Last updated: September 15, 2026.
More than 3,700 Bard implanted port catheter lawsuits are pending in federal court in Arizona. The litigation reached an important milestone on September 4, 2026, when a jury awarded $40 million in compensatory damages to a woman whose Bard PowerPort catheter fractured and migrated to her heart. The jury found in her favor on design-defect and failure-to-warn claims. The verdict was the first plaintiff verdict in the federal Bard PowerPort multidistrict litigation.
Doyle APC represents individuals with Bard PowerPort injury claims in the ongoing federal litigation and continues to review serious PowerPort injury cases nationwide.
Who Qualifies for a Bard PowerPort Lawsuit?
A Bard PowerPort injury claim may warrant legal review if the following apply to you or a loved one:
- You were implanted with a Bard PowerPort or another port catheter device sold under the PowerPort brand, including the PowerPort MRI Implantable Port, Groshong MRI Implantable Injection PowerPort, or Groshong Central Venous Catheter.
- You experienced a serious complication linked to the device, such as catheter fracture, fragment migration, infection or sepsis, blood clots, pulmonary embolism, cardiac injury, or vascular damage.
- The complication required significant medical treatment, such as surgical removal of the device or catheter fragment, hospitalization, or another medical intervention.
Family members may be eligible to pursue a claim where a PowerPort complication contributed to the death of a loved one. Filing deadlines vary by state and by the facts of the individual case, and some can be short. A prompt case review can help determine whether a claim is still timely. Doyle APC provides free and confidential PowerPort case evaluations.
Bard PowerPort Injuries and Complications
The federal lawsuits allege that Bard PowerPort devices can fail in ways that cause serious injury. The complications most relevant to the litigation include:
- Catheter fracture and migration: part of the catheter breaks away and travels through a blood vessel, sometimes reaching the heart or lungs.
- Blood clots: including deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism.
- Infection and sepsis: serious infections associated with the implanted port or catheter.
- Cardiac or vascular injury: including injury caused by a migrated catheter fragment.
- Device failure requiring removal: complications that require surgery or another procedure to remove the port or retrieve a catheter fragment.
Serious PowerPort complications can require additional surgery, hospitalization, and ongoing medical treatment. In some cases, the alleged device complication may contribute to a wrongful death claim.
Cases involving documented catheter fracture, fragment migration, or surgical removal of a failed device should be reviewed promptly, especially where the explanted device or post-removal imaging has been preserved, as this physical evidence can be critical to proving a claim.
How to Identify if You Have a Bard PowerPort
Patients who receive Bard PowerPort devices are typically given a PowerPort ID Card by their implanting physician. The card can identify the manufacturer, device name, model or lot information, and implantation date.
Some patients also receive a PowerPort bracelet identifying the implanted device.
If you’re unsure whether you have a Bard PowerPort device, review your implantation records or contact the hospital or physician who implanted the port. The operative report or implant record will often identify the manufacturer and model.
September 2026 Bard PowerPort Litigation Update
The Bard PowerPort lawsuits are consolidated in Arizona federal court as IN RE: Bard Implanted Port Catheter Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3081. Judge David G. Campbell is overseeing the proceedings.
September 2026: The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation reported 3,734 actions pending in MDL No. 3081 as of September 1, 2026.
On September 4, 2026, a federal jury awarded Kimberly Divelbliss $40 million in compensatory damages after her Bard PowerPort catheter fractured and a portion migrated to the right atrium of her heart. The jury found for Divelbliss on design-defect and failure-to-warn claims. It did not award punitive damages.
The Divelbliss case was the second completed bellwether trial and the first fracture case to reach a verdict in the MDL. Doyle APC represents PowerPort plaintiffs in the ongoing federal litigation, although our firm was not among the attorneys who tried the Divelbliss case.
Additional bellwether trials are scheduled to begin on October 13, 2026, December 1, 2026, and February 2, 2027. Bellwether cases do not determine the outcome of other plaintiffs’ claims, but they give both sides information about how juries evaluate the evidence and can influence future case valuations and settlement discussions.
Read our report on the $40 million Bard PowerPort verdict.
First bellwether: In May 2026, the jury in Cook v. Becton Dickinson, an infection case, returned a defense verdict on several claims but was unable to reach a unanimous verdict on the design-defect claim. Cook has sought a new trial.
Bard PowerPort Settlement Amounts
No global Bard PowerPort settlement has been announced as of September 2026. The $40 million Divelbliss award was a jury verdict in one individual case, not a settlement, and it does not establish what another PowerPort claim is worth.
Any future settlement value will depend on the individual facts, including the type and severity of the injury, whether the device fractured or migrated, the medical treatment required, the strength of the evidence connecting the PowerPort to the injury, and the damages suffered. Any published estimate of an “average PowerPort settlement” is speculative because no global settlement program has been established.
We will update this page as the bellwether trials progress and settlement discussions develop.
Why Are Bard PowerPort Catheters Alleged to Fail?
Different Bard PowerPort models use different catheter materials, including polyurethane and silicone formulations. Plaintiffs allege that the materials and design of certain PowerPort catheters can become structurally weaker over time and become more susceptible to cracking or fracture.
One focus of the fracture litigation is barium sulfate, a material added to catheter tubing so it can be seen on medical imaging. Plaintiffs allege that barium sulfate and other aspects of the catheter design can contribute to surface degradation, microscopic cracking, and eventual fracture. Bard disputes the allegations that its PowerPort products are defectively designed.
FDA Adverse Event Reports
The FDA previously permitted certain medical-device manufacturers to report some adverse events through an Alternative Summary Reporting program that was not publicly searchable in the same manner as the MAUDE database. The FDA ended that program in 2019.
An investigative report by Kaiser Health News in 2019 exposed this practice, drawing public attention to adverse-event reports that had not previously appeared in the public MAUDE database. Plaintiffs in the PowerPort litigation contend that this reporting history limited public visibility into reported device complications.
PowerPort Device Background
Bard’s PowerPort is an implantable vascular access device, sometimes called a port-a-cath, designed to provide repeated access to the vascular system for the delivery of medication, intravenous fluids, parenteral nutrition solutions, and blood products. The device is about the size of a quarter and is surgically placed under the skin with a catheter inserted into one of the body’s large central veins.
Because PowerPort devices allow high injection rates of contrast agents used in CT and MRI scans, they are often implanted in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy.
Bard PowerPort Legal Claims and Defendants
PowerPort plaintiffs generally allege claims based on defective design, failure to warn, negligence, and related state-law theories. The specific legal claims vary depending on the plaintiff’s state and the facts of the case.
The defendants are Bard Access Systems, Inc., C.R. Bard, Inc., and Becton, Dickinson and Company.
Bard PowerPort Lawsuit FAQs
Is there a Bard PowerPort recall?
There is no broad PowerPort recall covering the fracture, migration, infection, and blood-clot allegations at the center of MDL No. 3081. A product does not need to be recalled for an injured patient to pursue a product-liability claim.
Is the Bard PowerPort lawsuit a class action?
No. The federal cases are consolidated in multidistrict litigation, MDL No. 3081, in the District of Arizona. In an MDL, pretrial proceedings are coordinated but each plaintiff keeps an individual case and an individual recovery based on their own injuries.
What is the average Bard PowerPort settlement?
There is no reliable average settlement amount because no global PowerPort settlement program has been announced. The $40 million Divelbliss result was an individual jury verdict, not a settlement. The value of any other claim will depend on its own injuries, treatment, causation evidence, and damages.
What has happened in the Bard PowerPort Bellwether trials?
The first bellwether, Cook v. Becton Dickinson, involved an infection claim. The jury returned a defense verdict on several claims but deadlocked on design defect, and Cook has sought a new trial. The second completed bellwether, Divelbliss v. Becton Dickinson, involved catheter fracture and migration. On September 4, 2026, the jury awarded Divelbliss $40 million in compensatory damages after finding for her on design-defect and failure-to-warn claims.
Which devices are included in the litigation?
The litigation involves multiple Bard implanted port catheter products sold under the PowerPort brand. If you are unsure which device you received, your patient identification card, operative report, or implant records can usually identify the manufacturer and model. See “How to Identify if You Have a Bard PowerPort” above.
How long do I have to file a Bard PowerPort lawsuit?
The deadline depends on the law of the applicable state and the facts of the individual case. Because some filing deadlines can be short, anyone considering a PowerPort claim should have the timing reviewed promptly rather than relying on a general deadline found online.
Free Case Evaluation
If you or a loved one suffered a serious complication involving a Bard PowerPort, Doyle APC can review the medical and device records and explain whether the case may qualify for the ongoing litigation. The consultation is free and confidential.
We handle PowerPort cases on a contingency basis, which means you pay nothing unless we recover compensation for you.
GET A FREE CASE EVALUATION