Port Catheter Lawsuit: Bard PowerPort MDL 3081 Verdicts and Who Qualifies

An implanted port catheter (IPC) is a small reservoir placed under the skin, usually in the chest, connected to a thin catheter threaded into a large vein. It lets nurses give chemotherapy, infusions, or draw blood without repeated needle sticks. Bard sells several versions, including PowerPort devices that can handle power injection for imaging.

The MDL court summarizes the core theory this way: plaintiffs allege that the barium sulfate in Bard IPCs degrades the mechanical integrity of the catheter, leading to surface irregularities that cause catheter fracture, infection, and blood clots. Barium sulfate is added so the device shows up on X-ray, CT, and MRI. Plaintiffs also allege that for ports made with polyoxymethylene (POM), Bard's manufacturing did not adequately stabilize the plastic against oxidative degradation, causing cracks and fissures. They bring design defect, manufacturing defect, and failure to warn claims.

The court notes that each version of Bard's IPCs received FDA premarket clearance. Bard and its parent Becton, Dickinson and Company (BD) deny the claims and say they have meritorious defenses.

AngioDynamics and Navilyst ports

A separate group of cases over AngioDynamics and Navilyst Medical port catheters is centralized as MDL No. 3125, In re: AngioDynamics, Inc., and Navilyst Medical, Inc., Port Catheter Products Liability Litigation, in the Southern District of California before Judge Jinsook Ohta, with 428 cases pending on September 1, 2026.

The Bard cases are centralized as In re: Bard Implanted Port Catheter Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3081, before Senior Judge David G. Campbell in the District of Arizona. The JPML created it on August 8, 2023.

In the second bellwether, Kimberly Divelbliss had a PowerPort with a Groshong silicone catheter. According to her trial team, about two years after implantation the catheter fractured and a fragment lodged in her heart, requiring removal surgery and leading to arrhythmias, heart attacks, and further cardiac procedures. The nine-person jury found unanimously for her on strict liability and negligence claims for both design defect and failure to warn, and awarded $40 million in compensatory damages. It declined to find fraudulent concealment or award punitive damages.

BD's filings describe the first trial as ending in a defense verdict on two claims and a mistrial on two claims. Verdicts can be challenged after trial and on appeal. There is no global settlement in either port MDL.

Attorneys reviewing port cases usually look for three injury types that match the MDL's focus:

• Fracture or migration. The catheter broke, and a piece traveled toward the heart or lungs or had to be retrieved.
• Infection. A port pocket, tunnel, or bloodstream infection tied to the device, sometimes leading to sepsis and removal.
• Thrombosis. A blood clot related to the catheter, including deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism.

You need to know the manufacturer and model, which usually appear on the implant record from the placement procedure. Many port patients were being treated for cancer; family members of a patient who died after a device complication may have a wrongful death claim.

Claims are weaker when a complication is common with any port regardless of design, such as an infection with a clear unrelated cause, or when the port was in place far past its intended use without follow-up. Those are facts an attorney will weigh.

Because many port patients are also going through cancer treatment, it can be hard to separate device problems from the illness. Records that tie a specific event, such as a fragment seen on imaging or an infection that resolved only after the port was removed, to the device carry the most weight.

Keep a list of every port you have had, since some patients have had more than one.

The only plaintiff verdict so far is $40 million for Ms. Divelbliss, whose injuries included a fragment in her heart and heart attacks. That is one bellwether with severe cardiac harm and may be challenged, so it is not a typical value. The first bellwether produced no award.

If the litigation settles, amounts would likely be tiered by injury: fracture with cardiac complications at the high end, infection requiring removal or causing sepsis, and clots with or without embolism. Medical costs, lost wages, and pain and suffering are the usual damages. Attorneys typically work on contingency. For how these differ from class settlements, read class action vs. mass tort.

The Divelbliss jury declined to find fraudulent concealment and declined to award punitive damages, so the $40 million was entirely compensatory. Future juries may weigh the evidence differently, and post-trial rulings can change the amount.

These are state-law product liability claims: strict liability and negligence for design defect, failure to warn, and manufacturing defect. Because Bard's ports reached the market through FDA premarket clearance rather than full premarket approval, Bard cannot rely on the broad federal preemption defense available for some high-risk devices, and juries decide the design and warning questions.

The Divelbliss jury accepted both the design defect and failure to warn theories, the first time a jury in this MDL did so. The judge also rules on which expert testimony juries may hear, which shapes every later trial. For how bellwethers work, see what an MDL is.

Manufacturing claims about the POM ports rest on the allegation that Bard did not adequately stabilize the plastic against oxidative degradation, which plaintiffs say causes cracks and fissures. The court's orders on expert testimony about barium sulfate and POM degradation will shape which theories reach juries in the remaining bellwethers.

Each claim is governed by the plaintiff's state statute of limitations, commonly two or three years from the injury or from when you knew or should have known the device caused it. Ms. Divelbliss, for example, filed her complaint in New Mexico state court in July 2022 before it was moved into the MDL.

For fracture cases, the date a fragment was found on imaging is often the key discovery date. Some states also have statutes of repose tied to when the device was sold. Wrongful death deadlines usually run from the date of death.

Many port patients were in cancer treatment when the problem happened and did not think about a legal claim. That is understandable, but most state deadlines do not pause for illness. If a port problem happened in the last few years, have an attorney review the dates now.

For families, a wrongful death claim after a port complication usually has its own deadline measured from the date of death, which may differ from the patient's own injury deadline.

The MDL court describes an implanted port catheter as a port placed under the skin connected to a catheter whose tip sits in a central vein. Catheters vary in width and are made of silicone or polyurethane. According to the court, ports are typically implanted by an interventional radiologist or a vascular surgeon, and a nurse or other professional then accesses the port to inject medication that flows through the catheter into the vein.

The MDL involves multiple versions of Bard ports. Several are built with polyoxymethylene (POM), an acetal plastic, in the port body, and many have raised bumps on the silicone center that identify them as power-injectable devices. Each version received FDA premarket clearance, according to the court.

Why the injury type matters

The MDL focuses on three injury groups: catheter fracture and migration, infection, and blood clots. The bellwether plan tests each. The first trial produced a split result, and the Divelbliss fracture case produced the first plaintiff verdict. The remaining trials scheduled for October 13 and December 1, 2026 and February 2, 2027 will show how juries view infection and clot claims, which are harder to tie to a design defect because they can occur with any port.

How the Divelbliss case got to trial

Kimberly Divelbliss filed her complaint in New Mexico state court in July 2022, alleging design defect, warnings defects, manufacturing defects, fraudulent concealment, and other claims. It was removed to federal court and folded into MDL 3081 as Divelbliss v. Becton, Dickinson and Company, No. CV-23-1627-PHX-DGC. The trial ran about three weeks in Phoenix.

Separate AngioDynamics litigation

If your port was made by AngioDynamics or Navilyst, your case belongs in MDL 3125 in San Diego rather than the Bard MDL. That MDL was created October 3, 2024 and is smaller, with 428 pending cases and 459 filed in total as of September 1, 2026.

1. Get follow-up care for any retained fragment, clot, or infection, and keep treating your underlying condition.
2. Request the implant record from port placement showing the manufacturer, model, and lot number.
3. Collect imaging and procedure reports documenting the fracture, infection, or clot and any removal.
4. Ask whether the removed port was saved, and request that the hospital preserve it.
5. Do not sign releases from a manufacturer or insurer without advice.

In a case review, expect questions about why the port was placed, when, by whom, which problem occurred (fracture, infection, or clot), and what treatment followed. If you do not know the port's maker, the placement record or implant card usually names it, and an attorney can request it with your permission. Family members may ask on behalf of a patient who has died.

Independent attorneys who handle port catheter cases can review your records and deadline. A free case review takes about two minutes. Related: the hernia mesh lawsuit (Bard is also a defendant there) and the Bair Hugger lawsuit.