Lawsuits against Bard and its parent company, Becton, Dickinson and Company (BD), allege that Bard implanted port catheters, including the PowerPort, can fracture, migrate, and cause infections and blood clots. More than 4,300 federal cases are consolidated in MDL No. 3081 in Arizona, where a bellwether jury awarded $40 million in September 2026 to a woman whose catheter fractured and traveled to her heart. Juries have ruled for Bard in two infection cases, and the next trials are set for December 1, 2026 and February 2, 2027.
Doyle APC currently represents clients nationwide in Bard PowerPort lawsuits. If you had a port complication and are not sure which device you received, we can review your medical records to identify it.
Last updated: November 4, 2026.
At a glance
- Defendants
- C.R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Access Systems, Inc., subsidiaries of Becton, Dickinson and Company (BD)
- Products
- PowerPort, BardPort, SlimPort, X-Port, and other Bard implanted ports with Groshong or ChronoFlex catheters
- Main injuries
- Catheter fracture and migration, infection and sepsis, blood clots, removal surgery
- Court
- MDL No. 3081, U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Senior Judge David G. Campbell
- Cases pending
- 4,345 in the MDL as of November 2, 2026
- Trials
- Defense verdict on most claims in Cook (May 2026); $40 million verdict in Divelbliss (September 2026); defense verdict in Lattanzio (October 2026); next trials December 1, 2026 and February 2, 2027
- Settlement
- No global settlement announced
Who may have a claim
You may have a Bard port claim if:
- You had a Bard implanted port, such as a PowerPort, BardPort, SlimPort, or X-Port, usually placed for chemotherapy or long-term infusions
- You had a serious complication, such as a catheter fracture, a catheter fragment that traveled to the heart or lungs, catheter migration, a port-related infection or sepsis, a blood clot, or perforation of a blood vessel or the heart
- You needed treatment such as surgery to remove the port or retrieve catheter fragments, hospitalization, or extended antibiotic or blood thinner therapy
- The filing deadline that applies to you has not passed
Families may have a wrongful death claim when a loved one died after a port complication.
Products involved
The litigation involves implanted ports and catheters made by C.R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Access Systems, Inc. The master complaint in the MDL names more than two dozen port models and says the list is not exhaustive. They include:
- PowerPort, PowerPort isp, PowerPort M.R.I., PowerPort isp M.R.I., PowerPort Slim, and PowerPort duo M.R.I.
- PowerPort ClearVUE isp, PowerPort ClearVUE Slim, PowerPort VUE M.R.I., and PowerPort VUE Titanium
- BardPort M.R.I., BardPort M.R.I. Low-Profile, BardPort Titanium, and BardPort Titanium Dome
- SlimPort Dual-Lumen Rosenblatt, M.R.I. Ultra SlimPort, and Titanium SlimPort
- X-Port isp M.R.I. and X-Port Low-Profile Titanium
- Vaccess CT Power-Injectable and Vaccess CT Low-Profile Titanium
- PowerFlow Implantable Apheresis IV Port, Peritoneal Titanium Port, and other Bard titanium and plastic ports
- Groshong (silicone) and ChronoFlex (polyurethane) catheters used with these ports
How to identify your port
Many patients receive a patient identification card, often called a PowerPort ID card, or a bracelet listing the manufacturer, device name, model or lot number, and implant date. If you do not have one, the operative report from the placement procedure and the hospital’s implant record will identify the device. If your port or a catheter fragment was removed, ask the hospital whether the device was kept, and keep any imaging taken before and after removal. If you have trouble identifying your port, contact us and we can request and review the records for you.
Several companies make implanted ports. AngioDynamics port catheters are the subject of a separate MDL in San Diego.
Recalls
There has been no recall for the fracture, migration, or infection problems alleged in the lawsuits, and a recall is not required to bring a claim. The FDA lists several Class II recalls of specific Bard port products for other issues: a 2018 recall of a PowerPort ClearVUE isp kit with incorrect flushing instructions on the patient ID card, a 2019 recall of several PowerPort and BardPort M.R.I. kits with the wrong tunneler tip, a 2020 recall of PowerPort ClearVUE Slim kits with mislabeled catheter locks, and a 2021 recall of PowerPort duo M.R.I. ports for problems flushing and possible septum dislodgement.
Injuries and complications
- Catheter fracture and embolization. A catheter that cracks or breaks can release a fragment that travels through the bloodstream to the heart or lungs, sometimes requiring a procedure or open surgery to retrieve it.
- Catheter migration. The catheter can move out of position, which can stop the port from working and damage blood vessels.
- Infection and sepsis. Bloodstream infections linked to the port can become life threatening and usually require removing the device.
- Blood clots. Clots can form on or around the catheter, causing deep vein thrombosis or a pulmonary embolism.
- Perforation. A catheter or fragment can puncture a blood vessel or the heart.
Warning signs include chest pain, shortness of breath, an irregular heartbeat, swelling or pain in the arm, neck, or chest, fever or chills, redness or drainage at the port site, and trouble flushing the port or drawing blood. Treatment often means removing the port, retrieving catheter fragments, long courses of antibiotics, or blood thinners, and it can delay cancer treatment. Anyone with these symptoms should get medical care right away.
Why the catheters are alleged to fail
An implanted port is a small reservoir, about the size of a quarter, placed under the skin of the chest or arm and connected to a catheter that runs into a large vein near the heart. It is used for chemotherapy, infusions, and blood draws. Many PowerPort models are rated for the high-pressure injection of contrast dye used in CT scans, one reason they are widely used for cancer patients.
Plaintiffs allege that barium sulfate, which Bard added to the catheter material so it shows up on X-rays, weakens the tubing and makes it prone to cracking and fracture, and creates a rough surface where bacteria and blood clots can form. They allege Bard knew of these risks from adverse event reports and failed to warn doctors and patients or use a safer design.
The lawsuits assert claims for design defect, failure to warn, manufacturing defect, negligence, and fraudulent concealment, along with related claims under state law, against Bard Access Systems, Inc., C.R. Bard, Inc., and Becton, Dickinson and Company. Bard denies the allegations.
Where the litigation stands
On August 8, 2023, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated federal Bard port cases before Judge David G. Campbell in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. As of November 2, 2026, 4,345 of the 4,636 cases filed in MDL No. 3081 remained pending, up from 4,140 a month earlier. In its most recent SEC filing, BD reported that it was defending about 3,850 product liability claims involving its implantable ports as of June 30, 2026.
No global settlement has been announced. Under the court’s case management plan, cases that remain unresolved after the bellwether trials are to be sent back to the federal courts where they were originally filed.
Trials and verdicts
Bellwether trials are early trials of representative cases. They do not decide anyone else’s case, but they show how juries respond to the evidence.
- May 8, 2026: defense verdict on most claims. In Cook v. Becton, Dickinson, an infection case brought by Robert Cook of Minnesota, the jury found for Bard on the failure to warn, failure to instruct, and consumer fraud claims and could not reach a verdict on the design defect and unlawful trade practices claims. Mr. Cook’s motion for a new trial is pending.
- September 4, 2026: $40 million verdict. In Divelbliss v. Becton, Dickinson, a unanimous jury awarded $40 million in compensatory damages to Kimberly Divelbliss, a New Mexico woman whose Groshong catheter fractured and sent a fragment to her heart. The jury found Bard liable for design defect and failure to warn, found for Bard on manufacturing defect and fraudulent concealment, and did not award punitive damages. Bard has moved for a new trial.
- October 30, 2026: defense verdict. In Lattanzio v. Becton, Dickinson, an infection case brought by May Lattanzio of Florida, whose port was removed in 2013 after a bloodstream infection, the jury ruled for Bard after a trial that began October 13. The jury’s findings on each claim have not been made public.
- December 1, 2026: fourth bellwether trial. Hicks v. Becton, Dickinson, brought by Judy Hicks of Missouri, involves a Bard X-Port with a polyurethane catheter that became blocked by blood clots and was surgically removed. It is the first blood clot case set for trial.
- February 2, 2027: fifth bellwether trial. Sorensen v. Becton, Dickinson is scheduled to begin.
Recent developments
- November 2, 2026: The MDL reached 4,345 pending cases.
- October 30, 2026: The Lattanzio jury ruled for Bard.
- October 26, 2026: The court denied Bard’s motion for summary judgment in Hicks, clearing it for trial on December 1.
- October 8, 2026: Bard asked the court to order a new trial in Divelbliss.
- September 25, 2026: The court denied Bard’s motion for summary judgment in Lattanzio, sending the case to trial.
- September 4, 2026: The Divelbliss jury returned its $40 million verdict.
- August 6, 2026: BD reported about 3,850 port product liability claims in its quarterly SEC filing.
- May 19, 2026: A planned blood clot bellwether did not go forward after the plaintiff, Wanda Miller, died, and the court reduced the bellwether program from six trials to five.
- May 8, 2026: The first bellwether, Cook, ended in a defense verdict on most claims.
Settlements and compensation
Bard has not announced a settlement of the port catheter cases, and there is no settlement fund or claim form. The Divelbliss verdict is one data point: it shows how one jury valued one fully tried case, and it remains subject to post-trial motions and appeal.
Compensation in a port catheter case can include economic damages for past and future medical expenses, such as removal and retrieval procedures, hospitalization, and related care, and non-economic damages for pain, suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life. A spouse may have a separate claim for loss of consortium, and families may bring wrongful death claims. Some states allow punitive damages when a company’s conduct meets a high legal standard.
The value of an individual claim depends on factors such as the type of complication, whether a fragment reached the heart or lungs, the procedures needed, whether treatment for cancer or another illness was delayed, the person’s age and health, how clearly the records identify a Bard device, and the law of the state that applies.
Deadlines to file
Every claim is subject to a filing deadline, called the statute of limitations, set by state law. These deadlines vary widely from state to state. In many states, the time limit runs from when a person knew or should have known that the port caused the injury. The MDL does not create a nationwide deadline or pause the deadlines that apply to individual claims, so anyone who had a port complication should have their deadline reviewed promptly.
How we handle these cases
Doyle APC represents Bard PowerPort clients nationwide. Federal MDLs allow attorneys to appear in the consolidated court from any state, so where you live does not limit our ability to represent you. Our founder has handled complex litigation since 1997, including medical device cases, and our attorneys personally review the medical and device history of each case we accept.
We gather the port placement and removal records, imaging, patient identification cards, and treatment records needed to identify the device and document the injury. Some cases we handle directly, and others we pursue with experienced co-counsel. You pay nothing unless we recover.
Common questions
Who qualifies for a Bard PowerPort lawsuit?
You may qualify if you had a Bard implanted port and suffered a serious complication, such as a catheter fracture or migration, a port-related infection, a blood clot, or a perforation, that required treatment, and the statute of limitations that applies to you has not run. A free case review can tell you whether you qualify.
What is the latest update on the Bard PowerPort lawsuit?
As of November 2, 2026, 4,345 cases were pending in MDL No. 3081 in Arizona. A jury awarded $40 million to Kimberly Divelbliss in September 2026, and Bard has asked for a new trial. On October 30, 2026, a jury ruled for Bard in the third bellwether, an infection case. Two more trials are scheduled, for December 1, 2026 and February 2, 2027. No settlement has been announced. See Where the litigation stands for details.
Do you represent clients outside California?
Yes. Doyle APC currently represents clients nationwide in Bard PowerPort lawsuits. Federal cases are filed in the MDL in Arizona, which accepts cases from every state.
Has anyone won a Bard PowerPort lawsuit?
Yes. In September 2026, a federal jury in Arizona awarded $40 million to Kimberly Divelbliss, whose Groshong catheter fractured and sent a fragment to her heart. Bard has asked for a new trial. The first and third bellwethers, both infection cases, ended with verdicts for Bard on most or all claims. A verdict shows how one jury valued one case and does not set the value of other claims.
What is the average settlement for a Bard PowerPort lawsuit?
There is no published average because Bard has not announced a settlement. The value of any individual claim depends on the complication, the procedures needed, and the person’s medical history.
How long can a Bard PowerPort stay in?
Implanted ports are designed for long-term use and often remain in place for months or years, until treatment ends or a complication requires removal. How long a port should stay in is a decision for your doctor. A claim does not depend on how long the port was in place; what matters is whether it caused a serious complication.
Is the Bard PowerPort lawsuit a class action?
No. Federal cases are consolidated in MDL No. 3081 for pretrial proceedings and bellwether trials, but each person keeps an individual case based on their own injuries.
How long do I have to file a Bard PowerPort lawsuit?
It depends on the statute of limitations in the state whose law applies, and deadlines vary widely. In many states the time limit runs from when you learned the port caused your injury. Have your deadline reviewed promptly.
Sources
- Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation: transfer order creating MDL No. 3081 (August 8, 2023) and pending MDL dockets reports (October 1 and November 2, 2026)
- U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona: case management orders in In re Bard Implanted Port Catheter Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3081
- Becton, Dickinson and Company: Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (August 6, 2026)
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration: medical device recall records for Bard implanted port products (2018 to 2021)