If you received a Bard PowerPort or similar implanted port for chemotherapy and suffered a serious complication, you may be able to join a chemo port lawsuit. More than 3,370 cases are consolidated in a federal multidistrict litigation in Arizona as of June 2026, alleging that Bard PowerPort catheters are defectively designed and have caused infections, blood clots, cardiac injuries, and catheter fractures that sent broken pieces traveling through patients’ bloodstreams. The first bellwether trial ended in May 2026 with a split result, and additional test trials are scheduled through February 2027.
What the Lawsuits Allege Is Wrong With the Device
A chemo port, or port-a-cath, is a small device surgically implanted under the skin that connects to a large vein through a thin catheter tube. It lets doctors deliver chemotherapy, IV fluids, antibiotics, and blood draws without repeated needle sticks. The PowerPort is one brand made by C.R. Bard, which Becton, Dickinson and Company (BD) acquired in 2017.
The catheter tubing in PowerPort devices is made from a polyurethane called ChronoFlex, which contains barium sulfate so the catheter shows up on X-rays. Plaintiffs allege that the concentration of barium sulfate is too high and weakens the polyurethane, and that improper mixing during manufacturing creates air pockets and uneven particle distribution. The result, according to the master complaint, is surface cracks, fissures, and pitting that make the catheter prone to fracturing, breaking apart, or shifting out of position inside the body.
Injuries Covered by the Litigation
The master complaint alleges Bard’s implanted port catheters have caused “myriad complications,” including “catheter fracture, migration, and/or perforation; infection; thrombosis; and even death.” The injuries described across the cases include:
- Bloodstream infections and sepsis, which plaintiffs link to bacteria harboring in cracks and pitting on the catheter surface.
- Blood clots, including venous thrombosis, deep vein thrombosis, thromboembolism, and pulmonary embolism.
- Cardiac and vascular damage, including cardiac puncture, pericardial tamponade, arrhythmia, and tearing of blood vessels.
- Organ perforation from migrating catheter fragments lodging in the heart, lungs, or other organs.
- Emergency hospitalization and surgery to retrieve fractured pieces, repair damage, or replace the device.
Some cases involve patient deaths. One of the originally scheduled bellwether plaintiffs, Wanda Miller, died on February 2, 2026, and her case was removed from the trial calendar.
Where the Cases Stand
In August 2023, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated the growing number of PowerPort cases into MDL No. 3081, In Re: Bard Implanted Port Catheter Products Liability Litigation, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona before Senior District Judge David G. Campbell. As of June 2026, 3,376 cases are active, with 3,583 filed in total. A separate multicounty litigation track was established in New Jersey state courts in October 2024.
This is an MDL, not a class action. In a class action a single verdict usually binds the whole group; in an MDL, individual cases stay separate and the court handles shared pretrial work like discovery and expert challenges. If bellwether trials don’t push the parties toward a global settlement, cases can be returned to their home courts for individual trials.
The named defendants are Becton, Dickinson and Company, C.R. Bard, Inc., Bard Access Systems, Inc., and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. Plaintiffs allege BD, Bard, and Bard Access Systems operate as “alter egos,” with BD exercising complete control after the 2017 acquisition.
The First Bellwether Verdict
The court selected six primary bellwether cases spanning the three main injury categories: infection, thrombosis, and catheter fracture. The first trial, Cook v. Becton, Dickinson and Company, began April 21, 2026. Robert Cook alleged he developed a serious infection after receiving a Bard PowerPort M.R.I. Implantable Port at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, in 2022.
Before trial, Judge Campbell excluded a defense expert, Dr. Musher, finding the oncologist lacked specific expertise to opine on whether the device caused Cook’s infection. The judge also denied most of Bard’s motion for summary judgment.
On May 8, 2026, the nine-person jury found Bard not liable on negligence, consumer fraud, and failure to warn or instruct. The jury deadlocked on design defect and unlawful trade practices, producing a hung jury on those counts. Jurors later reported that seven of nine believed the device could have been designed to be safer. The jury foreperson said the verdict form was “confusing.” Cook’s attorneys filed a motion on June 3, 2026, seeking a new trial and judgment as a matter of law.
Upcoming Trials and Settlement Posture
The remaining bellwether schedule as of mid-2026:
- August 18, 2026 — an infection case.
- October 13, 2026 — a catheter fracture case (plaintiff Kimberly Divelbliss).
- December 1, 2026 — a thrombosis case.
- February 2, 2027 — an infection case.
No global settlement has been reached. The court directed both sides to participate in settlement discussions scheduled for July 2026, though no public reports confirm whether those talks have taken place. Any dollar figures circulating are speculative. Legal industry estimates cited in reporting suggest individual payouts could range widely by injury severity, with infection-only cases potentially valued between $30,000 and $100,000 and catheter fracture cases involving organ damage potentially valued between $175,000 and $350,000. These are projections, not offers or court-approved amounts.
Who Can File a Chemo Port Lawsuit
To pursue a claim in the Bard PowerPort litigation, you generally must have been implanted with a Bard PowerPort device and experienced a serious device-related injury. Covered models include the PowerPort M.R.I., PowerPort ClearVUE, PowerPort ClearVUE ISP, PowerPort ClearVUE Slim, and PowerPort isp M.R.I., among others.
Statutes of limitations vary by state and typically run from one to six years, starting when the patient discovered, or reasonably should have discovered, that the injury was linked to the device. Kentucky, Louisiana, and Tennessee are among the shortest at one year; Maine and North Dakota allow six. Most large states fall in the two-to-three-year range. Because the clock runs from discovery rather than implantation, patients who only recently connected their complications to the device may still be within the window.
New cases can still be filed and transferred into MDL 3081. Cases are typically handled on a contingency-fee basis, so attorneys collect only if compensation is recovered.
What Bard and BD Say
BD has disputed the allegations. The company states there is “no medical literature to support an increased rate of adverse events” associated with barium sulfate in its catheters, and that complications from implanted ports are “well-documented in the medical literature” and often caused by patient health conditions or improper device maintenance.
BD notes the FDA has never initiated a recall of its port catheters for catheter fracture, occlusion, thrombosis, or infection since the product line launched in 1987, and has never issued a warning letter about its port products. The company acknowledges a 2021 voluntary recall of a limited number of PowerPort duo M.R.I. units for a manufacturing anomaly affecting flushing and septum performance, but says that recall was unrelated to the fracture, infection, and thrombosis issues at the center of the lawsuits. The devices were cleared through the FDA’s 510(k) pathway, which requires manufacturers to show substantial equivalence to a previously approved device rather than go through full premarket approval.
Other Port Manufacturers Facing Similar Suits
Bard is not the only port catheter manufacturer being sued, and the right case depends on the device you received. AngioDynamics and its subsidiary Navilyst Medical are defendants in a separate MDL, No. 3125, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California before Judge Jinsook Ohta. That litigation makes similar allegations about polyurethane and barium sulfate ports. As of June 2026, 391 cases are pending there, and bellwether trials are not expected before mid-2028.
In March 2026, lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against ICU Medical, Inc., the legal successor to Smiths Medical, targeting the ProPort and Port-A-Cath II Power P.A.C. devices with similar allegations of excessive barium sulfate, material degradation, and failure to warn. There is no MDL for ICU Medical port cases yet. A separate Class I FDA recall of ProPort Plastic Implantable Ports was issued in March 2025 for a manufacturing defect causing port housing separation, though the litigation involves additional device models and failure allegations beyond that recall.