Bard PowerPort Catheter Litigation

Bard PowerPort devices are implantable vascular access ports used primarily in cancer treatment. These small devices are surgically implanted beneath the skin, usually in the upper chest, and connected to a catheter threaded into a large vein. They provide reliable intravenous access for chemotherapy drugs, blood draws, and other IV medications, eliminating the need for repeated needle insertions in peripheral veins.

The PowerPort system — manufactured by C.R. Bard (now part of Becton Dickinson) — has been widely used in oncology for decades. However, a growing number of patients have reported serious complications including catheter fracture (where the catheter tube breaks, potentially sending fragments into the bloodstream), catheter migration (where the device moves from its intended position), infection at the implant site, and vascular injury.

Plaintiffs allege that the PowerPort's polyurethane catheter design is prone to degradation and fracture, particularly with the repeated pressure cycles involved in power injection of contrast media for CT scans. When catheters fracture, fragments can migrate through the venous system to the heart or lungs, requiring emergency surgical retrieval and potentially causing life-threatening complications including cardiac tamponade (compression of the heart) and pulmonary embolism.

The litigation also alleges that Bard failed to adequately warn patients and implanting physicians about the fracture and migration risks, and that the company received adverse event reports about catheter failures but did not take sufficient corrective action.

Polyurethane catheters used in implantable port systems are subject to material fatigue and degradation over time, particularly when exposed to the mechanical stress of power injection (high-pressure delivery of contrast media during CT scans). Studies have documented that power injection generates significantly higher pressures than standard infusion, potentially exceeding the fatigue limits of catheter materials.

The FDA has received numerous adverse event reports related to port catheter fractures and migrations. Fractured catheter fragments in the cardiovascular system represent a serious medical emergency requiring interventional radiology or cardiac surgery for retrieval.

Research published in the Journal of Vascular Access and other medical journals has documented failure rates and risk factors for port catheter complications, including implantation technique, catheter material, and the frequency of power injection use.

Patients who received a Bard PowerPort or similar implantable port catheter device and experienced complications such as catheter fracture, migration, vascular injury, infection, deep vein thrombosis, cardiac tamponade, or pulmonary embolism may be affected. Many affected patients are cancer patients who received the devices for chemotherapy administration.

This eligibility information is general and informational only. Consult a licensed attorney.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation created MDL No. 3081 on August 8, 2023, in the District of Arizona before Judge David G. Campbell, who also managed Bard's IVC filter MDL. As of September 1, 2026, 3,734 cases were pending, out of 3,980 filed.

Bellwether trials began in 2026. The first did not produce a plaintiff verdict: the jury found for Bard on the warning claims and could not agree on design defect. In the second, on September 4, 2026, a jury awarded the plaintiff $40 million on design defect and failure-to-warn claims and declined to award punitive damages. Further bellwether trials were scheduled into 2027.

Similar claims involving port catheters made by AngioDynamics and Navilyst Medical are consolidated separately in MDL No. 3125 in the Southern District of California, which had 428 pending cases as of September 1, 2026.

C.R. Bard / Becton Dickinson has argued that the PowerPort is an FDA-cleared device that has been safely used in millions of patients for decades. The company contends that catheter-related complications are known risks of any implantable vascular access device and that its products perform comparably to competing devices.

Bard argues that proper implantation technique, appropriate patient selection, and adherence to manufacturer guidelines for power injection limits are critical factors in device performance, and that many complications result from factors outside the product's design rather than manufacturing or design defects.

No settlements have been announced. In September 2026, a bellwether jury awarded a plaintiff $40 million, the first plaintiff verdict in the MDL.

Past settlement amounts in other medical device litigations are not a guarantee of results in this case.