Bard PowerPort Catheter Lawsuit in Alaska

A Bard PowerPort is a brand of implantable venous access port (IVAP) made by C.R. Bard (now part of Becton Dickinson). It consists of a small reservoir implanted under the chest skin connected to a polyurethane catheter threaded into a large central vein near the heart. The device provides long-term intravenous access for chemotherapy, blood draws, and medication delivery without repeated needle sticks. Millions of patients have received PowerPort devices, with cancer patients being the primary recipients. The defect at the center of current litigation is the polyurethane catheter's susceptibility to fracturing inside the body over time.

The most definitive way to determine whether your PowerPort catheter fractured is through imaging — specifically a chest X-ray or CT scan. A radiodense (white) fragment visible in the right heart, pulmonary artery, or lung field that is not continuous with the port reservoir indicates a fractured fragment. Clinical signs that may prompt evaluation include: inability to aspirate blood from the port, resistance during port flushing, chest pain, shortness of breath, cardiac arrhythmia, or unexplained recurrent bloodstream infections. If your port has been removed and you were told it was "broken" or "incomplete" during removal, that is strong evidence of catheter fracture. Contact an attorney if you have any of these findings in your medical records.

Warning signs of PowerPort catheter fracture include: chest pain near the port site or in the chest generally; shortness of breath that is new or worsening; palpitations or awareness of irregular heartbeat; inability to withdraw blood from the port or flush it normally; recurrent unexplained fevers or bloodstream infections; swelling in the neck or shoulder area near the catheter; and pain radiating to the shoulder or arm on the side of the implant. Because the fracture itself is painless, many patients do not experience obvious symptoms until the migrated fragment causes a secondary complication. Any concern about port malfunction should prompt immediate imaging evaluation.

The litigation primarily involves Bard PowerPort devices with polyurethane catheter tubing. Affected models identified in the MDL include the Bard PowerPort, Bard SlimPort, Bard MRI PowerPort, and related product variants marketed under the PowerPort brand by C.R. Bard and its parent company Becton Dickinson. The common defect is the use of a polyurethane catheter rather than a silicone catheter. If you have your implant card, operative report, or device identification documentation, an attorney can confirm whether your specific device model and lot are included in the litigation. Absence of documentation does not necessarily preclude a claim — hospital implant records can typically be obtained.

Yes. In October 2022, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) established MDL No. 3:22-md-03062 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. The MDL consolidates all federally filed Bard PowerPort cases for coordinated pretrial proceedings, including discovery, expert testimony on general causation, and bellwether trials. Filing in the MDL does not mean you waive individual rights — your case retains its individual identity and you will receive your own individual settlement or trial. The MDL process typically moves faster than individual litigation because discovery and expert work is shared across all plaintiffs. An experienced medical device attorney can file your case in federal court for transfer to the MDL.

Leaving a fractured catheter fragment in the cardiovascular system carries serious ongoing risks. The fragment acts as a foreign body that bacteria can colonize, causing persistent or recurrent bloodstream infections and infective endocarditis. The fragment can move to different positions within the heart or pulmonary arteries, increasing the risk of cardiac perforation, arrhythmia, or worsening pulmonary embolism. Inflammation caused by the foreign body can trigger thrombus (clot) formation on the fragment, further increasing embolic risk. For these reasons, most cardiologists and thoracic surgeons recommend retrieval whenever a catheter fragment is identified in the cardiovascular system. The decision of whether and how to retrieve is individualized based on fragment location, patient health status, and procedural risk.

In many cases, yes. Cardiac catheterization using a snare or basket retrieval device can capture and remove intravascular catheter fragments in an outpatient or short-stay procedure, particularly if the fragment is in the right heart chambers or main pulmonary artery. If the fragment is in a peripheral pulmonary arterial branch or has become embedded in cardiac tissue, surgical retrieval may be required. Some fragments in peripheral pulmonary locations are monitored rather than retrieved if retrieval risk exceeds retention risk for a particular patient. A cardiologist or interventional radiologist should evaluate your specific imaging. Importantly, retrieval — whether percutaneous or surgical — is strong documentation of the injury caused by the device defect and is a key component of your legal claim.

Plaintiffs in Bard PowerPort lawsuits can seek both economic and non-economic damages. Economic damages include medical expenses for catheter retrieval (procedure costs, hospitalization, surgery, anesthesia), treatment for complications (sepsis, endocarditis, cardiac/pulmonary conditions), future medical costs including ongoing monitoring and any permanent care needs, and lost wages or diminished earning capacity if the complications caused time away from work or permanent disability. Non-economic damages include pain and suffering, emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life, and loss of consortium for affected spouses and family members. In cases where Bard or BD's conduct is shown to be particularly egregious — including knowingly selling a defective product — punitive damages may also be available.

Both entities are named in litigation. C.R. Bard designed and manufactured the PowerPort and sold it for decades before Becton Dickinson (BD) acquired Bard in 2017. As the acquiring company, BD assumed all of Bard's corporate liabilities, including product liability claims arising from Bard-manufactured devices. BD is the primary defendant in MDL 3:22-md-03062 and in individual state court cases. Plaintiffs argue that Bard knew about the polyurethane degradation risk and failed to adequately warn physicians and patients, and that BD continued to manufacture and sell the product after the acquisition without addressing the known design defect or providing adequate warnings. Whether your device was manufactured before or after the 2017 acquisition, your claim runs against BD as the successor entity.

Yes. The absence of the physical catheter does not bar your claim. Medical records documenting the catheter implantation, subsequent fracture, fragment location on imaging, and retrieval procedure are the primary evidence in PowerPort cases. Hospital implant records can identify the specific PowerPort model and lot number. Pathology reports from explanted device fragments, operative reports describing the fracture finding, and imaging studies showing the fragment trajectory all constitute strong documentary evidence. An attorney experienced in medical device litigation can help you obtain all relevant records through proper legal channels. The key is to preserve and gather documentation of the injury while records are still available.

The statute of limitations for PowerPort claims is typically 2 to 4 years, varying by state, but the critical feature of these cases is the discovery rule: the clock begins running from the date you discovered — or reasonably should have discovered — that your catheter fractured and caused your injuries, not from the date of implantation. Because catheter fractures are silent and many patients are not told about the defect by their physicians, many patients who received a PowerPort years ago still have viable claims under the discovery rule. This is particularly important for cancer survivors who may attribute past symptoms to treatment side effects rather than device failure. Consult an attorney as soon as possible — delay after discovery shrinks your window and weakens your case.

MDL litigation typically takes several years from case filing to resolution. The Bard PowerPort MDL was established in October 2022 and is proceeding through discovery, general causation expert proceedings, and bellwether trial preparation. Bellwether trials — representative cases tried to verdict to provide settlement data — are typically scheduled 2 to 3 years after MDL establishment. If bellwether results are favorable, global settlement negotiations often follow. Individual plaintiffs can expect their cases to resolve through a global settlement or individual trial verdicts within 3 to 6 years of filing, depending on MDL progression. Joining the MDL sooner rather than later is advisable as it preserves your position and access to shared discovery resources. Work with an attorney to understand where the MDL currently stands.