Bard Port Catheter Lawsuit Alleges PowerPort Device is Defective, Unreasonably Dangerous

A Missouri man has filed a product liability lawsuit alleging that a Bard port catheter device, known as the Bard PowerPort, was defectively designed and caused him to develop a severe fungal infection.

The complaint (PDF) was filed by Vincent Anderson on May 9 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, presenting claims against Becton, Dickinson and Company, C.R. Bard, Inc., and Bard Access Systems, Inc., calling for both damages and for the Bard port catheter be recalled from the market.

The Bard PowerPort is a vascular access device, which is implanted below the skin to provide a catheter port that allows the easy delivery of medications to a patient’s blood stream. It consists mainly of an injection port, where the needle is inserted to deliver medications; and a polyurethane catheter tube which carries the drug into the blood vessel.

Unlike other implanted ports, such as Port-a-cath or Mediport, the Bard PowerPort is marketed as a special type of port catheter, which is intended to withstand higher injection pressures. However, Anderson now joins a growing number of individuals nationwide who are pursuing Bard PowerPort lawsuits, alleging that the catheter tube is prone to crack and fracture, increasing the risk of infections, deep vein thrombosis and other complications.

According to the complaint, Anderson had the Bard port implanted into his right internal jugular vein in March 2020 to receive injections of chemotherapy drugs to treat his urothelial cancer. However, he was readmitted to the hospital in December 2021 because the PowerPort had developed a fungemia infection.

The infected Bard port catheter was removed and Anderson was placed on an antifungal medication.

“Defendants misrepresented the safety of the PowerPort system, and negligently designed, manufactured, prepared, compounded, assembled, processed, labeled, marketed, distributed, and sold the PowerPort system as safe and effective device to be surgically implanted to provide repeated access to the vascular system for the delivery of medications, intravenous fluids, parenteral nutrition solutions, and blood products,” the lawsuit states. “Defendants knew and had reason to know, that the PowerPort was not safe for the patients for whom they were prescribed and implanted, because once implanted the device was prone to surface degradation and resulting thromboembolism, infection, mechanical failure, and a variety of other complications.”

Similar to other port catheter lawsuits,  Andersons claim states that soon after the Bard implantable port catheter was introduced to the market, the manufacturers began receiving reports of PowerPort problems, mostly concerning thromboembolism after implantation. These also involved injury reports including:

• Hemorrhage
• Infection and sepsis
• Cardiac/pericardial tamponade
• Cardiac arrhythmia
• Severe and persistent pain
• Perforation of organs, tissues and blood vessels
• Death

The lawsuit claims the manufacturers could have changed the design to make it safer for patients, but instead continued to aggressively market the device in order to maximize profits at the expense of potential patient injuries.

Anderson alleges the manufacturer’s actions constitute “willful, wanton, gross and outrageous corporate conduct”, since they failed to provide adequate warnings; failed to establish adequate post-marketing surveillance systems, and failed to issue a Bard PowerPort recall after discovering the defects associated with the device.