devices and a wider range of devices beyond Bard-related issues. This is nothing new. These giant companies basic "build in" a giant fund of money into their "costs" because they know they will eventually be sued for something being faulty or when they get caught failing to warn consumers. They just consider it the cost of the doing business, rather than making sure their products are safe.


Attorney Matt Dolman Discusses His Experience with Helping Injured Victims of Bard PowerPorts

Matt Dolman recounts what it's been like speaking to and helping people who have been injured because of Bard PowerPort, and why he is so passionate about helping them.

"I have always handled complex defective device litigation; it's one of my main passions because I got sick of seeing how medical companies and pharmaceutical companies always made mistakes and acted negligently, and it was always the everyday type of person who was being hurt.

While working on defective medical device cases, in particular, I've encountered many cases that profoundly affected the lives of people and their families when they were at their most vulnerable.

Out of all of these, the problems with the Bard PowerPorts have stood out due to the severe and life-altering injuries patients have experienced WHILE they are also dealing with other serious problems like cancer and a ton of other serious illnesses that required them to get a port in the first place.

Hearing firsthand from patients who contact me because they suffered due to Bard PowerPorts has been both heart-wrenching and motivating. These individuals who are already battling significant health challenges just wanted a solution to make their treatment more bearable. Instead, they got complications and more problems that, in some cases, have had devastating consequences on their health and well-being.

The common thread I've seen in these stories is the design flaws in Bard PowerPort devices that have caused patients to experience so much suffering. These issues like device deterioration, migration, and severe infections have caused these people to have vein perforations, bleeding, a build-up of blood around the heart, cardiac arrhythmia, and almost always severe and persistent pain. And of course there are a lot more.

I have tried my best to do whatever I can to help these people. And in this case, it's to listen, understand, and act.

The people I have spoken to and who have signed up for a Bard PowerPort lawsuit have placed their trust in me, and that's not something I take lightly. It's my responsibility to ensure their voices are heard in court and that they not only receive the money they need to pay their bills and rebuild their lives but that they also get some sense of justice after all the days, weeks, and months of suffering because of these implants.

The legal process in these cases is complex, involving an understanding of complex product liability laws and the medical and legal nuances involved. Our allegations against Bard focus on their failure to warn patients and the medical community at large about the risks associated with the PowerPort catheter, as well as the company's deceptive conduct in concealing their device's failures.

Through meticulous preparation and our collective experiences, I believe our team here at Dolman Law Group is not only capable but is the best team to show the extent of Bard's negligence and the impact that their actions have had on real patients' lives.

We know that it's important that empathy and expertise are at the core of our approach. My mindset is to let the physical and emotional toll these injuries have taken on patients and their families guide my strategy in every case. And I know that is how Stan and our other lawyers feel too.

We want to tell the story of each individual affected by these devices so they feel heard As I said, filing a lawsuit against Bard, Becton Dickinson, and the other manufacturers is not just about seeking financial compensation. It's about putting a spotlight on the negligence that allowed these devices to harm patients in the first place and pushing for change.

As we move forward with the litigation, we don't know what is going to happen. But my focus remains on achieving justice for those harmed by Bard PowerPorts. The courage of my clients to face these powerful corporations is a stark reminder of my role in helping them and the role that my job can have in bringing about change that truly helps people.

Hear from Real People Who Have Shared Their Bard PowerPort Stories

The following are real stories from patients who have or had a Bard PowerPort installed in their body. For lots of people, the port is convenient since it prevents having to be poked hundreds of times during treatment for blood draws and medication injections. But for others, the reward was not worth the outcome.

“I have a Bard PowerPort, and I found out that cancer patients are prone to blood clots, and I just had surgery. Now I am experiencing pain, redness, and swelling, and I had to get booked for a scan.”

-Cancer patient worried about possible blood clots


“My [Bard] PowerPort catheter line was sore to the touch, especially where it went over my clavicle bone. I have had two clots (subclavian and internal jugular) at the same time. The other night I woke up to my right arm being almost triple the size, all the way to my fingers, and that’s how I knew something was wrong. It could be positional pain or even a pocket infection, but I am still waiting to get it checked out.”

-Patient suffers subclavian and jugular blood clots


“My [Bard] PowerPort catheter line was sore to the touch, especially where it went over my clavicle bone. I have had two clots (subclavian and internal jugular) at the same time. The other night I woke up to my right arm being almost triple the size, all the way to my fingers, and that’s how I knew something was wrong. It could be positional pain or even a pocket infection, but I am still waiting to get it checked out.”

-Patient suffers subclavian and jugular blood clots


“My [Bard] PowerPort catheter line was sore to the touch, especially where it went over my clavicle bone. I have had two clots (subclavian and internal jugular) at the same time. The other night I woke up to my right arm being almost triple the size, all the way to my fingers, and that’s how I knew something was wrong. It could be positional pain or even a pocket infection, but I am still waiting to get it checked out.”

-Patient suffers subclavian and jugular blood clots


“I had a port removed because of an infection. I felt like I got punched in the chest. It was only in for eight weeks. Then, I had to have that one removed and a new port placed on the opposite side two weeks ago. Ice has helped a lot, and I am taking Tylenol to help with the pain. I will have to wait and see how this port works out.”

-Woman had port removed due to painful infection


“I have a Bard PowerPort. I got it placed on March 3, 2023. For the last two days, I've been dealing with soreness and mild pain at the site. It's not the port itself though; it's the catheter part that hurts. It's been used twice, and my third chemo is coming up. I have contacted my doctor, and they said it could be a sign of infection around the port site or a line infection.”

-Cancer patient worried about possible infection


“I know there’s a huge class action lawsuit about Bard PowerPort. I had one installed and nearly died! Parts broke off and caused clots and could have caused a pulmonary embolism or worse. I recommend that you have your team check EVERYWHERE for clots and get it replaced if possible if you have one.”

-Parts of PowerPort broke off in the patient's body.


“[Bard PowerPorts] certainly make treatments easier and avoid collapsed veins, but like with every surgery, it has risks. My port resulted in infection after one use, was removed in the office, and is healing by secondary intention, which means the surgical incision was left open and needs to be packed and dressed daily as it heals from the inside out. [My] chemo is now delayed. I wish I never got one.” 

-Bard PowerPort user recalls infection after first use


“My port gave me a staph infection after a single treatment. I had Chemo last Friday. I got really sick over the weekend and went to my doctor on Monday. I was admitted to the hospital through the ER and had emergency surgery Tuesday morning to get it out. Now I have a big ugly scar. I spent five days in the hospital. I had a PICC line for IV antibiotics my mom had to give to me at home for three weeks. I had to have home nurses who came to get blood and change dressings. Getting it pulled out didn’t hurt–it just felt really weird. It was way worse going in. That was painful, and they said it wouldn’t be. But I’m defective, so of course, it didn’t go well. She had to try three times because my veins just weren’t cooperating. I was about a minute away from having to go downstairs to imaging to get it done. Once it was in, it hurt like hell, and I had to request more pain meds. Again, removing it wasn’t so bad, just weird. I don’t regret the port, mostly because I didn’t have a choice. They will not give me treatment without it. I had my appointment with an infectious disease doctor on like Thursday, I think, and will have my surgery scheduled for Friday, assuming I’d be cleared for a new port. Two ports. More ugly scars. But it is what it is.”

-Bard patient discusses his staph infection during chemo treatment


“My port isn’t for convenience. They will NOT give me chemo without it because of how harsh my drugs are on veins…I still know it’s there sometimes, but it doesn’t really hurt anymore. My first port did get infected after a single use. I wound up in the hospital for five days, had a fever of 103 degrees, and had home antibiotics for a month before I could get a new port to continue treatment.”

-PowerPort caused this patient's hospitalization, fever, and infection

Latest News