⚡ Quick Answer
What is the Bard PowerPort lawsuit? Thousands of patients who received a Bard PowerPort implantable port catheter have filed lawsuits alleging the device's ChronoFlex catheter tubing is defectively designed and prone to fracturing, migrating, and causing serious infections, blood clots, and pulmonary embolisms. The litigation is consolidated as MDL No. 3081 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. The first bellwether trial, an infection case, ended in a split verdict in May 2026. The second, the first catheter fracture case to reach a jury, ended in a $40 million verdict for the plaintiff on September 4, 2026.
⚖️ Legally reviewed by William Ettenger, Esq.
Who Qualifies for the Bard PowerPort Lawsuit
Eligibility focuses on patients who received a Bard PowerPort or an AngioDynamics port catheter and suffered serious complications, particularly those requiring hospitalization or surgery or causing life-threatening events. Catheter fracture cases drew the first plaintiff verdict in the litigation.
Qualifying Criteria:
How the Bard PowerPort Allegedly Caused Harm
Bard PowerPort lawsuits allege that C.R. Bard designed and manufactured a catheter with a material it knew, or should have known, was prone to premature degradation, and failed to adequately warn patients and physicians. Four core patterns are alleged across active cases:
1. Defective Design: ChronoFlex Material Degrades and Fractures
The catheter tubing is made from a polyurethane material called ChronoFlex. Plaintiffs allege this material is prone to degradation inside the body over time, causing the catheter to crack, fracture, and shed fragments, and that Bard was aware of degradation concerns years before patients were warned.
2. Device Migration: Catheter Fragments Travel Through the Bloodstream
When the catheter fractures, fragments can travel through the bloodstream to the heart, lungs, or other vital organs. Lawsuits allege this can cause pulmonary embolism, cardiac complications, arrhythmia, or organ perforation. In the September 2026 Divelbliss trial, the plaintiff said a piece of her catheter broke off and lodged in her heart, requiring emergency surgery.
3. Failure to Warn Physicians and Patients About Known Risks
Lawsuits allege Bard explored safer alternatives, including antimicrobial coatings and smoother catheter surfaces, but did not adopt them despite internal awareness of the ChronoFlex material's surface characteristics. In the first bellwether trial, the court admitted a Bard internal presentation on infection rates and the feasibility of antimicrobial coatings into evidence.
4. Reliance on an Expedited FDA Clearance Pathway
Plaintiffs allege Bard brought the PowerPort to market through the FDA's 510(k) premarket notification process, which allows certain devices to reach market without full clinical trials by showing "substantial equivalence" to an existing device, without adequate long-term safety data on catheter material degradation.
Complications & Injuries Recognized in Active Claims
The strongest Bard PowerPort cases involve serious, documented complications that required medical treatment or surgery. Complications can appear months or even years after implantation.
Potential Compensation & What Affects Your Claim Value
No global settlement has been reached, and no settlement tiers exist yet. The $40 million Divelbliss verdict is the first plaintiff verdict in the litigation and will shape future negotiations. Key factors that affect compensation include:
- 🔴
Type and severity of complication: Catheter fracture, thrombosis, and pulmonary embolism cases are generally considered to have clearer causation than infection-only claims. The first fracture case to reach a jury produced the litigation's first plaintiff verdict.
- 🔴
Need for surgical removal or correction: Cases requiring additional surgery, especially emergency surgery, are significantly higher-value.
- 📋
Medical documentation quality: Implant records identifying the specific device, records documenting complications, imaging, and surgical records are critical to claim value.
- 💼
Lost income and economic damages: Time missed from work for surgery, recovery, and ongoing care adds economic damages on top of non-economic compensation.
- 💀
Wrongful death: Cases involving death from device-related complications carry the highest potential values and are evaluated individually based on state wrongful death law.
Trial 1 (Cook v. Becton Dickinson, infection case, May 2026): Split verdict. Bard was cleared on failure-to-warn, failure-to-instruct, and consumer fraud; the jury deadlocked on design defect. The plaintiff moved for a new trial, which Bard opposed.
Trial 2 (Divelbliss v. Becton Dickinson, fracture case, September 2026): $40 million in compensatory damages for the plaintiff. The jury declined to award punitive damages.
Trial 3 (infection case): Survived summary judgment on September 25, 2026; set for October 13, 2026.
Disclaimer: A jury verdict is not a settlement and may be reduced or overturned after trial or on appeal. Results in one case do not predict the outcome of any other case.
MDL Status & Bellwether Trial Schedule
The Bard PowerPort litigation is consolidated as MDL No. 3081, In re: Bard Implanted Port Catheter Products Liability Litigation, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona before Judge David G. Campbell.
Who's overseeing the case:
- Presiding Judge: David G. Campbell, U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, who also oversaw the earlier Bard IVC Filter MDL.
- Defendants: C.R. Bard, Inc. and Becton, Dickinson and Company (BD), which acquired Bard in 2017.
- Case Structure: A bellwether program of trials running through early 2027, testing a mix of infection, fracture, and thrombosis cases.
Bellwether Trial Schedule
| Trial Date | Case / Type | Status |
|---|---|---|
| April 21, 2026 | Cook v. Becton Dickinson: infection case | Split verdict (May 2026); new-trial motion filed |
| August 18, 2026 | Divelbliss v. Becton Dickinson: catheter fracture case | $40 million plaintiff verdict (September 4, 2026) |
| October 13, 2026 | Trial 3: infection case | Next trial; survived summary judgment September 25, 2026 |
| December 1, 2026 | Trial 4 | Scheduled |
| February 2, 2027 | Trial 5 | Scheduled |
MDL No. 3081 Pending Case Count
The pending case count reflects both new filings and the pace of pretrial activity:
- December 2025: 2,463 pending
- February 2026: 2,674 pending
- May 2026: 3,187 pending
- June 2026: 3,376 pending
- July 2026: 3,564 pending
- September 2026: more than 3,700 pending
Steady month-over-month growth reflects continued new filings from patients with device complications as the bellwether program moves forward.
AngioDynamics Port Catheter MDL (No. 3125)
Claims involving AngioDynamics and Navilyst Medical port catheters, including SmartPort, Vortex, Xcela, and BioFlo, are consolidated separately as MDL No. 3125, In re: AngioDynamics, Inc., and Navilyst Medical, Inc., Port Catheter Products Liability Litigation, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California before Judge Jinsook Ohta. The MDL was formed in October 2024 and had 428 pending lawsuits as of September 1, 2026. It is earlier in the process than the Bard MDL, with common-issue fact discovery scheduled to close in December 2026. No settlement has been reached.
Filing Deadlines by State
Every state has statutes of limitations for product liability claims, typically 2 to 4 years. Most states apply a discovery rule that starts the clock when you knew or reasonably should have known that your complications were caused by the device, not the date of implantation. Missing your deadline can permanently bar your claim.
| State | Standard SOL | Discovery Rule | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Arizona | 2 years | Yes | Home of MDL No. 3081; federal venue for bellwether trials |
| New Jersey | 2 years | Yes | Additional PowerPort cases pending in state court |
| California | 2 years | Yes | Discovery rule commonly applied to device complications |
| New York | 3 years | Yes | Longer standard SOL; individual filings active |
| Texas | 2 years | Yes | Wrongful death claims must generally be filed within 2 years of death |
| Florida | 2 to 4 years | Yes | 2023 tort reform shortened negligence claims to 2 years; product liability claims may have a different window. Confirm with an attorney |
| All Other States | Typically 2 to 4 years | Varies | Do not assume it is too late. The discovery rule may extend your window. |
Bard PowerPort Lawsuit Updates (2026)
Last updated October 2026. We update this section regularly with new MDL case counts, trial developments, and court rulings.
-
September 25, 2026 LatestThird Bellwether Cleared for Trial: Judge Campbell denied Bard's motion for summary judgment in the next bellwether case, clearing it to go before a jury on October 13, 2026. It will be the second federal trial over infection claims, following the Cook trial in which Bard prevailed on most claims.
-
September 4, 2026Jury Awards $40 Million in First Fracture Bellwether: A federal jury in Arizona ordered Bard and Becton Dickinson to pay $40 million to Kimberly Divelbliss, a New Mexico woman who alleged part of her PowerPort catheter broke off and lodged in her heart, requiring emergency surgery. The jury awarded compensatory damages but declined to award punitive damages. It was the first substantial plaintiff recovery in the bellwether program. Post-trial motions and an appeal are common after a verdict of this size, and the award could be reduced or set aside.
-
September 1, 2026AngioDynamics Port Catheter MDL Reaches 428 Cases: The separate federal MDL for AngioDynamics and Navilyst port catheters (MDL No. 3125) grew to 428 pending lawsuits, up from 317 in February 2026. Recent filings include infection, sepsis, and embolism claims.
-
August 18, 2026Second Bellwether Trial Begins: The Divelbliss trial, the first bellwether centered on catheter fracture allegations, began in the District of Arizona after surviving summary judgment on July 27, 2026.
-
July 2026MDL Surpasses 3,500 Cases; Bard Opposes New Trial: The MDL grew to approximately 3,564 pending claims as of July 1, 2026. On July 2, Bard filed its opposition to the Cook plaintiff's motion for a new trial, arguing the jury instructions were proper and the partial verdict should stand.
-
June 3, 2026Cook Plaintiff Moves for a New Trial: The plaintiff in Cook v. Becton Dickinson asked for a new trial, arguing the court coerced a verdict by instructing the jury that unanimity was not required and by not correcting the jury's mistaken belief that deliberations had a deadline.
-
May 2026Split Verdict in First Bellwether: In Cook v. Becton Dickinson, plaintiff Robert Cook of Minnesota alleged his PowerPort became infected shortly after implantation while he was undergoing chemotherapy. Jurors cleared Bard on the failure-to-warn, failure-to-instruct, and consumer fraud claims but could not reach a unanimous verdict on the design-defect claim.
-
April 2026First Bellwether Trial Begins: Opening statements in the Cook trial began April 21, 2026. On April 27, Judge Campbell ruled that a Bard internal presentation on infection rates and the feasibility of antimicrobial coatings could be admitted into evidence with partial redactions.
-
February 2026Bellwether Schedule Adjusted: The plaintiff in the bellwether case set for July 2026 died in February, and that trial was removed from the schedule. The MDL stood at 2,674 pending cases as of February 2, 2026.
-
December 2025MDL Surpasses 2,400 Cases: More than 336 new lawsuits were added in November 2025, bringing the total to 2,463 pending claims heading into the first bellwether trial.
Were You Harmed by a Bard PowerPort? Find Out If You Have a Claim
A jury just awarded $40 million in the first PowerPort fracture trial, and more trials are scheduled through early 2027. You pay nothing unless compensation is recovered.
Start My Free Case ReviewHow the Bard PowerPort Lawsuit Process Works
Attorneys handle Bard PowerPort cases on contingency: you pay nothing unless compensation is recovered.
- Free confidential consultation: share your implant history, device type (if known), and complications with an attorney at no cost.
- Case review and evidence gathering: your attorney requests implant records identifying the device, records documenting complications, imaging, and any surgical records.
- Confirming your device: your attorney confirms whether your device is a Bard port catheter (MDL No. 3081) or an AngioDynamics/Navilyst port catheter (MDL No. 3125).
- Filing the lawsuit: your case is typically transferred into MDL No. 3081 in the District of Arizona for coordinated pretrial proceedings.
- Discovery: both sides exchange evidence, including internal testing data, post-market surveillance reports, and communications about device failure rates.
- Expert testimony: physicians, biomedical engineers, and materials scientists testify about design defects and causation.
- Bellwether trials and settlement negotiations: bellwether results, including the $40 million Divelbliss verdict, shape settlement talks for the broader MDL. Most cases are expected to resolve through settlement rather than individual trials.
- Compensation distributed: if your case settles or wins at trial, your attorney is paid a contingency fee (typically 33% to 40%). If there is no recovery, you owe nothing.
Frequently Asked Questions
Has any Bard PowerPort trial resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff?
Yes. On September 4, 2026, a federal jury in Arizona awarded $40 million in compensatory damages to Kimberly Divelbliss, a New Mexico woman who said her PowerPort catheter fractured and a piece lodged in her heart, requiring emergency surgery. The jury declined to award punitive damages. It was the second bellwether trial and the first catheter fracture case to reach a jury. Bard may challenge the verdict through post-trial motions or an appeal.
What is the Bard PowerPort and why is it being sued?
The Bard PowerPort is an implantable port catheter used to deliver chemotherapy, IV medications, and fluids without repeated needle sticks. Lawsuits allege the catheter tubing, made from a polyurethane material called ChronoFlex, is defectively designed and prone to fracturing, cracking, and migrating inside the body, causing life-threatening infections, blood clots, and pulmonary embolisms.
C.R. Bard, now a subsidiary of Becton, Dickinson and Company, is accused of knowing about these risks and failing to warn patients and healthcare providers.
Who qualifies for the Bard PowerPort lawsuit?
You may qualify if you received a Bard PowerPort, BardPort, PowerPort isp M.R.I., or PowerPort Slim, or an AngioDynamics or Navilyst port catheter such as SmartPort, Vortex, Xcela, or BioFlo, typically within the last 10 years, and suffered serious complications such as catheter fracture, device migration, serious infection, thrombosis, blood clots, or pulmonary embolism. Cases involving hospitalization, emergency surgery, or severe outcomes are considered especially strong.
What happened in the first bellwether trial?
In May 2026, the jury in Cook v. Becton Dickinson, an infection case, cleared Bard on the failure-to-warn, failure-to-instruct, and consumer fraud claims but deadlocked on the design-defect claim. The plaintiff moved for a new trial, and Bard opposed the motion. Bellwether trials are test cases that inform settlement talks; they do not bind other plaintiffs.
How much is a Bard PowerPort lawsuit worth?
No global settlement has been reached. The $40 million Divelbliss verdict is the first plaintiff verdict in the litigation and gives an early signal of how juries may view severe fracture cases, but it may be reduced or appealed and does not set the value of other cases. Potential compensation can include medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering. An attorney can evaluate your specific situation at no cost.
What is the current status of the Bard PowerPort MDL?
More than 3,700 lawsuits are consolidated in MDL No. 3081 in the District of Arizona under Judge David G. Campbell. The first bellwether ended in a split verdict in May 2026, and the second ended in a $40 million plaintiff verdict on September 4, 2026. The next bellwether, an infection case, is scheduled for October 13, 2026. No global settlement has been announced.
Is there a deadline to file a Bard PowerPort lawsuit?
Yes. Statutes of limitations vary by state, typically 2 to 4 years from the date of injury or from when you discovered the injury was device-related. Do not assume it is too late. Speak with an attorney to confirm your specific deadline.
What is the difference between the Bard PowerPort MDL and a class action?
The Bard PowerPort litigation is a mass tort MDL, not a class action. In an MDL, each plaintiff keeps their own lawsuit, and any compensation is based on their specific injuries and circumstances. In a class action, one lawsuit represents the whole group, and members typically share in a common recovery.
How do I know if my device was a Bard PowerPort?
Check your implant card or surgical discharge paperwork, or contact the hospital or oncologist where the device was placed. Common Bard device names include PowerPort, BardPort, PowerPort isp M.R.I., PowerPort Slim, and PowerPort M.R.I. AngioDynamics and Navilyst ports, such as SmartPort, Vortex, Xcela, and BioFlo, are also accepted and are handled in a separate federal MDL. An attorney can help you obtain and review your medical records at no cost.
Does it cost anything to file a Bard PowerPort lawsuit?
No. InjuryClaims.com's case review is free. Attorneys in this litigation work on a contingency fee basis, meaning you pay nothing unless compensation is recovered.
