Bard PowerPort Lawsuit

What Is the Bard PowerPort Lawsuit About?

The Bard PowerPort lawsuit is a mass tort litigation alleging that the Bard PowerPort implantable port catheter device — manufactured by C.R. Bard (now a subsidiary of Becton Dickinson / BD) — has a defective design that causes serious and life-threatening complications. The cases are consolidated in MDL 3081 in the District of Arizona.

A port catheter is a small medical device implanted under the skin, usually in the upper chest area, that provides direct access to a large vein. It is most commonly used by cancer patients who need ongoing chemotherapy, but also by patients requiring regular blood transfusions, IV medications, or parenteral nutrition. The device consists of a port (the small reservoir under the skin) connected to a catheter (a thin, flexible tube) that is threaded into a central vein.

Plaintiffs allege that the Bard PowerPort device is prone to catheter fracture, migration, and other failures that can cause serious harm — including blood clots, infection, and in the most severe cases, cardiac puncture or tamponade. The lawsuits claim that Bard and BD knew about these risks but failed to provide adequate warnings to patients and healthcare providers. This case shares similarities with other medical device lawsuits such as the hernia mesh lawsuit and the CPAP machine lawsuit.

Device Complications and Risks

The Bard PowerPort lawsuit centers on several types of device-related complications that have been reported to the FDA and documented in medical literature:

Detailed Complication Descriptions

• Catheter fracture: The catheter portion of the device breaks, potentially releasing fragments into the bloodstream. These fragments can travel to the heart or lungs, causing a medical emergency that requires surgical intervention to retrieve the broken piece.
• Catheter migration: The catheter moves from its original implanted position, potentially damaging blood vessels or organs. Migration can cause the device to malfunction, requiring additional surgery to reposition or remove the port.
• Thrombosis (blood clots): Blood clots can form around the port or catheter, potentially leading to deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE) — a potentially life-threatening condition where a clot travels to the lungs.
• Infection: Bacterial contamination of the port site or catheter can lead to bloodstream infections (sepsis), requiring hospitalization, IV antibiotics, and often device removal.
• Cardiac puncture/tamponade: In the most severe cases, a fractured catheter fragment or migrated catheter can puncture the heart wall, causing pericardial effusion or cardiac tamponade — a life-threatening emergency where fluid around the heart prevents it from pumping effectively.

Products Involved in the Lawsuit

The lawsuit focuses primarily on the Bard PowerPort line of implantable port catheter devices. Several models and variations are included:

If you had any Bard or BD-manufactured implantable port catheter and experienced complications, consult an attorney for a case evaluation regardless of the specific model.

Who Qualifies for the Bard PowerPort Lawsuit?

You may qualify to file a Bard PowerPort lawsuit if you experienced complications after having the device implanted. The following criteria are generally used to evaluate potential claims:

Lawsuit Timeline

The Bard PowerPort litigation is still in its relatively early stages. Here are the key dates and milestones:

Settlement Amounts and Projections

As of early 2026, no global settlement has been reached in the Bard PowerPort litigation. The cases are in the discovery and bellwether preparation phase. However, based on comparable medical device lawsuits and the severity of complications alleged, legal analysts have projected potential settlement ranges:

Settlement projections are informed by outcomes in similar medical device litigation, including the hernia mesh lawsuits where C.R. Bard paid $184 million in 2023. Individual compensation will depend on the specific complications experienced, their severity, and the resulting medical expenses and impact on quality of life. For more information on how settlements work, see our guide on how settlement funds are distributed.

How to File a Bard PowerPort Claim

If you experienced complications from a Bard PowerPort device, here is the process for pursuing a legal claim:

For a comprehensive overview of the mass tort process, read our guide on how to join a mass tort lawsuit. You can also learn about why legal representation matters in mass tort cases.

Named Defendants

The Bard PowerPort lawsuit names the following defendants:

• C.R. Bard, Inc. — The original manufacturer of the PowerPort implantable port catheter device line. C.R. Bard was a major medical device company that designed, manufactured, and marketed the PowerPort and other vascular access devices.
• Becton, Dickinson and Company (BD) — BD acquired C.R. Bard in 2017 for $24 billion, making it the successor company and potentially liable for the design, manufacturing, and marketing decisions related to the PowerPort device.

Plaintiffs allege that both Bard and BD knew about the elevated complication rates with the PowerPort device based on FDA adverse event reports and their own internal data, yet continued to market the device without adequate warnings to patients or healthcare providers about the risks of catheter fracture, migration, and other failures.

Medical Evidence and FDA Reports

The legal case against C.R. Bard and Becton Dickinson draws on several sources of evidence:

• FDA MAUDE database reports: The FDA's Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database contains numerous adverse event reports involving Bard PowerPort devices, documenting cases of catheter fracture, migration, thrombosis, infection, and cardiac complications.
• Medical literature: Peer-reviewed studies have documented complication rates associated with implantable port catheters, including studies showing elevated fracture rates with certain catheter designs and materials.
• Internal company documents: Discovery in the MDL is expected to reveal internal Bard/BD documents about device design decisions, safety testing, complaint monitoring, and knowledge of complication rates.
• Comparative device analysis: Plaintiffs' experts may present evidence comparing the complication rates of Bard PowerPort devices to competing products, arguing that design differences contributed to elevated risk.

The strength of the scientific and medical evidence will be further developed during the discovery phase and tested through expert testimony in bellwether trials.