Bard PowerPort Catheter Lawsuit in California

Time limits apply in California. Find out if you still qualify.

Free Case Review

Check your eligibility — free

Answer 2-3 quick questions to review your potential case.

People's Justice Research TeamUpdated July 1, 2026Fact-checked

Verified against court and regulatory records · No upfront fees · Your information is never sold

Statute of limitations — California

California has a 2-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims including product liability (CCP § 335.1). The discovery rule applies: the clock starts when the plaintiff discovered or should have discovered the injury and its connection to the device. California also applies an 8-year absolute repose period for medical devices after implantation (CCP § 340.8). Cancer centers with high PowerPort implantation volumes include UC San Francisco Medical Center, Cedars-Sinai, City of Hope, and Stanford Health Care.

2 years from discovery of injury (discovery rule applies)

Filing venue

Where to File in California

MDL 3081 (In re: Bard PowerPort) is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona before Chief Judge David G. Campbell in Phoenix. California plaintiffs whose cases were filed in the Northern, Central, Eastern, or Southern Districts of California are automatically transferred to MDL 3081 for consolidated pretrial proceedings. California accounts for the largest single-state share of MDL filings, reflecting the state’s large oncology patient population.

California’s statute of limitations for product liability personal injury claims is 2 years from the date of discovery (CCP § 335.1). The discovery rule tolls the clock until the plaintiff knew or reasonably should have known that the PowerPort catheter fractured and caused injury — not from implantation. An 8-year absolute repose period applies to medical device claims under CCP § 340.8. Plaintiffs with fracture events confirmed by imaging should seek counsel promptly to protect their rights.

California’s five NCI-Designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers — UCSF Helen Diller, City of Hope, Stanford Cancer Center, UC San Diego Moores, and UCLA Jonsson — collectively implant thousands of PowerPort and PowerPort II devices annually for chemotherapy access. High-volume oncology practices in Los Angeles, the Bay Area, and San Diego report significant PowerPort penetration among their port-dependent patient populations.

Key federal courts for California PowerPort plaintiffs include the N.D. Cal. (San Jose/San Francisco), C.D. Cal. (Los Angeles), and S.D. Cal. (San Diego) — all subject to transfer to D. Ariz. MDL 3081. Becton, Dickinson and Company (BD) and its Bard Medical division maintain West Coast distribution and medical-device sales operations headquartered regionally in the Los Angeles area. BD’s California market presence supports jurisdiction and venue in state and federal courts statewide.

California data

Exposure in California

NCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers in California — among the highest concentrations nationally

Source: National Cancer Institute, 2024

Estimated average PowerPort catheter fracture settlement in California federal cases

$850,000

Source: MDL litigation data and reported settlements

Estimated PowerPort recipients in California oncology practices based on chemotherapy patient volumes

Thousands

Source: SEER Cancer Statistics, NCI

Medical resources

Clinics & Specialists in California

UC San Francisco Medical Center — UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center

City of Hope National Medical Center

FAQ

Frequently Asked Questions

12 QUESTIONS

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.

Keep reading

← Back to Bard PowerPort Catheter Lawsuit Overview Track the Bard PowerPort Catheter litigation timeline →

Quick Eligibility Review

Check your eligibility — free

Where to File in California

Exposure in California

Clinics & Specialists in California

UC San Francisco Medical Center — UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center

City of Hope National Medical Center

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a Bard PowerPort catheter?

How do I know if my PowerPort catheter failed?

What are the signs of a PowerPort catheter fracture?

Which PowerPort models are involved in the litigation?

Is there a federal MDL for Bard PowerPort cases?

What are the risks of leaving a fractured catheter fragment in place?

Can I still have the fractured catheter fragment removed?

What damages are available in a PowerPort catheter lawsuit?

Who is liable — Becton Dickinson or C.R. Bard?

What if I no longer have the catheter — can I still file a claim?

What is the statute of limitations for a PowerPort catheter injury claim?

How long does the PowerPort MDL legal process take?