People's Justice

Case guide

Which firm is named in a Bard device claim?

A company name alone does not establish legal fault. Start with the device and the named court record.

See If You Qualify

Free · No obligation · About 2 minutes

Updated Oct 4, 202614 sources

This may apply to you if

  • Identify the Bard device in the implant record.
  • Review the medical finding and care before and after placement.
  • Ask about dates, applicable law and the firm’s current acceptance rules.

What the public record says

These are cited sources. Their inclusion does not imply that they endorse People’s Justice or reviewed this page.

David G. Campbell · United States District Court for the District of Arizona · Senior United States District Judge

Finding: The September 25, 2026 order denied a request to end the Lattanzio case before trial because factual issues remained. It did not award a personal payment.

Lattanzio individual ruling, September 25, 2026 (opens in a new tab) · Sep 25, 2026 · Checked Oct 3, 2026

Takatoshi Nakamura · Department of Surgery, Kitasato University School of Medicine, Japan · First-listed author of the PowerPort cohort study

Finding: The 132-person study recorded infections, a kink and leaks, with no observed tube breakage. This small hospital cohort does not decide the cause of another patient’s injury.

Nakamura original PowerPort cohort, 2017 (opens in a new tab) · Mar 10, 2017 · Checked Oct 3, 2026

The evidence and its limits

Kitasato University School of Medicine, Japan · Annals of Medicine and Surgery · 2017

Complications after implantation of subcutaneous central venous ports (PowerPort)

Design:
Cohort
Participants:
132 patients with PowerPort implants at one hospital
Finding:
Eight patients had recorded complications: four infections, one kink and three leaks. No breakage was observed.
Main limitation
Small, one-hospital observational sample without a direct earlier-port comparison. It cannot prove individual cause or describe every device model.

Read the source: Complications after implantation of subcutaneous central venous ports (PowerPort) (opens in a new tab) · Checked Oct 3, 2026

The short answer

Which firms does the cited order name?
The firms sued are Becton Dickinson, C. R. Bard and Bard Access Systems. The order concerns one person’s claim. These names do not prove fault. [1]
Did the judge find those firms liable?
The court denied their request to end the case before trial. Facts remained disputed. This is not a final finding of legal fault. [1]
Does the manufacturer’s safety page prove a defect?
A warning lists possible complications. It does not prove what caused one person’s injury. The actual device and facts still matter. [14]
What does the clinical study add?
It reports outcomes for 132 patients at one hospital. It does not decide a firm’s legal fault. Its small sample and model limit the conclusions. [3]

What rules a case out

Not covered by this case

  • A port complication alone does not prove a product defect.
  • This page cannot decide individual cause, a filing date or payment.

The process

What happens next

  1. 01

    You answer a few questions

    About two minutes. Nothing is sent until you agree on the last step and press submit.

  2. 02

    A lawyer looks at it

    A lawyer at the firm reads your answers and checks them against the current case criteria.

  3. 03

    The firm decides and gets in touch

    If the firm takes your case, you get the terms in writing to read before you sign. You can always say no.

A company name alone does not establish legal fault. Start with the device and the named court record. Ask which party and claim fit your facts.

Which firms does the cited order name?

The firms sued are Becton Dickinson, C. R. Bard and Bard Access Systems. The order concerns one person’s claim. These names do not prove fault.

Keep the exact party names from the court record rather than adding a related business from an advertisement. The ruling addresses a silicone PowerPort and alleged infection. Other devices or claims need their own records.

Did the judge find those firms liable?

The court denied their request to end the case before trial. Facts remained disputed. This is not a final finding of legal fault.

The September 2026 order applies Florida law in Lattanzio’s case. It describes claims and disputed evidence. Do not turn a denial of that motion into a verdict for every patient.

Does the manufacturer’s safety page prove a defect?

A warning lists possible complications. It does not prove what caused one person’s injury. The actual device and facts still matter.

BD’s product page is a manufacturer source, not an independent clinical comparison. Its list supplies no patient denominator or rate. Keep possible risks separate from a diagnosis and a legal finding.

What does the clinical study add?

It reports outcomes for 132 patients at one hospital. It does not decide a firm’s legal fault. Its small sample and model limit the conclusions.

The study had no direct comparison with all earlier ports. It observed some complications and none of certain others. Those findings do not assign cause in your case or resolve disputed court evidence.

What should a lawyer check before naming a party?

Give the lawyer the model and medical record. Ask which facts support the proposed claim. Do not select a company from its name alone.

The device card and placement note can help identify what was used. Keep changes and removals in sequence. The responsible party and legal theory require their own assessment.

What does this page leave unresolved?

It does not verify a later verdict, offer or current case count. It gives no firm acceptance rule. Ask your lawyer for the record relevant to you.

A public company page is not an offer to pay a claim. Confirm representation and written fee terms separately. Keep any later order or agreement rather than relying on this dated ruling.

Find out where you stand.

The review is free and private. Asking for it doesn’t commit you to anything.

Ask a law firm to review your case

Sources

  1. Lattanzio individual ruling, September 25, 2026Lattanzio individual ruling, September 25, 2026 · court
  2. GovInfo court docket attribution, September 25, 2026GovInfo court docket attribution, September 25, 2026 · court
  3. Nakamura original PowerPort cohort, 2017Nakamura original PowerPort cohort, 2017 · study
  4. FDA lot-specific PowerPort recall Z-1570-2020FDA lot-specific PowerPort recall Z-1570-2020 · regulator
  5. MSK first-party implanted-port care guidance (updated September 29, 2025)MSK first-party implanted-port care guidance (updated September 29, 2025)
  6. HHS: Your Medical RecordsHHS: Your Medical Records · regulator
  7. Federal courts: civil casesFederal courts: civil cases · court
  8. ABA: fees paid from a successful claimABA: fees paid from a successful claim
  9. SDNY: filing time limitsSDNY: filing time limits · court
  10. ABA Model Rule 1.5: feesABA Model Rule 1.5: fees
  11. FDA Issues Multiple Class I Recalls for Arrow International Vascular Access Kitsapi.fda.gov · Jun 30, 2026 · regulator
  12. MDL 3081 (D. Ariz., Judge David G. Campbell) CMO No. 41 adjusted the bellwether trial schedule after the parties filed 52 Rule 702/56 motions: Cook (23-cv-01975) Apr 21-May 8, 2026; Miller (24-cv-00621) Jul 7-24, 2026; Lattanzio (24-cv-00680) Aug 18-Sep 4, 2026; Divelbliss (23-cv-01627) Oct 13-30, 2026; Hicks (23-cv-01703) Dec 1-18, 2026; Sorensen (23-cv-02557) Feb 2-19, 2027. Verified from the court order itself (Doc 6028).nighgoldenberg.com · Nov 14, 2025 · court
  13. FDA Issues Class I Recall for Bard Power-Trialysis Dialysis Catheterapi.fda.gov · Sep 29, 2026 · regulator
  14. BD: PowerPort safety information (manufacturer source)

Checked against 11 primary sources by People's Justice editors · Updated

How we make money

People's Justice research team · Updated Oct 4, 2026