Bard PowerPort Lawsuit

Bard PowerPort Lawsuit Overview

The FDA approved the first Bard PowerPort catheter device in 2000, as a port catheter that is implanted under the skin to provide long-term and easy access to attach a catheter for the delivery of medication, intravenous fluids, parenteral nutrition solutions, and blood products.

Since the implantable port catheter device was introduced, a large number of individuals have reported problems with the Bard PowerPort catheters, including instances where the certain Bard PowerPort devices cracked, caused the catheter to fracture or migrate. These complications have resulted in severe infections, blood clots, cardiac punctures and many other life threatening injuries.

Bard PowerPort lawsuits are now being pursued against the manufacturer, alleging that there are dangerous design defects with the implantable port, and that the risk of port catheter complications associated with the products were not adequately disclosed to patients or the medical community.

Who is eligible for a Bard PowerPort lawsuit?

Financial compensation may be available through a PowerPort lawsuit settlement for individuals who received a Bard PowerPort implant and suffered any of the following complications:

• Infections (sepsis or septic shock)
• Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT)
• Hemorrhaging or Bleeding Injuries
• Cardiac/pericardial tamponade
• Cardiac arrhythmia
• Severe and persistent pain
• Perforations of tissues, vessels and organs
• Patient death
• Other injuries caused by fractured PowerPort catheter

To determine if you or a loved one may have a case, submit information for review by a port catheter injury lawyer, who will help evaluate the circumstances and determine if it can be established that problems were caused by a Bard PowerPort failure.

Attorneys handle all Bard PowerPort lawsuits on a contingency fee basis, which means that there are no fees or expenses paid unless a settlement or lawsuit payout is received.

2024 Bard Port Lawsuit Updates

November 13, 2024 Update: The U.S. District Judge overseeing Bard PowerPort lawsuits has denied a two-month extension for PowerPort lawsuit fact discovery, despite plaintiffs’ concerns about completing depositions over the holiday season. Discovery remains set to conclude by January 2025, with Judge Campbell directing all depositions to be scheduled by then. Following discovery, six bellwether cases are expected to be selected by March 2025, potentially setting the stage for trials in late 2025 or early 2026.

November 1, 2024 Update: The number of Bard PowerPort lawsuits have skyrocketed over the last 30 days, with 199 new claims added to the Bard Implanted Port Catheter Products Liability Litigation, bringing the total number of Bard PowerPort lawsuits filed to 720 as of November 1.

October 1, 2024 Update: As lawyers across the country continue to investigate new Bard PowerPort catheter fracture, migration and infection injuries, the number of claims being filed continues to drastically increase. The JPML reported an additional 94 Bard PowerPort lawsuits were added to the Bard Implanted Port Catheter Products Liability Litigation last month, bringing the total number of claims to 521.

September 4, 2024 Update: In a Bard PowerPort MDL docket update, nearly 100 new cases were added to the Bard PowerPort class action MDL in the past month, the highest monthly increase since the MDL’s inception. This surge brings the total number of pending cases in the MDL to 427.

August 13, 2024 Update: Similar to the Bard PowerPort litigation, which was formed following a growing number of lawsuits each raising similar allegations, several plaintiffs with pending AngioDynamics port catheter lawsuits have taken similar steps. They filed a motion to transfer with the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML), requesting that all cases concerning the device throughout the federal court system be consolidated and centralized for pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri. The plaintiffs note that there have been 20 AngioDynamics port catheter lawsuits filed in 16 different federal court districts. Each lawsuit raises similar allegations that the AngioDynamics port catheters are prone to developing microfractures. This is attributed to the use of barium sulfate in the manufacturing of the polyurethane catheter, which can lead to failures, increased risk of infections, device fractures, and blood clots.

August 5, 2024 Update: In the latest JPML docket report, 37 new Bard PowerPort lawsuits were filed in the Bard Implanted Port Catheter Products Liability Litigation over the month of July, bringing the total number of claims pending to 336.

July 9, 2024 Update: In a joint memorandum submitted to Judge Campbell on July 8, the parties exchanged lists of 24 initial Bard PowerPort bellwether lawsuits, which will go through case-specific discovery and be prepared for the first trial dates in the litigation. Plaintiffs in each of the lawsuits selected will now be required to submit Fact Sheets by July 31, 2024, providing written answers to a series of questions before the court can determine a schedule and protocol for conducting depositions and other case-specific discovery.

June 5, 2024 Update: In the latest Bard PowerPort case management order, key progress has been made in the discovery phase. The parties agreed on search terms for the first 30 custodians with a July 1, 2024, deadline and are discussing terms for the second group due by August 15, 2024. Some disputes remain unresolved, particularly regarding DocuShare document deadlines and successor liability issues. Agreements were reached on discovery scopes for specific medical devices and technologies. The next case management conference is scheduled for July 9, 2024, via Zoom. The parties are required to file a joint memorandum by July 8, 2024, providing updates on topics addressed in the order.

May 9, 2024 Update: In a joint Bard PowerPort lawsuit status report filed on May 7, lawyers indicated that both parties are progressing amicably with discovery, and are working together with a high degree of transparency and addressing document deficiencies. The report highlighted an influx of Bard PowerPort lawsuits filed before the April 1 cutoff for potential bellwether trials. Both parties have agreed to hold another case management conference on May 24 to update the court on record production and ongoing discussions.

May 1, 2024 Update: Despite arguments from the manufacturer to delay the bellwether process over the lack of claims filed, the U.S. JPML reported 76 new Bard PowerPort lawsuits were added to the docket since early March, showing an increase in momentum of the litigation. The total number of Bard PowerPort lawsuits filed to date in the MDL (3081) is now 189.

April 2, 2024 Update: Late last month, Judge David G. Campbell gave his approval for the use of Plaintiff Profile Forms (PPFs). Lawyers representing clients in this lawsuit are now required to fill out these 30-page documents. These forms serve as a crucial source of information for both the defense and the judiciary, encompassing eight key areas: personal and claim background, medical history, health insurance details, previous claims, witness information, document identification, and requests for documents. T

March 14, 2024 Update: Despite a request by the manufacturer to delay the process for selecting and preparing Bard PowerPort lawsuits for early bellwether trials, Judge Campbell issued a case management order this month stating that the current discovery expectations in the litigation should not be changed, and the bellwether process should proceed as scheduled.

March 11, 2024 Update: Among the 113 Bard PowerPort lawsuits filed against the manufacturer so far, plaintiffs have indicated complications were associated with at least 15 or 25 different Bard chemo port catheter products that have been included on a short form complaint established by the court. See a full list of the models named in complaints here.

February 27, 2024 Update: The parties filed a joint memorandum indicating that there are currently 113 claims pending in the multidistrict litigation, including 45 that have been directly filed with the MDL court, and another 66 cases that were transferred to the MDL from various different U.S. District Courts nationwide. The memorandum notes that plaintiffs report a variety of injuries, including 44 claims of catheter-related infections; 19 claims of thrombosis or blood clots, 27 involving port catheter fractures or migration, 9 involving chemo port fractures without migration and various other injuries in remaining complaints.

February 5, 2024 Update: The U.S. JPML issued a transfer order (PDF) on February 5, 2024, expanding the scope of the existing multidistrict litigation (MDL) for Bard PowerPort catheter lawsuits to also include lawsuits related to infections caused by defects in the Bard PowerPort’s port reservoir. Previously, the MDL was limited to claims concerning issues with the PowerPort catheters only. This expansion means that all Bard PowerPort lawsuits filed in federal courts alleging problems with both the catheter and the port reservoir, including those claiming infections from PowerPort reservoir defects, will now be included in the Bard Implanted Port Catheter Products Liability multidistrict litigation.

January 3, 2024 Update: Judge Campbell issued an order announcing that ultimately six cases will form Bard PowerPort lawsuit Bellwether Group 1, which will be the first cases prepared for early trial dates.

November 9, 2023 Update: Attorneys submitted a joint memorandum (PDF) on November 9, outlining a plan to select a group of representative cases to be prepared for early Bard PowerPort bellwether trials. According to the court filing, the plan calls for the parties to exchange a list of 24 PowerPort lawsuits each, for a total of 48, by July 1, 2024.

September 18 2023 Update: Lawyers met with Judge Campbell for an initial Bard PowerPort lawsuits status conference on September 18, to discuss the organizational structure for the litigation. At the conference, Judge Campbell appointed nearly 40 Bard PowerPort plaintiffs’ attorneys to serve in various leadership positions

August 8, 2023 Update: The JPML issued an order on August 8, transferring all Bard Port lawsuits to a new MDL to the U.S. District for the District of Arizona, where the claims will be assigned to Judge David G. Campbell for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

July 27, 2023 Update: A panel of federal judges considered oral arguments on July 27, 2023, to determine whether to establish a Bard PowerPort lawsuit MDL and what is the most appropriate venue. Plaintiffs have proposed the MDL be established in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, before either Judge Brian C. Wimes or Judge Stephen R. Bough, who are qualified and experienced jurists.

June 16, 2023 Update: The manufacturers of the Bard PowerPort oppose consolidation of lawsuits over port catheter complications, indicating in a memorandum filed this month that the litigation would not benefit from an MDL, since claims involve different models of implantable ports that were used for various medical treatments. The manufacturers also indicated they have resolved a number of cases in the past with little difficulty, suggesting that prior Bard PowerPort settlements or resolutions were reached within an average of 18 months without any formal MDL consolidation.

May 26, 2023 Update: Given common questions raised in a number of complaints filed throughout the federal court system, a motion was filed with the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML), seeking to consolidate and centralize all Bard implanted port lawsuits before one judge for discovery and pretrial proceedings.

Bard PowerPort Multidistrict Litigation (MDL 3081)

Due to the rapidly growing number of Bard PowerPort fracture and migration lawsuits being filed throughout various different federal courts, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) issued a transfer order (PDF) in response to a motion to consolidate the claims on August 8, 2023, ordering all PowerPort lawsuits to be centralized before one judge for pretrial proceedings.

While each of the Bard PowerPort lawsuits remains its own individual lawsuit, the cases have been centralized in the U.S. District for the District of Arizona before Judge David G. Campbell, who previously presided over a Bard IVC filter lawsuit MDL, which was established in August 2015 and included more than 8,000 claims at it’s peak.

As part of the management of the Bard PowerPort MDL (3081), it is expected that Judge Campbell will establish a bellwether process, where a small group of representative claims will be selected for case-specific discovery and a series of early trial dates.

Bard Implantable Ports Named In Lawsuits

Among the complaints brought so far, plaintiffs have indicated complications were associated with at least 15 or 25 different Bard chemo port catheter products that have been included on a short form complaint established by the court, which include:

• BardPort M.R.I. Implantable Port
• BardPort M.R.I. Low-Profile Implantable Port
• BardPort Titanium Dome Implantable Port
• BardPort Titanium Implantable Port
• M.R.I. Plastic Dual Lumen Port
• M.R.I. Ultra SlimPort Implantable Port
• Peritoneal Titanium Port
• PowerFlow Implantable Pheresis IV Port
• PowerPort ClearVUE isp Implantable Port
• PowerPort ClearVUE Slim Implantable Port
• PowerPort due M.R.I. Implantable Port
• PowerPort Implantable Port
• PowerPort isp Implantable Port
• PowerPort ism M.R.I. Implantable Port
• PowerPort M.R.I. Implantable Port
• PowerPort Slim Implantable Port
• PowerPort VUE M.R.I. Implantable Port
• PowerPort VUE Titanium Implantable Port
• SlimPort Dual-Lumen Rosenblatt Implantable Port
• Titanium Low-Profile Port
• Titanium SlimPort Implantable Port
• Vaccess CT Low-Profile Titanium Power-Injectable Port
• Vaccess CT Power-Injectable Port
• X-Port isp M.R.I. Implantable Port
• X-Port Low-Profile Titanium Port

What is the Bard PowerPort device?

The Bard PowerPort is a totally implantable vascular access device (TIVAD) that is placed below the skin to provide direct bloodstream access for medication administration or blood withdrawal. It includes an injection port for needle insertion and a polyurethane catheter tube for medication delivery to blood vessels.

The injection port contains a raised area where the needle is inserted for faster delivery of the medication. The medications then travel through a catheter that is placed inside one of the large central veins that carry blood to the heart.

Bard advertises that the PowerPort not only offers a faster and more convenient method of delivering medication or drawing blood, but that the PowerPort design can also withstand higher injection pressure.

However, a growing number of individuals are now reporting serious injuries and pursuing lawsuits alleging that Bard PowerPort complications could have been avoided if the manufacturer had adequately disclosed risks associated with the devices.

What is wrong with Bard PowerPort devices?

PowerPort catheter tubes are made of a material that lawsuits allege is prone to fissuring, cracking and fracturing. The catheter tubing in many Bard PowerPort devices is made of a flexible polyurethane polymer called Chronoflex, which is a mixture of polyurethane and barium sulfate.

Lawsuits indicate that problems with the Bard PowerPort stem from the use of high concentrations of barium sulfate, which is a chemical compound that is known to cause polyurethane’s mechanical integrity to break down, potentially resulting in microfractures, degradation, fissuring and cracking.

Improper mixing during the manufacturing process may result in pockets of barium sulfate and entrapped air being distributed through the catheter body and surfaces, according to complaints filed.  This can result in catheter cracks, fissures and pits.  Surface degradation may also increase the risk of thromboembolism or blood clots.

Studies Highlight PowerPort Blood Clot and Fracture Risks

Several studies have shown that using barium sulfate in the PowerPort and other devices may increase the risk of fractures, infections, and mechanical breakdowns.

PowerPort Catheters Prone to Surface Irregularities

One study published in the Journal of Biomedical Materials Research found that barium sulfate particles do not blend well with polymer catheters often used with TIVADs. The authors stated this failure to integrate can lead to the development of rough spots on the catheter surface, which can lead to blood clots.

PowerPort Catheter Fracture Risks

A study published in the Journal of Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials found that barium sulfate in TIVAD catheters can make them more likely to fracture and fail. The study showed that when barium sulfate particles fall off under pressure, they create weak spots that allow the catheter to break more easily.

Problems with Bard PowerPort Were Known for Years

In a number of Bard PowerPort injury lawsuits, plaintiffs maintain that Bard knew PowerPort catheter fractures, migrations and infections were being reported at higher rates than other similar products on the market, yet failed to act for years.

Bard Access Systems Inc., C.R. Bard, Inc. and Becton Dickson & Company now face lawsuit alleging that inadequate warnings were provided about the PowerPort problems for the medical community and the companies failed to conduct sufficient post-marketing surveillance to better identify reports of injury and death.

Lawsuits Claim Safer Alternatives Were Available

Plaintiffs maintain that serious and fatal injuries could have been avoided if a safer alternative design had been used. Lawsuits have pointed to a study published in Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation in 2010, which found the deterioration of barium sulfate can damage the surface of catheters, leading to more breaks and bacteria growth. Researchers suggested that a polyurethane coating could help prevent these problems and protect patients from injuries.

Rather than incorporating these changes, complaints allege the manufacturers concealed their knowledge about problems with the Bard catheters and continued to actively advertise the PowerPort as safe.

Bard PowerPort Complications & Injuries

Bard catheter failures have been reported at higher-than-expected rates among individuals with a PowerPort, according to lawsuits, which point to unique design features that may explain these risks. Some of the most frequently cited complications with Bard catheters in lawsuits include:

Was the Bard PowerPort device recalled?

No. The medical device manufacturer has not issued a Bard PowerPort recall over the catheter risks alleged in these lawsuits. Many plaintiffs maintain that the manufacturer should have recalled Bard PowerPort TIVADs or altered the design to make the products safer, but the FDA has not required such an action.

Even without recalling the port catheters from the market entirely, the manufacturer may be held liable for failing to establish and maintain adequate surveillance systems to identify Bard PowerPort problems, and failing to adequately inform or warn consumers and the medical community about the risks associated with the products.

Who is the Bard PowerPort lawsuit against?

Individuals throughout the U.S. have filed a Bard PowerPort lawsuit against the manufacturers of the device, including Becton Dickinson & Company, and its C.R. Bard and Bard Access Systems, Inc. subsidiaries.

These claims are being pursued as individual product liability lawsuits, and claims typically do not involve Bard PowerPort malpractice lawsuit allegations against any of the medical providers, as plaintiffs point out that healthcare providers were also misled to believe the products were safe.

Is there a Bard PowerPort class action lawsuit?

Currently, there is not a Bard PowerPort class action lawsuit for individuals who suffered injuries or wrongful death after receiving the port catheter. These claims are being pursued as separate product liability lawsuits against the manufacturer.

Since the problems experienced by each plaintiff are different, the claims can not be litigated through one class representative. Therefore, each individual who suffered an injury will hire their own Bard PowerPort lawyer to investigate their claim and file a TIVAD lawsuit on their behalf, establishing that their specific problems were a result of the Bard port catheter.

In the future, it is possible that a Bard PowerPort class action may be pursued for individuals who received the port catheter, but have not yet experienced any injury. Damages pursued through such a class action lawsuit over the Bard PowerPort may seek medical monitoring, refunds or compensation for the cost of port catheter procedures.

What is the average Bard PowerPort settlement amount or lawsuit payout?

There have not been any publicly disclosed Bard PowerPort settlements, and no individual case has gone before a jury. Therefore, there is not currently any average Bard PowerPort lawsuit payout or settlement amount. However, this page will be updated as future cases move forward and individual jury awards are returned.

The manufacturer has acknowledged in court filings that it has “resolved” a small number of individual lawsuits over the Bard PowerPort in the past, suggesting that TIVAD settlements were reached in those cases within an average of about 18 months, and at least eight cases resolved without a single deposition being taken. The average amounts of the Bard PowerPort settlements have not been publicly disclosed.

As more and more individuals come forward to file Bard PowerPort lawsuits, it does not appear the manufacturer intends to establish any global Bard PowerPort settlement fund, and lawyers are now preparing for lengthy litigation to establish the widespread nature of injuries associated with the port catheters and negotiate individual settlements.

How is a PowerPort lawsuit settlement calculated?

Future settlement negotiations to resolve Bard PowerPort lawsuits will be based on the individual facts and circumstances in each claim, and each plaintiff will have an opportunity to decide whether to accept any settlement offer in their lawsuit.

Multiple factors are considered when calculating a Bard PowerPort lawsuit settlement, including the likelihood the claim would be successful at trial and the amount of damages a jury may award.

Severity of injury or harm

This can encompass the nature of the physical injury, extent of pain and suffering, duration of the suffering, and any permanent disability or disfigurement caused by the PowerPort.

Medical expenses

These include past, current, and future estimated medical costs related to medical treatment caused by the harm;

Loss of earnings

This refers to the loss of income due to inability to work, either temporarily or permanently, due to the PowerPort injuries suffered;

Punitive damages

These are damages meant to punish the manufacturers for particularly egregious behavior and deter similar behavior in the future. Whether punitive damages will be awarded in Bard PowerPort lawsuits has not yet been determined.

Examples of Bard PowerPort Lawsuits

Bard PowerPort Embolism and Infection Lawsuit

Judy Hicks filed a PowerPort embolism lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on June 30, 2023, claiming she suffered a bloodstream infection and embolism due to a defective Bard PowerPort device containing a Groshong catheter.

Hicks claims the Bard PowerPort implantable port has an unreasonably dangerous design that caused her to undergo multiple surgeries, including a procedure to de-clot an embolism and another to remove the PowerPort.

Bard Chemo Port Fracture Lawsuit

Carrie Nedved filed a PowerPort fracture lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa on June 23, 2023, claiming that while she was undergoing chemotherapy for breast cancer, her PowerPort fractured and migrated, requiring her to undergo emergency surgery to remove fragments of the catheter that had traveled to her heart.

Bard PowerPort Wrongful Death Lawsuit

Christopher Cabello filed a PowerPort wrongful death lawsuit on behalf of his deceased wife, Elizabeth, in the Superior Court of New Jersey Bergen County on May 18, 2023, claiming her death was largely caused by a defectively designed Bard PowerPort that fractured and leaked while undergoing treatment for bladder cancer.

Cabello claims the Bard PowerPort implanted under her skin fractured, requiring emergency surgery to remove the implantable port device, which was a substantial contributing factor to her death.

Bard PowerPort Infection Lawsuit

Jean Cunningham filed a Bard PowerPort infection lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri on April 24, 2023, claiming the implantable catheter port contained a defective design that caused it to crack while she was undergoing treatment for multiple sclerosis.

Cunningham states that as a result of the Bard PowerPort fracturing, she developed an infection that has lead to permanent injuries and the need for catheter replacement surgery.

Bard PowerPort Lawsuit Over Bloodstream Infection

Mary Nelk filed a catheter infection lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on February 28, 2023, claiming the Bard PowerPort failed and caused her to develop a bloodstream infection.

Nelk claims the defective design of Bard’s catheters caused her multiple hospital admissions and have left her with severe and permanent injuries.

Bard PowerPort Thrombosis Lawsuit

Patrice Terry filed a PowerPort thrombosis lawsuit in the U.S. District Court Western District of Missouri on February 10, 2023, claiming a fractured PowerPort device caused her to develop deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in the jugular vein.

Terry states that she was required to undergo major surgery as she was receiving chemotherapy through the PowerPort device to treat her colon cancer.

Have a Bard PowerPort Injury Lawyer Review Your Case

Bard PowerPort lawyers provide free claim evaluations and consultations. There are no fees or expenses unless a recovery is obtained in your case.

How to file a Bard PowerPort lawsuit?

If you or a loved one were injured by a Bard PowerPort device, submit information about your potential claim for review by a Bard PowerPort lawyer to determine whether a settlement or lawsuit payout may be available.