MDL Sought for Angiodynamics Port Catheter Lawsuits Over Fractures, Infections, Blood Clots

A panel of federal judges has been asked to consolidate all AngioDynamics port catheter lawsuits filed in U.S. District Courts nationwide, calling for the litigation to be centralized before one judge for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

First introduced in 2003, the Angiodynamics Vortex is an implantable venous access device, which consists of port component and catheter, which is used to provide healthcare professionals the ability to easily inject medications, nutrients and other fluid products into a patient’s bloodstream.

Although the device is designed to be left in place long-term under the skin, a growing number of lawsuits claim Angiodynamics Vortex port catheter and similar products are prone to develop microfractures due to the use of barium sulfate in the production of the polyurethane catheter.

This can cause the structure of the Angiodynamics port catheter to fail, increasing the risk of infections, device fractures and blood clots, which could break off into the patients’ bloodstream, potentially damaging the heart and other organs.

The complaints raises allegations similar to those presented in hundreds of Bard PowerPort lawsuits currently pending in the federal court system, involving reports of hemorrhage, infections, sepsis, heart rhythm problems, severe pain, perforation of blood vessels and organs, and even death.

On July 25, several plaintiffs with pending AngioDynamics port catheter lawsuits filed a motion to transfer (PDF) with the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML), requesting that all cases brought over 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.

Plaintiffs indicate that, to date, there have been 20 AngioDynamics port catheter lawsuits filed in 16 different federal court districts, with three filed in the Western District of Missouri. The motion claims that the parties, witnesses and the court would benefit from the efficiencies of consolidating the cases before one federal judge, eliminating duplicative discovery, contradictory rulings and serving as a convenient focal point for the growing litigation.

“The Actions involve common issues of fact and law arising from product liability, personal injury claims against Defendants concerning their port catheter products,” plaintiffs wrote. “The objectives of transfer iterated by the Manual for Complex Litigation all support consolidation in this instance.”

Similar Allegations Raised in Bard Port Catheter Lawsuits

The litigation involves similar allegations to those raised in port catheter lawsuits filed against Bard, over similar problems with it’s PowerPort devices.

In August 2023, the U.S. JPML established a Bard port catheter lawsuit MDL, centralizing the claims before U.S. District Judge David G. Campbell in the District of Arizona, where more than 330 claims are currently pending.

As part of the coordinated pretrial proceedings involving the Bard PowerPort fractures and failures, Judge Campbell has ordered the parties to prepare a group of 24 cases for early trial dates, to help gauge how juries may respond to certain evidence and testimony that will be repeated throughout the litigation.

Plaintiffs pursuing Angiodynamics port lawsuits are requesting that a separate MDL be established, and it is expected that the U.S. JPML will schedule oral arguments on the motion during an upcoming hearing session to be held either on September 26 in Nashville, Tennessee, or on December 5, in New York City.

Similar to the Bard PowerPort lawsuits, if an MDL is established, complaints filed against Angiodynamics in U.S. District Courts throughout the country will be transferred to one judge for discovery, pretrial proceedings and potentially a series of early bellwether trials. However, if the parties fail to reach an AngioDynamics port catheter settlement agreement or another resolution during the MDL proceedings, each lawsuits may be transferred back to their originating districts for individual trial dates in the future.