The port was supposed to make treatment easier. No more hunting for a vein before every round. Then came a fever that would not break, or a clot, or a scan showing a piece of the catheter somewhere it was never meant to be. You were already fighting one thing. Nobody told you the device could become the second.
🔒 Encrypted & handled per our Privacy Policy
Cases pending in MDL 3081
as of July 2026
Test trials scheduled through
February 2027
Upfront cost to have
your case reviewed
States where claims
are being reviewed
— Eligibility
Meeting these guidelines does not mean you have a valid claim. It means a participating law firm is likely to review it. That firm decides on its own whether to take your case. Some claims are turned down, and some recover nothing. Direct2Attorney cannot judge the legal merits of your case, give legal advice, or file anything for you.
Almost nobody does. It is written in your operative report and the hospital’s implant log, and a firm can pull those records for you. Not knowing is not a reason to skip the review.
— Educational
A port catheter is a small device placed under the skin of the chest, usually just below the collarbone. A thin tube runs from it into a large vein near the heart. It lets doctors give chemotherapy, antibiotics or nutrition, and draw blood, without finding a new vein every time. For someone in months of treatment, it is a relief.
The lawsuits are about what the tubing is made of. Bard’s catheter uses a polyurethane blended with barium sulfate, a powder added so the tube shows up on X-rays. Plaintiffs allege those particles do not stay evenly mixed. Over time they can work toward the surface, leaving tiny pits and weak spots in the tubing.
Two things are said to follow. The weakened tube can crack, split or break apart — and a loose piece can travel through the bloodstream to the heart or lungs. And the pitted surface gives bacteria somewhere to take hold, which lawsuits link to bloodstream infections and clots.
The claims allege that Bard and its parent company, Becton Dickinson, knew about these risks for years and had safer options available, but kept selling the device without adequate warning.
| Device | Type | What to know |
|---|---|---|
| PowerPort | Implanted port | The core device named across the litigation, used widely for chemotherapy access. |
| PowerPort MRI | Implanted port | Designed to stay safe during MRI scans. Named in filed claims. |
| PowerPort ClearVUE | Implanted port | A later version in the same product family, also named in claims. |
| PowerPort isp | Implanted port | Included in the litigation alongside the other PowerPort models. |
| PowerPort Slim / Duo | Implanted port | Lower-profile and dual-lumen versions of the same design. |
Cases are consolidated as MDL 3081 before Judge David G. Campbell in the District of Arizona, with 3,564 pending as of July 2026. The first test trial, Cook v. Becton Dickinson, ended in May 2026 with a split result: Bard won on the failure-to-warn claim,and the jury could not agree on the design defect claim. That question was left unresolved. Anyone telling you this litigation has already been won is not being straight with you.
If you have a port now and notice fever or chills, redness, swelling or pain around the site, swelling in the arm, neck or face, trouble flushing the line, or a racing or irregular heartbeat, contact your medical team right away. A port infection or a broken catheter can become an emergency quickly. Do not stop or change any treatment based on what you read here.
— Compensation
If a claim succeeds, compensation is meant to cover what the failure has cost you — in money, in work, and in life. Here is what these claims typically seek.
— The process
You do not need to know the brand of your device or follow the court docket. You just need to answer a few questions and let the people who do this every day take it from there.
Fill out the short form or call. You tell us when the port was placed, why, and what went wrong. It takes about two minutes. There is no cost and no obligation.
If your situation fits, we connect you with a participating law firm. That firm looks at your case on its own and decides whether to represent you. If it does, you sign an agreement directly with the firm.
You sign a records authorization. The firm pulls your operative report and the hospital implant log to confirm the brand and model, gathers your medical records, and files in MDL 3081.
Your case waits alongside the test trials that will shape any broader resolution. Your firm keeps you updated and explains your options. You are never required to accept an offer you do not want.
💰
⚖️
What Direct2Attorney is
A legal marketing and referral service. We check whether your situation matches what participating law firms are looking for, and connect you with one of them if it does.
What Direct2Attorney is not
We are not a law firm. We cannot give you legal advice, represent you, or file anything on your behalf. Only a law firm you sign with can do that.
— Free case review
If you had a port catheter that cracked, moved, clotted or caused an infection, find out where you stand. You do not need to know the brand — that is in your records, and a firm can pull them. It takes about two minutes, it costs nothing, and your state’s filing deadline is running whether or not you look into it.
Participating law firms are generally reviewing claims from people who had a Bard PowerPort or similar Bard implanted port catheter and then suffered a qualifying complication — the catheter cracking or breaking, a piece moving somewhere it should not be, a bloodstream infection or sepsis, a blood clot, or a tear in a vein or the heart. Family members may be able to file for a loved one who has died.
Most patients do not know the brand, and that is normal. You may have been given an implant card at discharge. If not, the device name and lot number are recorded in your operative report and in the implant log at the hospital where it was placed. You can request those records yourself, and a participating law firm can also request them for you once you sign an authorization.
The first test trial, Cook v. Becton Dickinson, ended in May 2026 with a split result. Bard won on the failure-to-warn claim, and the jury could not agree on the design defect claim, so that question was left unresolved. It was not a plaintiff win. Five more test trials are scheduled through February 2027, and the next one cleared a major legal hurdle in July 2026, sending catheter fracture claims to a jury for the first time.
The complications most often reviewed are catheter fracture or cracking, a broken piece migrating through the bloodstream, bloodstream infection or sepsis, deep vein thrombosis or other blood clots, and perforation or tearing of a vein or the heart. Needing surgery to remove or replace the device strengthens a claim.
Nothing to ask. The case review is free with no obligation. If a participating law firm takes your case, it will normally work on contingency. That means the fee comes out of a recovery, and no fee is owed if there is no recovery.
Probably not. New claims continue to be filed and the litigation is still in an active recruiting phase. Each state sets its own deadline, usually between one and six years, and in many states the clock starts when you learned the device may have caused your injury rather than on the day it happened. Only an attorney licensed in your state can confirm your deadline.
No. Direct2Attorney is a legal marketing and referral service, not a law firm. An attorney-client relationship may form only after a participating law firm reviews your information and signs a separate representation agreement with you.
Ask it on the call. The review is free, and there is no obligation to move forward.
— News & updates
Seeking Accountability for Catheter Complications A Device That Failed Patients Bard PowerPort, a catheter device for chemotherapy, has triggered over
Bard PowerPort Lawsuit claims are rising in 2025 due to injuries like infections, fractures, and blood clots. Learn how to
— Sources
Litigation facts change frequently. This page was last reviewed on July 31, 2026. No global settlement had been reached and no settlement fund or payment matrix existed as of that date. Nothing here is legal or medical advice.
