⚡ Quick Answer
What is the Bard PowerPort lawsuit? As of July 2026, 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 #3081 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. The first bellwether trial ended in a split verdict in May 2026 — Bard was cleared on some claims but the jury deadlocked on the central design-defect claim — and that result is now the subject of a pending new-trial motion. The second bellwether, a catheter fracture case, is scheduled for August 18, 2026.
⚖️ Legally reviewed by William Ettenger, Esq.
Who Qualifies for the Bard PowerPort Lawsuit
Eligibility focuses on patients who received a Bard PowerPort or related port catheter device and subsequently suffered serious complications — particularly those requiring hospitalization, surgery, or causing life-threatening events. Cases involving catheter fracture and thrombosis are considered especially strong.
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 of misconduct are alleged across active cases:
1. Defective Design — ChronoFlex Material Degrades and Fractures
The catheter tubing is made from a proprietary polyurethane material called ChronoFlex. Plaintiffs allege this material is inherently prone to degradation inside the body over time, causing the catheter to crack, fracture, and shed fragments. Internal documents admitted at the first bellwether trial showed Bard was aware of ChronoFlex degradation data as early as 2005.
2. Device Migration — Catheter Fragments Travel Through the Bloodstream
When the catheter fractures, fragments can migrate through the bloodstream, reaching the heart, lungs, or other vital organs. Lawsuits allege this can cause pulmonary embolism, cardiac tamponade, arrhythmia, or organ perforation — some of the most serious complications reported in this litigation.
3. Failure to Warn Physicians and Patients About Known Risks
Lawsuits allege Bard explored safer alternatives — including antimicrobial coatings and smoother catheter surfaces — as early as 2005, but repeatedly shelved them despite internal awareness of the ChronoFlex material's rough surface characteristics. By 2020, plaintiffs' attorneys argue, more than 30 safer alternatives existed and Bard had acted on none of them.
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 surgical intervention. Complications can appear more than 90 days after implantation — sometimes years later.
Potential Compensation & What Affects Your Claim Value
No global settlement has been reached, and no settlement tiers exist yet. Bellwether trial outcomes will shape future negotiations. Key factors that affect compensation across all Bard PowerPort claims:
- 🔴
Type and severity of complication — Catheter fracture, thrombosis, and pulmonary embolism cases are generally considered to have clearer causation and higher value than infection-only claims.
- 🔴
Need for surgical removal or correction — Cases requiring additional surgery to remove or repair the device are significantly higher-value.
- 📋
Medical documentation quality — Implant records identifying the specific device, post-implant records documenting complications, imaging, and any 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.
- ⚖️
Bellwether trial outcomes — The first bellwether ended in a split verdict now under a new-trial motion; the second bellwether (a fracture case) is scheduled for August 18, 2026 and is expected to more directly test causation for fracture-type claims.
- 💀
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): Split verdict — Bard cleared on failure-to-warn, failure-to-instruct, and consumer fraud; jury deadlocked on design defect. Plaintiff has moved for a new trial; Bard opposes; ruling pending.
Trial 2 (Fracture Case): Scheduled August 18, 2026, survived summary judgment July 27, 2026.
No dollar settlement benchmarks exist yet — unlike litigations with a completed bellwether program, this MDL has not yet produced a plaintiff verdict to anchor value estimates.
Disclaimer: No settlement amounts have been established for this litigation. Any figures discussed elsewhere are speculative and educational only — not a guarantee of outcome. Actual results depend on case-specific facts and litigation developments.
MDL Status & Bellwether Trial Schedule
The Bard PowerPort litigation is consolidated as MDL #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 and has agreed to satisfy judgments if Bard entities cannot.
- Case Structure: A bellwether program of six planned trials running from April 2026 through early 2027, testing a mix of infection, fracture, and thrombosis case types.
Bellwether Trial Schedule
| Trial Date | Case / Type | Status |
|---|---|---|
| April 21, 2026 | Cook v. Becton Dickinson — Infection Case | Split verdict — new-trial motion pending |
| August 18, 2026 | Trial #2 — Catheter Fracture Case | Next trial — survived summary judgment |
| October 13, 2026 | Trial #3 | Scheduled |
| December 1, 2026 | Trial #4 | Scheduled |
| February 2, 2027 | Trial #5 | Scheduled |
MDL #3081 Pending Case Count — A Real-Time Signal
The pending case count is a useful proxy for how the litigation is progressing, reflecting both new filings and the pace of pretrial activity:
- December 2025: 2,463 pending
- May 2026: ~3,300 pending
- June 2026: 3,376 pending
- July 2026: 3,564 pending
The steady month-over-month growth reflects continued new filings from patients with device complications, even as the litigation moves through its bellwether trial phase.
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 permanently bars your claim.
| State | Standard SOL | Discovery Rule | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Arizona | 2 years | Yes | Home of MDL #3081; federal venue for bellwether trials |
| New Jersey | 2 years | Yes | Additional PowerPort cases pending in state court |
| California | 2 years | Yes | Active individual and federal filings; discovery rule commonly applied |
| New York | 3 years | Yes | Longer standard SOL; individual filings active |
| Texas | 2 years | Yes | Active filings; wrongful death claims must be filed within 2 years of death |
| Florida | 2 years | Yes | SOL recently shortened from 4 to 2 years; act immediately if your complications emerged before 2023 |
| All Other States | Typically 2–4 years | Varies | Active cases filed in all 50 states. Do not assume it is too late — the discovery rule may significantly extend your window. |
Bard PowerPort Lawsuit Updates — 2026
Last updated July 2026. We update this section regularly with new MDL case counts, trial developments, and court rulings.
-
July 27, 2026 LatestSecond Bellwether Survives Summary Judgment: The catheter fracture case set to serve as the second Bard PowerPort bellwether survived Bard's motion for summary judgment, clearing the way for trial to proceed as scheduled on August 18, 2026. This is the first bellwether centered specifically on fracture allegations, which plaintiffs' attorneys consider a stronger causation theory than the infection claim already tried.
-
July 2, 2026Bard Opposes Motion for New Trial: Bard filed its formal opposition to the Cook plaintiff's motion for a new trial, arguing the jury instructions were proper and that the partial verdict — clearing Bard on failure-to-warn, failure-to-instruct, and consumer fraud while leaving the design-defect claim undecided — should stand. A ruling from Judge Campbell remains pending.
-
July 1, 2026MDL Surpasses 3,500 Cases: The Bard PowerPort MDL grew to approximately 3,564 pending claims as of July 1, 2026 — an increase of roughly 190 cases in a single month — as new filings continue alongside pretrial motion practice ahead of the August bellwether.
-
June 2026Cook Plaintiff Moves for a New Trial: Following the partial defense verdict in May, the plaintiff in Cook v. Becton Dickinson filed a motion asking the court for a new trial. The motion argues the jury received flawed instructions on design defect, failure to warn, and superseding cause — and that jurors may have mistakenly believed deliberations needed to conclude by a set deadline, potentially pressuring a partial verdict. If granted, Bard's partial defense win would be vacated and the case retried.
-
May 11, 2026Split Verdict in First Bellwether — Cook v. Becton Dickinson: A jury returned a partial defense verdict in the first Bard PowerPort bellwether trial. Plaintiff Robert Cook of Minnesota alleged his PowerPort became severely infected shortly after implantation while he was undergoing chemotherapy. Jurors cleared Bard and Becton Dickinson on the failure-to-warn, failure-to-instruct, and consumer fraud claims — but could not reach a unanimous verdict on the central design-defect claim, leaving it unresolved. The plaintiff has since moved for a new trial.
-
April 27, 2026Key Internal Bard Document Admitted at Trial: Judge Campbell ruled that a Bard internal presentation covering infection rates and the feasibility of antimicrobial coatings would be admitted into evidence with partial redactions, over Bard's Rule 403 objection.
-
April 21, 2026First Bellwether Trial Begins: Opening statements commenced in Cook v. Becton Dickinson, the first Bard PowerPort bellwether trial. Plaintiff attorneys argued Bard had known for decades its catheters were prone to failure and chose profit over patient safety.
-
January 15, 2026Trial Date Confirmed: Judge Campbell confirmed the Cook bellwether trial would begin April 21, 2026, with five additional trials scheduled across 2026 and into early 2027.
-
December 9, 2025MDL Surpasses 2,400 Cases: Over 336 new lawsuits were added in November alone, bringing the total to 2,463 pending claims heading into the first bellwether trial.
-
August 20, 2025Full Bellwether Schedule Set: Case Management Order No. 38 established six bellwether trials running from April 2026 through early 2027, covering a mix of infection, thrombosis, and fracture case types.
Were You Harmed by a Bard PowerPort? Find Out If You Have a Claim
New PowerPort lawsuits are filed every month. Attorneys are actively accepting cases as trials continue 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, post-implant records documenting complications, imaging, and any surgical records.
- Confirming your device — Your attorney confirms whether your device is a Bard PowerPort, BardPort, or AngioDynamics port catheter covered by the MDL.
- Filing the lawsuit — Your attorney files your case, which is typically transferred into MDL #3081 in the District of Arizona for coordinated pretrial proceedings.
- Discovery — Both sides exchange evidence: manufacturer internal testing data, post-market surveillance reports, and communications about known device failure rates.
- Expert testimony — Physicians, biomedical engineers, and materials scientists testify about device design defects and causation — linking your specific complications to the device's known failure modes.
- Bellwether trials and settlement negotiations — Bellwether trials continue through early 2027 and will shape settlement values for the broader MDL. Most cases are expected to eventually resolve through settlement rather than individual trial.
- Compensation distributed — If your case settles or a verdict is reached, your attorney is paid a contingency fee (typically 33–40%). If they don't recover, you owe nothing.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Bard PowerPort and why is it being sued?
The Bard PowerPort is an implantable port catheter device 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., PowerPort Slim, or AngioDynamics port catheter — 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. Attorneys are still accepting new cases in all 50 states.
Did Bard win the first bellwether trial?
Only partially. The jury cleared Bard on the failure-to-warn, failure-to-instruct, and consumer fraud claims, but deadlocked on the central design-defect claim, leaving that question unresolved.
The plaintiff has since moved for a new trial, arguing the jury instructions were flawed. Bard opposes the motion, and a ruling is pending. Bellwether trials are test cases that inform settlement talks — they don't bind other plaintiffs — and the litigation continues with a fracture-case bellwether now set for August 18, 2026.
How much is the Bard PowerPort lawsuit worth?
No global settlement has been reached as of July 2026. The first bellwether ended in a split verdict now facing a new-trial motion, and the second bellwether — a fracture case — is set for August 18, 2026 after surviving summary judgment.
Potential compensation includes medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering, and punitive damages. An attorney can evaluate your specific situation at no cost.
What is the current status of the Bard PowerPort MDL?
As of July 2026, more than 3,500 lawsuits are consolidated in MDL #3081 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona under Judge David G. Campbell. The first bellwether trial ended in a split verdict in May 2026, and the plaintiff has since filed a motion for a new trial. The second bellwether trial, a catheter fracture case, is scheduled for August 18, 2026. No global settlement has been announced.
Is there a deadline to file a Bard PowerPort lawsuit?
Yes, but the deadline may be later than you think. Statutes of limitations vary by state, typically 2 to 4 years from the date of injury or discovery that the injury was device-related.
Do not assume it is too late. With multiple bellwether trials now underway or scheduled, acting promptly is important. Speak to an attorney immediately to confirm your specific state's 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 the MDL, every plaintiff retains their own individual lawsuit and receives compensation based on their specific injuries and circumstances. In a class action, all plaintiffs share one lawsuit and any payout is divided equally. The MDL structure means your award reflects the severity of your individual injuries — not an equal share of a common pool.
How do I know if my device was a Bard PowerPort?
Check your implant card, surgical discharge paperwork, or contact the hospital or oncologist where the device was placed. Common Bard PowerPort device names include PowerPort, BardPort, PowerPort isp M.R.I., PowerPort Slim, and PowerPort M.R.I. AngioDynamics port devices are also included in active litigation. 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 completely free. Attorneys in this litigation work on a contingency fee basis — meaning you pay nothing unless compensation is recovered. There are no upfront costs or fees to get started.
