Super Lawyers
Justia Lawyer Rating for Ronald V. Miller Jr.
Best Law Firms
Avvo Rating - 10
Million Dollar Advocates Forum
Litigator Awards

Bard PowerPort Lawsuit

The page is about the Bard PowerPort lawsuit that is likely to become an MDL class action lawsuit soon. This page discusses these new lawsuits and where our lawyers expect these claims to go in 2024.

Victims who have suffered injuries due to a malfunctioning Bard PowerPort device are now initiating product liability lawsuits against the manufacturers of these implants. Our law firm is currently welcoming new clients who have experienced injury due to the implantation of a Bard PowerPort device, specifically through device fracture, migration, or other failure.


UPDATES:

February 10, 2024: What types of injuries are our lawyers seeing in this litigation?  Fracture and migration of the PowerPort have led to various severe injuries, including bleeding, cardiac/pericardial tamponade, thromboembolism, infection, cardiac arrhythmia, severe and persistent pain, perforations of tissue, vessels, and organs, and the need for additional surgeries to remove the faulty device. These complications can be life-threatening.

February 2, 2024: In January 2024, the Bard PowerPort class action MDL added 26 new cases, marking the highest monthly volume since its inception last year. This brings the total number of pending claims to 99.

January 16, 2024: A new Bard PowerPort lawsuit was filed last week.  The Estate of a Tyler, Texas man filed a survival action and wrongful death lawsuit against Bard after the man died after using the PowerPort M.R.I. Implantable Port in February 2022. He suffered an infection and endocarditis.

The total number of claims in the MDL is now 73.

January 1, 2024: In the PowerPort MDL, the judge granted an extension for the joint order concerning evidence preservation. Additionally, a status conference is set for January 8, 2024, as scheduled by Judge Campbell.

December 26, 2023: We often get calls from victims who are unsure which products are involved in the PowerPort class action lawsuits.  Here they are:

Brand Name Model Number/Product Code
BardPort M.R.I. Implantable Port 0602610, 0602620, 0602640, 0602650, 0602660, 0602670, 0602680, 0602690, 0602830, 0602833, 0602840, 0602843, 0605400, 0605420, 0607173
BardPort M.R.I. Low-Profile Implantable Port 0603830, 0603840, 0603870, 0603880, 6603880
BardPort Titanium Dome Implantable Port 0602850, 0602860, 0602870
BardPort Titanium Implantable Port 0602230, 0602240, 0602270, 0602290, 0603000, 0602820, 0605300, 0605320, 0607301, 0607302, 0602210, 0602260, 0602280, 0602810
BardPort M.R.I. Low-Profile Implantable Port 0603830, 0603840, 0603870, 0603880, 6603880
BardPort Titanium Dome Implantable Port 0602850, 0602860, 0602870
BardPort Titanium Implantable Port 0602230, 0602240, 0602270, 0602290, 0603000, 0602820, 0605300, 0605320, 0607301, 0607302, 0602210, 0602260, 0602280, 0602810
M.R.I. Plastic Dual Lumen Port 0603500, 0605920, 0605930, 0607100, 0607200, 0615460
M.R.I. Ultra SlimPort Implantable Port 0605640, 0655640
Peritoneal Titanium Port 0603000, 0603006
PowerFlow Implantable Apheresis IV Port A710962
PowerPort ClearVUE isp Implantable Port 1606052, 1606062, 1606362, 1606382, 1608052, 1608062, 1608362, 1608382, 1666362, 1668362, 1676300, 5606362, 5608062, 5608362, 5666362, 5668362, CP00004
PowerPort ClearVUE Slim Implantable Port 1616000, 1616001, 1616070, 1616071, 1616300, 1616380, 1618000, 1618001, 1618070, 1618300, 1618380, 1676301, 1678300, 1678301, 5616000, 5616300, 5618000, 5618300, 5676300, 5676301, 5678300, 5678301, CP00005
PowerPort duo M.R.I. Implantable Port 1829500, 1829570, 5829500, 5829502
PowerPort Implantable Port 1708000, 1708001, 1708070, 1708071, 1709600, 1709601, 1759600, 1759601, 1778000, 1778001, 1778070, 1778071
PowerPort isp Implantable Port 1706050, 1706051, 1706060, 1706061, 1708050, 1708051, 1708060, 1708061, 1708160, 1708550, 1708551, 1708560, 1708561, 4708060, 4708061, 4708560, 4708561, CP00001, CP00002, CP00003, CP00009
PowerPort isp M.R.I. Implantable Port 1806050, 1806051, 1806060, 1806061, 1808050, 1808051, 1808060, 1808061, 1808069, 1808360, 1808550, 1808551, 1808560, 1808561, 1809660, 1809661, 1859660, 1859661, 4808060, 4808061, 4808560, 4808561, 9808560
PowerPort M.R.I. Implantable Port 1808000, 1808001, 1808002, 1808070, 1808071, 1808300, 1809600, 1809601, 1809670, 1859600, 1859601, 1878000, 1878001, 1878070, 1878071
PowerPort Slim Implantable Port 1716000, 1716001, 1716070, 1716071, 1716080, 1718000, 1718001, 1718070, 1718500, 1718501, 1718570, 1718571, CP00008
PowerPort VUE M.R.I. Implantable Port 1806052, 1806062, 1808052, 1808062
PowerPort VUE Titanium Implantable Port 1706052, 1706062, 1708052, 1708062
SlimPort Dual-Lumen Rosenblatt Implantable Port 0604970, 0624970, 0654970
Titanium Low-Profile Port 0602180, 0602190, 0605490, 0605510, 0606100, 0606150, 0606200
Titanium SlimPort Implantable Port 0605550, 0605560, 0655510
Vaccess CT Low-Profile Titanium Power-Injectable Port 7360000, 7360001, 7380000
Vaccess CT Power-Injectable Implantable Port 7460000, 7480000, 7496000
X-Port isp M.R.I. Implantable Port 0607500, 0607510, 0607520, 0607530, 0607540, 0607550, 0607555, 0657500, 0657510, 0657520, 0657525, 7707540, 7757540
X-Port Low-Profile Titanium Port 0655870, 0605840, 0605850

December 19, 2023: There are still only 69 total cases pending in the PowerPort MDL. Five new cases were added over the last 30 days and only 20 new cases have been added since the MDL was created at the end of the summer.

This will not be huge litigation.  But victims’ lawyers are really high on these cases.

December 7, 2023: The Judge in the PowerPort MDL issued a series of Case Management Orders recently setting the framework for the MDL moving forward. The orders establish rules and procedures for the selection of bellwether cases, the use of short-form complaints, direct filing in the MDL, and plaintiff fact sheets.

November 28, 2023:  Just 2 new plaintiffs were transferred into the Bard PowerPort MDL over the 30 days. There are now 62 total plaintiffs in the PowerPort MDL, which is only 12 more than when the MDL was established 3 back in August.

November 22, 2023:  At a case status conference on Thursday, November 16, Judge Campbell assessed the ongoing progress and outlined future strategies for handling the litigation. In compliance with the Court’s request, lawyers submitted a joint memorandum on November 9, which included a detailed agenda for the conference and a proposed bellwether trial plan for the Bard PowerPort litigation.

According to this plan, both parties are to present 24 cases each by July 1, 2024, creating a preliminary group of 48 cases. This is typical.  The odd thing is there are only 64 filed Bard PowerPort lawsuits.  So it may be that more than half the plaintiffs are in the pool.

Following the initial discovery phase, 15 cases will be selected by December 17, 2024, to be part of Discovery Group 1, with each party picking five cases and the final five being chosen collaboratively.

October 25, 2023: The Bard PowerPort product liability lawsuits in federal courts have already been consolidated into a class action MDL, which currently has 62 pending cases. Now, however, a parallel class action MCL (multi-county litigation) is being sought to consolidate over 500 PowerPort lawsuits in New Jersey state courts. New Jersey is where is Bard (now a subsidiary of Beckton Dickson) is headquartered and the state has long been a favorite venue for product liability cases. New Jersey’s MCL process is basically the same as the MDL process in federal courts.

October 16, 2023: 12 new cases have been added to the Bard PowerPort class action MDL over the last 30 days. That brings the current total number of pending cases up to 62 for an MDL that is only 2 months old now. The new case volume will probably remain fairly slow for the first few months, but will eventually pick up as the size of the potential plaintiff field in this one is fairly large.

October 11, 2023: One of the most recent Bard PowerPort lawsuits was filed by a Chicago woman who had the PowerPort inserted into her left jugular vein for breast cancer chemo in 2020. In less than a year, the PowerPort had fractured and one of the fragments of the device was in the right atrium chamber of her heart. She underwent numerous surgeries to remove the fragments. She filed her lawsuit in federal court in Chicago and it will be transferred into the MDL.

October 2, 2023: The Judge in the recently created Bard PowerPort class action MDL issued a pair of Case Management Orders outlining how this MDL will take shape moving forward. Judge David G. Campbell has been on the federal bench in Arizona since he was appointed by President Bush in 2003. Campbell is a former law clerk to Justice William Rehnquist on the US Supreme Court and he is a widely respected jurist.

September 18, 2023: Last month there were just 10 cases pending in the Bard PowerPort MDL. This month, however, 40 new cases were transferred into the newly formed MDL from federal districts across the country. There are now 50 pending cases in the MDL.

August 18, 2023: As of today there are currently 10 pending cases in the newly formed MDL class action lawsuit involving alleged defects with the Bard PowerPort.

This is the first month that case totals for this MDL have been listed so it will be interesting to see how this litigation grows moving forward.

August 12, 2023:  As anticipated, a class action for Bard PowerPort lawsuits has been established in federal court in Arizona (a not-so-common venue for MDLs).  The MDL Panel determined that all Bard PowerPort lawsuits filed at the federal level will be unified under one judge in an MDL class action.

Whether Bard acknowledges it or not, this development is beneficial for all parties involved. Such a class action approach will simplify pretrial proceedings and potentially expedite a Bard PowerPort settlement in the future.

July 25, 2023: This week, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) is set for a hearing to decide whether all federal Bard PowerPort lawsuits should be combined and overseen by one judge for streamlined discovery and pretrial proceedings in an MDL.

June 21, 2023: Even as numerous Bard PowerPort lawsuits are piling up in federal court, each alleging severe problems resulting from the device’s design, the manufacturer is contesting efforts to unify these claims under one judge for pretrial hearings. These lawsuits assert that Bard Ports, designed to facilitate medication delivery, are inherently defective, causing fractures and leading to infections, blood clots, and more complications.

June 8,  2023: a motion has been filed with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to consolidate all Bard PowerPort product liability lawsuits in federal courts into a new class action Multidistrict Litigation (MDL). According to the motion, there are presently 10 PowerPort lawsuits waiting in diverse federal districts. However, it is anticipated that the number of cases will see a significant surge in the next year.


The Bard PowerPort

Bard Access Systems, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Becton, Dickinson, and Company (BD), has designed, manufactured, marketed, and sold the Bard PowerPort. This device, among several other port/catheter systems varieties, is an entirely implantable vascular access device. It provides repeated access to the vascular system for medication delivery, intravenous fluids, parenteral nutrition solutions, and blood products.

The main goal of the Bard PowerPort is to give doctors easy access to the patient’s vascular system.  The idea is to get the medication directly into the patient’s bloodstream. The injection port has a raised center, or “septum,” where medication is injected and transported into the bloodstream via a small, flexible tube, called a catheter, inserted into a blood vessel. This device, surgically placed under the skin, comprises two primary components: an injection port and a polyurethane catheter.

The Manufacturing Concerns with the PowerPort Catheter

Why is the Bard PowerPort causing injuries to patients?  The answer is a little complex.

The Chronoflex catheter, which is part of the PowerPort, comprises two main ingredients: polyurethane, a type of plastic, and barium sulfate. As time passes, the barium sulfate particles start to separate from the surface of the catheter. This causes tiny cracks and changes to the plastic structure, weakening the catheter over time.

images-1

The strength and durability of the catheter, which has barium sulfate mixed into the polyurethane, depend on two things. The first is how much barium sulfate is used, and the second is how evenly the barium sulfate is spread throughout the plastic.

Bard PowerPort lawsuits allege that when the defendants made the Chronoflex Catheter, they used too much barium sulfate. This made the polyurethane too thick before it was fully formed into the catheter, a process called polymerization. Because the polyurethane was too thick, the barium sulfate didn’t mix in properly. It created a sort of uneven spread of barium sulfate within the plastic, which could contribute to the degradation of the catheter over time. This makes the PowerPort prone to fracturing, migrating, and other forms of malfunction post-implantation.

Bard PowerPort Complications & Failures

The design flaws and manufacturing issues with the Bard PowerPort have made the device prone to 3 primary complications or post-implantation failures. These three primary complications are described below.

PowerPort Fracture: The most common problem experienced with the PowerPort is fracture of the device. The PowerPort is excessively brittle because of the material it is made out of. This means that the tubing and port housing are prone to fracturing or breaking off and damaging the vascular system. Fractures of the PowerPort can lead to severe injuries and vascular damage.

Power Port Migration: Due to the design issues and fracture rate, the PowerPort device is also prone to post-implantation migration. The migration usually involves the flexible tube parts inserted into the blood vessel. Migration can occur by itself or with a fracture of the Bard PowerPort.

Infection: The flawed nature of the material that the Bard PowerPort is made out of does not stop bacteria, especially when the material fractures or becomes degraded. Serious infections originating at the port site are the third major complication of this device.

Injuries Linked to the Defective PowerPort

The manufacturing and design issues with the PowerPort make it highly prone to fracture post-implantation. A fractured implant can migrate from the implantation site and cause vascular damage. Other malfunctions are also familiar with the PowerPort.

Let’s dig a little deeper into the three significant injuries that are the focus of the MDL: catheter fracture, infection, and thrombosis.

Catheter Fracture

Catheter fracture refers to the breaking or splitting of the catheter portion of the PowerPort device. This complication can occur due to mechanical stress from repeated movement, improper placement or angulation during insertion, or material fatigue over time.

A fractured catheter can lead to serious consequences, including embolization, where a fragment of the catheter breaks off and travels through the bloodstream, potentially causing a blockage in vital organs like the lungs.

Symptoms might not be immediately noticeable but can include swelling or pain at the port site, difficulty with infusion or withdrawal, and visible changes on imaging studies.

Infection

Infections are a significant risk with any implanted device, including Bard PowerPorts. The risk of infection increases if the device or the insertion site is not properly sterilized, or if the catheter is compromised, such as through a fracture.

Infections can range from localized at the insertion site to systemic, potentially leading to sepsis, a life-threatening condition.

Symptoms of infection include redness, swelling, warmth, pain at the port site, fever, and chills.

Infections require prompt medical attention, often involving antibiotics, and in severe cases, removal of the infected device.

Thrombosis

Thrombosis refers to the formation of a blood clot within a blood vessel, which can be a serious complication of implantable port devices like the Bard PowerPort. Thrombosis may occur inside the port, along the catheter, or in the vein into which the catheter is inserted.

Risk factors for thrombosis include the catheter’s presence in the vein, which can irritate the vessel wall and slow blood flow around the device, and the patient’s level of hydration, underlying medical conditions, and the type of substances infused through the port. S

ymptoms of thrombosis include swelling, pain, and tenderness in the area around the port or along the path of the catheter, as well as difficulty with infusion or withdrawal of fluids.

Treatment may involve anticoagulant medications to dissolve the clot, and in some cases, removal of the port.

Defendants Had Reason to Know About the Problems With the PowerPort

Soon after introducing the PowerPort to the market, Bard began receiving significant adverse event reports (“AERs”) from healthcare providers indicating post-implantation PowerPort fractures. Bard also received numerous AERs reporting perforations of internal vasculature by the implant.

These reports should have alerted Bard to PowerPort’s significantly higher failure rate than similar products. The issues with the PowerPort were likely tied to the flaws in the Chronoflex material used in its construction. Despite this, Bard failed to inform consumers of the risks. These lawsuits alleged the defendants consciously neglected to take reasonable steps to warn the patient, doctors, and the public about these dangers or, even better, recall the device.

Bard PowerPort Lawsuit Allegations

There are many different allegations against the defendants in each Bard PowerPort lawsuit.  But the core of each of these claims is the failure to warn. The suits allege that they were responsible for warning about the risks associated with the PowerPort usage.

When the defendants designed, manufactured, and sold the device, it was faulty and posed a significant risk to its users when used for its intended purpose, which is to serve as an implanted port/catheter system for medication administration. The defendants failed to sufficiently warn about the device’s known or scientifically discernible dangers and did not provide adequate instructions for its safe and proper usage.

These are serious allegations.  But the claims don’t stop there.  These lawsuits allege that at the time of manufacturing, labeling, distribution, and sale of the PowerPorts, the defendants should have known that the PowerPort carried a greater risk of device failure and subsequent severe injuries than other comparable devices and that they took steps to cover up these risks from the FDA.

Specifically, Bard PowerPort lawsuits allege that the defendants intentionally concealed the actual facts and information regarding the severe risks of harm associated with the implantation of the PowerPort and intentionally downplayed the extent of the adverse side effects of being implanted with the device, despite their awareness of the severe and permanent side effects and risks of the product.

It is the early rounds of these lawsuits.  But if these allegations are proven to be accurate, it will put punitive damages in play in many of these lawsuits, and juries will not look favorably on the defendants.

Is There a Bard PowerPort Recall?

Although the FDA issued a class 2 recall for specific Bard PowerPort models in 2020, this recall was concluded in 2022 when the manufacturer implemented corrective actions to remedy the device failures. No new recall has been issued for Bard PowerPort in response to the latest complaints of defects that have been raised in the new Bard Powerport lawsuits.

Example Bard PowerPort Lawsuit

A Missouri patient underwent a procedure at the Kansas City VA Medical Center in Kansas City, Missouri. During the procedure, a Bard Power Port was implanted via the right internal jugular vein to administer chemotherapy in treating urothelial cancer.

A little over a year later, the plaintiff was admitted to the hospital. During the admission, it was discovered that the plaintiff’s PowerPort had developed a fungemia infection. As a result, the infected PowerPort needed to be removed.  The plaintiff was prescribed micafungin and closely monitored until his discharge.

The patient is alleged to have suffered and continues to suffer damages, which include undergoing an unnecessary major surgery, an increased risk of future severe and permanent injuries, severe emotional distress, and ongoing fear and anxiety regarding future injuries, such as cardiac tamponade.

The PowerPort lawsuit also alleges, notably, the defendants intentionally hid and continue to hide their knowledge of the unreasonably dangerous risks associated with the PowerPort from the plaintiff and his physicians.

Contact Us About a Bard PowerPort Lawsuit

Our firm is currently accepting new cases from individuals who were injured by a defective Bard PowerPort implant. Contact us today at 800-553-8082 for a free consultation.

Client Reviews
Client Reviews
★★★★★
They quite literally worked as hard as if not harder than the doctors to save our lives. Terry Waldron
★★★★★
Ron helped me find a clear path that ended with my foot healing and a settlement that was much more than I hope for. Aaron Johnson
★★★★★
Hopefully I won't need it again but if I do, I have definitely found my lawyer for life and I would definitely recommend this office to anyone! Bridget Stevens
★★★★★
The last case I referred to them settled for $1.2 million. John Selinger
★★★★★
I am so grateful that I was lucky to pick Miller & Zois. Maggie Lauer
★★★★★
The entire team from the intake Samantha to the lawyer himself (Ron Miller) has been really approachable. Suzette Allen
★★★★★
The case settled and I got a lot more money than I expected. Ron even fought to reduce how much I owed in medical bills so I could get an even larger settlement. Nchedo Idahosa