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) and its subsidiary Navilyst Medical — 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 Bard PowerPort litigation is growing rapidly. New case filings have increased 15.5%, with 208 new cases filed in the most recent month as of early 2026. An MDL is pending in the District of Arizona, where Bard's IVC filter MDL is also located.

Discovery is in early stages. Bellwether trials are expected once the MDL is fully established and discovery is completed. The rapid growth in filings suggests the litigation will continue to expand as more patients and attorneys become aware of the claims.

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 reached. This litigation is in early stages with discovery underway and bellwether trials expected.

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