Sponsored Ads
Sponsored Ads
Short Summary
The Bard PowerPort lawsuit is federal multidistrict litigation, MDL No. 3081, now consolidating more than 3,300 product liability claims against C.R. Bard and its parent company, Becton Dickinson. Plaintiffs allege the implanted port catheter's polyurethane and barium sulfate material can crack, fracture, or migrate, causing infection, blood clots, and other serious complications. The first bellwether trial ended in a partial defense verdict in May 2026, no class action or global settlement exists, and five more bellwether trials are scheduled through February 2027.
The Bard PowerPort lawsuit refers to federal product liability litigation, formally In re: Bard Implanted Port Catheter Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3081, pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. Plaintiffs allege the device's catheter material degrades inside the body and can fracture, migrate, or trigger infection and blood clots. As of July 2026, more than 3,300 cases are pending, one bellwether trial has concluded with a split verdict for the defense, and no class action, recall, or nationwide settlement has been announced for the core defect claims.
What Is the Bard PowerPort Lawsuit About?
The Bard PowerPort is an implantable port catheter, sometimes called a port-a-cath, placed under the skin to give doctors repeated vascular access for chemotherapy, contrast dye injections, and other IV treatments without a new needle stick each time. C.R. Bard manufactured the device before Becton, Dickinson and Company (BD) acquired C.R. Bard in 2017 and assumed responsibility for its product lines.
Lawsuits allege the PowerPort's catheter, made from a polyurethane blend called Chronoflex AL combined with barium sulfate for imaging visibility, can become brittle and crack under normal conditions inside the body. Plaintiffs claim this can lead to catheter fracture, catheter migration, catheter embolization (fragments traveling through the bloodstream), infection, and blood clots, and that Bard did not adequately warn physicians or patients of these risks despite internal testing data. The legal theories pleaded across the litigation include design defect, failure to warn, negligence, and, in some complaints, consumer fraud.
Is There a Bard PowerPort Class Action Lawsuit?
No. Despite the phrase "Bard PowerPort class action" appearing frequently in search results, the PowerPort litigation is not a certified class action. It is a multidistrict litigation (MDL), a federal procedure that consolidates individually filed lawsuits with similar factual allegations before one judge for coordinated discovery and pretrial motions. Each plaintiff retains an individual case and, if it settles or goes to trial, an individual outcome, rather than sharing a single collective judgment as a class action would.
What Is MDL No. 3081 and Who Is Overseeing the Case?
A group of plaintiffs moved to consolidate Bard PowerPort lawsuits in May 2023. Following oral argument, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) granted centralization on August 8, 2023, creating MDL No. 3081, In re: Bard Implanted Port Catheter Products Liability Litigation, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. Senior U.S. District Judge David G. Campbell presides over the litigation. Judge Campbell also oversaw the earlier Bard IVC filter MDL, giving him direct prior experience with mass litigation against the same corporate defendants.
Bard and BD opposed consolidation, arguing in JPML filings that plaintiffs' attorney advertising had generated non-meritorious claims. The panel centralized the cases anyway, finding that shared factual questions about the catheter's design and warnings justified coordinated handling.
What Are the Latest Bard PowerPort Lawsuit Updates for 2026?
The case count has grown steadily since 2023 as more plaintiffs come forward and existing patients discover a possible link between their complications and the device. Reported figures vary slightly by source and reporting date because law firm tracking pages update on different schedules, but the growth trend is consistent across sources.
Pending Case Count Over Time
Pending Case Count Over Time
| Date | Approx. Pending Cases in MDL 3081 | Source |
| September 2024 | ~427 | AboutLawsuits.com monthly tracking |
| July 2025 | ~1,763 | AboutLawsuits.com monthly tracking |
| November 2025 | ~2,127 | AboutLawsuits.com monthly tracking |
| January 2026 | ~2,545 | Law firm docket tracking (File A Claim) |
| May 2026 | ~3,187 | Multiple law firm sources (consistent figure) |
| July 2026 | ~3,376 to 3,564 | Law firm tracking pages (range reflects differing update dates) |
Exact, officially audited totals are published periodically by the JPML in its pending MDL statistics reports rather than in real time, so the case counts above should be read as approximate snapshots reported by law firms and legal news outlets monitoring the docket, not as certified court figures.
Bellwether Trial Schedule and Outcome
Bellwether trials are early test cases selected to represent common injury types in the litigation. Their verdicts are not binding on other plaintiffs, but they influence how both sides value claims and whether settlement talks advance. Judge Campbell selected six bellwether cases (three infection claims, two thrombosis claims, and one fracture claim).
| Trial | Plaintiff / Injury Type | Status as of July 2026 |
| First bellwether | Robert Cook (infection) | Trial concluded May 2026. Jury found no liability on failure to warn and consumer fraud, but deadlocked on design defect and unlawful trade practices (partial defense verdict). Plaintiff has since moved for a new trial. |
| Second bellwether | Wanda Miller (thrombosis) | Case removed from the calendar after Miller died on February 2, 2026. Her family had not decided whether to proceed as heirs as of the most recent reporting; the court has since worked to reset the second trial slot with a substitute case. |
| Third bellwether | May Lattanzio (infection) | Reported as scheduled around July 2026, though exact dates have shifted more than once as the docket was reorganized after Miller's case was pulled. |
| Remaining bellwethers | Divelbliss, Sorensen, and others (fracture and thrombosis claims) | Scheduled on a rolling basis through February 2027 per the court's most recent case management order. |
In the Cook trial, jurors reportedly indicated they believed the PowerPort could have been designed more safely and heard testimony that Bard employees had internally recommended updating the port's design. One plaintiff-side attorney publicly noted that a single defense verdict does not resolve the litigation, since the jury did not clear the device on the design defect question. Bard's defense pointed to at-home catheter care as an alternative explanation for the plaintiff's infection.
Has There Been a Bard PowerPort Recall?
The Bard PowerPort has not been subject to a nationwide FDA recall tied to the fracture, migration, or material degradation theory at the center of MDL 3081. Two narrower, terminated recalls do exist in FDA records for separate manufacturing issues:
• October 1, 2019: A recall addressing a component mismatch issue affecting certain PowerPort devices.
• March 25, 2021: A recall of the PowerPort duo M.R.I. device concerning a separate catheter component issue.
Both recalls were administratively closed and are cited in litigation filings as part of the broader evidentiary record, but neither amounts to a recall of the PowerPort line over the design defect and degradation allegations plaintiffs are currently pursuing in court. The PowerPort reached the market through the FDA's 510(k) clearance pathway, which allows a device to be sold by showing it is substantially equivalent to an already-marketed product, rather than through the more rigorous premarket approval (PMA) pathway. Plaintiffs' attorneys have pointed to this distinction when arguing the device did not undergo independent safety testing equivalent to a PMA-approved product.
Catheter Fracture, Migration, and Other PowerPort Catheter Complications
Plaintiffs in the litigation report a range of injuries linked to the device. Common complications cited in complaints and bellwether case files include:
• Catheter fracture or breakage, where the tubing cracks or splits inside the body
• Catheter migration, where the device shifts from its original implant site
• Catheter embolization, where a broken fragment travels through the bloodstream, sometimes reaching the heart or lungs
• Blood clots, including deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism from catheter-related clot formation
• PowerPort infection, in some cases progressing to sepsis
• Cardiac perforation or arrhythmia linked to catheter movement
• Device failure requiring emergency catheter removal, revision surgery, or a replacement PICC line
The FDA's MAUDE adverse event database recorded 122 blood clot reports and 17 pulmonary embolism reports tied to the Bard PowerPort between December 1, 2025, and February 28, 2026, according to litigation reporting citing the database. This reflects reported adverse events, not confirmed causation in every case, and MAUDE reports are not independently verified by the FDA before publication.
Who Qualifies for the Bard PowerPort Lawsuit? (Eligibility)
Bard PowerPort lawsuit eligibility generally depends on a documented implant and a documented complication connected to it by medical records. Based on the criteria plaintiffs' firms and court filings have applied to the existing bellwether pool, a person may be eligible to explore a claim if the following generally apply:
1. A Bard PowerPort or related Bard port catheter (including PowerPort ClearVUE, SlimPort, and similar models) was surgically implanted.
2. The device fractured, migrated, became infected, or caused a blood clot, cardiac complication, or other serious injury after implantation.
3. Medical records, imaging, or an operative report document the complication and connect it to the device.
4. The claim falls within the applicable state statute of limitations, which varies by state and by whether the injury or the death of a loved one is involved.
This is general eligibility information, not a determination of any individual's legal rights. Only a licensed attorney reviewing the specific medical and implant records can determine whether someone qualifies to file a Bard PowerPort injury lawsuit.
How Do I File a Bard PowerPort Lawsuit?
For readers who believe they may be affected, the general process typically followed in this type of litigation looks like this:
1. Confirm the device: identify the exact PowerPort model and implant date from surgical records, the device card given at implantation, or the hospital that performed the procedure.
2. Gather medical documentation: collect records showing the complication, such as imaging confirming fracture or migration, infection treatment records, or documentation of a revision or removal surgery.
3. Note the timeline: write down when the device was implanted, when symptoms started, and when any corrective procedure occurred, since timing affects both causation and the statute of limitations.
4. Consult a product liability attorney: an attorney handling mass tort or product liability claims can evaluate whether the facts support filing in MDL 3081 and can explain state-specific filing deadlines.
5. Ask about case evaluation costs: many product liability and mass tort firms offer free initial case reviews and work on contingency, meaning fees are typically only owed if the case recovers compensation, though fee arrangements vary by firm and should be confirmed directly.
This section is general information only and is not personalized legal advice. Anyone considering legal action should speak with a licensed attorney about their specific medical history and state's filing deadlines.
What Is the Bard PowerPort Lawsuit Settlement Amount?
No global Bard PowerPort settlement has been announced as of July 2026. Because the first bellwether trial ended in a partial defense verdict rather than a plaintiff verdict, no bellwether damages award currently exists to benchmark case values. Some plaintiffs' attorneys have publicly suggested that a successful verdict in future trials could exceed seven figures in individual cases, but this reflects attorney speculation about potential outcomes, not a confirmed settlement figure or a guaranteed result for any claimant.
Courts in the MDL have directed the parties toward settlement discussions as the bellwether program continues, according to litigation tracking reports, but no settlement framework, matrix, or fund has been finalized. Readers should treat any specific dollar figure for a Bard PowerPort settlement circulating online as unverified until confirmed through official court filings or a joint statement from the parties.
Current Status of the Bard PowerPort Lawsuit as of July 2026
• More than 3,300 cases are pending in MDL No. 3081 in the District of Arizona, according to law firm docket tracking, with figures for July 2026 ranging from approximately 3,376 to 3,564 depending on the reporting date.
• The first bellwether trial, Cook v. Becton, Dickinson and Company, concluded in May 2026 with a partial defense verdict; a motion for a new trial is pending.
• The second bellwether slot was disrupted after plaintiff Wanda Miller died in February 2026, and the court has been working to reset the trial calendar.
• Additional bellwether trials are scheduled on a rolling basis through February 2027, covering fracture and thrombosis claims not yet tested before a jury.
• No class action certification, global settlement, or PowerPort-specific recall covering the fracture and degradation allegations exists as of this writing.
Because MDL schedules shift frequently and this is an actively developing case, readers should confirm the latest docket activity through the court's public MDL 3081 page or a qualified attorney before relying on any specific date mentioned above.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who qualifies for the Bard PowerPort lawsuit?
A person generally may qualify if they had a Bard PowerPort or related port catheter implanted and later experienced a documented complication, such as fracture, migration, infection, or a blood clot, that medical records connect to the device. Eligibility also depends on the applicable state statute of limitations, so a case-specific review by an attorney is the only way to confirm eligibility.
Is there a Bard PowerPort class action lawsuit?
No. The Bard PowerPort litigation is organized as a multidistrict litigation, MDL No. 3081, in the District of Arizona, not a certified class action. Each plaintiff's case is filed and evaluated individually, even though the cases share coordinated pretrial proceedings before one judge.
How do I file a Bard PowerPort lawsuit?
Filing typically starts with gathering implant and medical records documenting the device and the complication, then consulting a product liability or mass tort attorney who can evaluate the claim, confirm the filing deadline in the relevant state, and, if appropriate, file the case as part of MDL 3081.
What is the Bard PowerPort lawsuit settlement amount?
No settlement amount has been finalized or publicly confirmed as of July 2026, because no global settlement exists yet and the one completed bellwether trial ended without a plaintiff damages verdict. Any specific dollar figures circulating online should be treated as unverified estimates rather than confirmed compensation amounts.
What is the latest Bard PowerPort lawsuit update?
As of July 2026, more than 3,300 cases are pending in MDL 3081, the first bellwether trial ended in a partial defense verdict in May 2026, and additional bellwether trials covering fracture and thrombosis claims are scheduled through February 2027.
Was there a Bard PowerPort recall?
The FDA record shows two narrow, since-closed recalls, one in 2019 and one in 2021, tied to specific component issues, but there has been no recall of the PowerPort line over the fracture, migration, or material degradation allegations central to the current lawsuits.
What are the symptoms of a failed Bard PowerPort?
Reported symptoms and signs associated with device failure include pain or swelling at the implant site, visible port displacement, signs of infection such as redness or fever, difficulty flushing or drawing blood through the port, and symptoms of a blood clot or embolism, such as chest pain or shortness of breath, which require immediate emergency medical attention.
What are common Bard PowerPort catheter complications?
The complications most frequently cited in lawsuits are catheter fracture, catheter migration, catheter embolization, infection or sepsis, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and cardiac perforation or arrhythmia linked to a fractured or migrated catheter fragment.
Can I still file a claim if my PowerPort was removed years ago?
Possibly, depending on the state's statute of limitations, which often runs from the date the injury was discovered rather than the implant date. Because rules vary significantly by state, anyone in this situation should have an attorney review the specific timeline rather than assume a claim is time-barred.
Key Takeaways
• The Bard PowerPort lawsuit is federal MDL No. 3081, not a class action, and is centered in the District of Arizona before Judge David G. Campbell.
• More than 3,300 cases were pending as of July 2026, with law firm tracking figures ranging from about 3,376 to 3,564 depending on reporting date.
• The first bellwether trial, Cook v. Becton, Dickinson and Company, ended in May 2026 with a partial defense verdict; the design defect question remains unresolved.
• Five more bellwether trials covering fracture and thrombosis claims are scheduled through February 2027.
• No PowerPort recall exists for the fracture or degradation allegations at issue, and no global settlement has been announced as of this writing.
• Eligibility depends on a documented implant, a documented complication, and the applicable state statute of limitations, best confirmed with a product liability attorney.
Sources
• U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, transfer order centralizing MDL No. 3081, In re: Bard Implanted Port Catheter Products Liability Litigation (August 8, 2023)
• U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, public docket and case management orders for MDL No. 3081
• U.S. Food and Drug Administration, MAUDE adverse event database and device recall records for Bard PowerPort devices
• AboutLawsuits.com, ongoing Bard PowerPort MDL monthly case count and bellwether trial reporting
• Drugwatch.com, Bard PowerPort litigation updates and Cook v. Becton, Dickinson and Company bellwether trial coverage
• Lawsuit Legal News, Bard PowerPort MDL case management and bellwether trial reporting
• Lawsuit Information Center, Bard PowerPort litigation update reporting
• TorHoerman Law, Bard PowerPort lawsuit tracking and bellwether schedule reporting
• King Law and Salenger, Sack, Kimmel & Bavaro LLP, Bard PowerPort case status summaries
This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Anyone who believes they have been injured by a Bard PowerPort should consult a licensed attorney to evaluate their specific situation.