Bard PowerPort Lawsuit 2026: MDL 3081 Claims & Status

The Bard PowerPort, an implanted port catheter used for repeated vascular access such as chemotherapy, is the subject of product liability claims alleging that the catheter can fracture or move after it is implanted. The federal cases are coordinated in a multidistrict litigation in Arizona. This page explains the claims, the FDA record, and the current status neutrally, including the fact that the two test trials held so far have gone different ways: the first produced a split result and the second produced a $40 million verdict for the plaintiff. It is general information and attorney advertising, not legal advice, and not a statement that anyone has a claim.

This page is part of our Mass Tort & Product Liability overview.

What the PowerPort litigation is about

A port catheter, sometimes called a chemo port, is a small device implanted under the skin and connected to a catheter that threads into a large vein, allowing clinicians to deliver chemotherapy, fluids, nutrition, or contrast and to draw blood without repeated needle sticks. The lawsuits focus on the Bard PowerPort family of devices and allege that the catheter component can fracture, crack, degrade, or move out of position after implantation. Plaintiffs allege specifically that the catheter is made with a concentration of barium sulfate, a material that makes the device visible on imaging, that is high enough to weaken the polyurethane and make it prone to failure. The legal claims include design defect, manufacturing defect, and failure to warn. These are allegations that plaintiffs must prove, and the manufacturers deny that the devices are defective.

Note: These are allegations being tested in court. Port catheters are widely used and most function as intended, and a complication does not by itself establish that a device was defective or that any manufacturer is liable.

The alleged injuries

The injuries alleged in the litigation generally stem from the catheter fracturing or migrating. Plaintiffs allege that a fractured catheter can send fragments traveling through the bloodstream, and that fracture or migration can lead to blood clots, infection or bloodstream infection, perforation of a vein or the heart, irregular heart rhythm when a fragment reaches the heart, and the need for a procedure to locate and remove the device or a fragment. The severity differs greatly from person to person, and whether any of these outcomes was caused by a defect in the device, rather than by other medical factors, is contested. Describing the alleged injuries is not a statement that the device caused any individual person's harm.

What the FDA record shows

The Bard PowerPort devices reached the U.S. market through the FDA's 510(k) clearance pathway, which clears a device based on similarity to an existing product and generally does not require new clinical trials, rather than the more rigorous premarket approval used for the highest-risk devices. The FDA's adverse-event database contains thousands of reports referencing PowerPort devices, though such reports are voluntary, unverified, and do not establish that a device caused the reported harm. It is important to be precise about recalls: the FDA has recorded a number of PowerPort-related recalls, but they were classified as the less serious type and involved administrative issues such as labeling discrepancies and flushing instructions. As of mid-2026, the FDA had not issued a recall over the catheter-fracture or barium-sulfate problem that is at the center of the lawsuits, a point the defense raises and that any reader should weigh.

Note: An adverse-event report or an administrative recall does not resolve the legal question. The litigation is about whether the catheter has a fracture-related design or manufacturing defect, which the manufacturers dispute and which no FDA recall has addressed.

The status of the litigation (as of October 2026)

The federal cases are consolidated in MDL No. 3081 in the District of Arizona before Senior Judge David G. Campbell, who previously oversaw the Bard IVC filter litigation, and the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation created the MDL in August 2023. As of the panel's September 1, 2026 statistics, 3,734 of 3,980 total cases were pending. Two bellwether trials have now been held, and they went different ways.

The first began in April 2026 and produced a split result. In its Form 10-Q filed August 6, 2026, Becton Dickinson reported that the trial "resulted in a defense verdict on two claims and a mistrial on two claims." That filing does not identify which claims fell on which side, and published accounts of the trial disagree on the point, so this page does not state a breakdown.

The second bellwether was Divelbliss v. Bard Access Systems, No. 2:23-cv-01627, a case the court had designated for trial in this MDL. It ended in a verdict for the plaintiff. Published reports of the September 4, 2026 verdict describe an award of $40 million in compensatory damages on design-defect and failure-to-warn claims, with the jury declining to award punitive damages. The court's docket shows judgment entered in that case on September 10, 2026. Post-trial motions and any appeal are the next steps, so the award is not final, and a verdict in one bellwether does not set the value of any other case.

Three more test trials are on the court's calendar. Case Management Order No. 42 set Lattanzio v. Bard Access Systems, No. 24-cv-00680, for trial from October 13 to October 30, 2026, Hicks, No. 23-cv-01703, from December 1 to December 18, 2026, and Sorensen, No. 23-cv-02557, from February 2 to February 19, 2027. Bellwether dates in this MDL have moved before, including a change that pulled the Divelbliss trial forward, so confirm the current schedule on the court's docket before relying on any of these dates.

There is still no settlement in this litigation, and reported settlement values circulating online are not based on any actual settlement, which does not exist.

Who may be involved

The people generally involved in this litigation are those who received a Bard PowerPort or similar Bard implanted port and allege an injury connected to the catheter fracturing, migrating, or a related complication. Whether any particular person may have a claim depends on the specific facts, including which device was implanted and when, the nature and documentation of the complication, the medical records, and the law of the relevant state, and the cases must also account for a mixed trial record, with the first test trial producing a split result and the second a $40 million plaintiff's verdict that is still subject to post-trial review. Having had a port implanted does not by itself establish a claim, and nothing here suggests that every patient has one or that any outcome is assured.

Deadlines and why they matter

Claims like these are subject to statutes of limitations, the legal deadlines to file suit, which vary by state and by the type of claim, commonly in the range of two to three years but ranging more widely. Many states measure the deadline from when a person knew or reasonably should have known that an injury was connected to the device, a concept called the discovery rule, rather than from the implant date. Some states also have statutes of repose, and a coordinated litigation can have its own case-management deadlines. There is no single national deadline, and this page does not state any individual's deadline. A licensed attorney in the relevant state can determine what applies, and missing a deadline can permanently bar a claim.

How to evaluate your options

If you are trying to understand your legal options, the appropriate step is to speak with a licensed attorney who handles this type of case. An attorney can assess the facts, explain the law in your state, and advise whether you may have a claim, which this page cannot do, and can take into account that the two test trials so far have gone different ways, the first a split result and the second a $40 million plaintiff's verdict still subject to post-trial review, and that no FDA fracture recall exists. It helps to gather any records you have, such as the implant records identifying the specific device, your medical records documenting the complication and any removal procedure, and the relevant dates. Most mass tort and personal injury attorneys offer a free, confidential consultation and work on a contingency basis, meaning a fee is generally owed only if there is a recovery. A consultation creates no obligation.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the Bard PowerPort lawsuit about?

It involves claims that Bard implanted port catheters can fracture or migrate after implantation, allegedly causing blood clots, infection, perforation, and the need for removal surgery, and that the catheter contains too much barium sulfate, weakening it. The legal theories are design defect, manufacturing defect, and failure to warn. The manufacturers deny the devices are defective.

What is the case number and where is it?

The federal cases are consolidated in In re: Bard Implanted Port Catheter Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3081, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona before Senior Judge David G. Campbell. The MDL was created in August 2023, and the defendants include Becton Dickinson, C.R. Bard, and Bard Access Systems.

Was the PowerPort recalled for fracturing?

Not as of mid-2026. The FDA has recorded several PowerPort recalls, but they were the less serious administrative type, involving labeling and flushing instructions, not the catheter-fracture or barium-sulfate problem at the center of the lawsuits. The defense points to the absence of a fracture recall.

Has anyone won a PowerPort trial?

Yes, in the second test trial. The first bellwether ended without a clear winner: Becton Dickinson reported in its Form 10-Q filed August 6, 2026 that it produced a defense verdict on two claims and a mistrial on two claims, without saying which claims went which way. The second bellwether, Divelbliss, ended in a verdict for the plaintiff, reported as $40 million in compensatory damages on design-defect and failure-to-warn claims with no punitive damages, and judgment was entered September 10, 2026. That award is still subject to post-trial motions and any appeal, and a single result is specific to that case and does not decide the others.

Is there a settlement?

As of October 2026 there is no settlement in the PowerPort litigation. Any dollar figures circulating online are not based on an actual settlement, because none exists. Be cautious of sources that promise a payout.

Is there a deadline to file?

Yes, but it varies. Statutes of limitations differ by state and by claim type, and many states measure the deadline from when a person reasonably should have connected the injury to the device. There is no single national deadline, so the applicable one should be confirmed with an attorney in the relevant state.