People's Justice

Case guide

Port records: check the device and harm

Start with the device card and care reports. Keep confirmed facts separate from missing details.

See If You Qualify

Free · No obligation · About 2 minutes

Updated Oct 4, 202613 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 record identifies the port?
Check the device card and placement note. Ask the care team about an unclear name. Do not guess the model. [5]
Which records describe the harm?
Keep scans, procedure notes and test reports. Use the diagnosis written by the care team. Mark questions that remain unresolved. [6]
How should I set out the dates?
Keep placement, first concerns and later care in order. Label dates you cannot confirm. Ask which missing report would resolve a gap. [5]
How can I request missing records?
Ask the covered provider for your records. Access has limits, and a copying fee may apply. Ask what authority is needed if helping someone else. [6]

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.

Start with the device card and care reports. Keep confirmed facts separate from missing details. Ask what a reviewer needs before sharing a full health file.

Which record identifies the port?

Check the device card and placement note. Ask the care team about an unclear name. Do not guess the model.

MSK advises that the care team can identify the port type. A brand nickname is not always a full device description. Keep records for later replacements as separate events.

Which records describe the harm?

Keep scans, procedure notes and test reports. Use the diagnosis written by the care team. Mark questions that remain unresolved.

The published study used medical records and imaging to assess ports and complications. It is not a checklist that establishes your claim. Ask the clinician to explain conflicting or unfamiliar terms.

How should I set out the dates?

Keep placement, first concerns and later care in order. Label dates you cannot confirm. Ask which missing report would resolve a gap.

A surgery date, symptom date and diagnosis date answer different questions. Do not alter them to fit a form. A lawyer needs the actual sequence to assess law and any time limit.

How can I request missing records?

Ask the covered provider for your records. Access has limits, and a copying fee may apply. Ask what authority is needed if helping someone else.

The federal guidance addresses patient access to medical and billing records. It does not give every caregiver automatic access. Keep consent and representative authority separate from your interest in the claim.

What if the device was removed?

Ask how the device and findings were documented. Let professionals handle any used device. Do not clean or mail it yourself.

Keep the removal note and later test results. Ask counsel what records or preserved material should be sought. This page does not instruct a patient to retrieve medical waste.

What should I ask before sending the file?

Confirm who will receive it and why it is needed. Ask about privacy and written terms. Tell the lawyer about any prior representation.

A contact form does not itself verify confidentiality, secure handling or acceptance. Start with the records that answer the stated question. Do not interrupt urgent care to assemble a legal packet.

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

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

How we make money

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