Bard PowerPort Verdicts: What 2 Trials Mean for Claims

Last updated: October 2026

The first two Bard PowerPort bellwether trials ended very differently. In May 2026, a jury mostly sided with Bard in an infection case. In September 2026, a different jury awarded $40 million to a woman whose port catheter broke and a piece traveled to her heart. Below, we explain these Bard PowerPort verdicts in plain language, including what can still change after trial and how to read the news about them.

Neither verdict sets a price for other cases. But together they show which facts may matter most when participating law firms look at claim value.

The two Bard PowerPort verdicts at a glance

Both trials took place in the federal multidistrict litigation (MDL No. 3081) before Senior U.S. District Judge David G. Campbell in Arizona. They were “bellwether” trials, meaning test cases chosen to show how juries react to the evidence.

• Trial 1, Cook (infection): Jury rejected the failure-to-warn, failure-to-instruct, negligence and consumer fraud claims. It could not agree on design defect.
• Trial 2, Divelbliss (catheter fracture): Jury found for the plaintiff on design defect and failure to warn and awarded $40 million in compensatory damages. It did not award punitive damages.

Inside the two Bard PowerPort trials

Trial 1: an infection case that mostly went Bard’s way

Robert Cook, a Minnesota man, said his port led to a life-threatening infection. According to Courthouse News, he spent six days in the hospital and his cancer treatment was delayed by 30 days.

Cook argued that Bard could have used antimicrobial and anti-clotting coatings but did not. The jury disagreed on most claims. On design defect, jurors split 7 to 2 against a defect finding, so no verdict was reached on that claim.

Cook’s lawyer told reporters that Cook plans to retry the claims the jury could not decide. So this case may not be over.

Trial 2: a fracture case that ended in a $40 million award

Kimberly Divelbliss of New Mexico had a PowerPort with a silicone Groshong catheter. According to a statement from her trial lawyers, the catheter fractured about two years after it was placed, and a fragment lodged in her heart.

She needed surgery to remove it, and her lawyers say she still needs ongoing heart care. On September 4, 2026, the jury found Bard liable for design defect and failure to warn, under both strict liability and negligence, AboutLawsuits reported.

The jury rejected her manufacturing defect and fraudulent concealment claims and declined punitive damages. Industry reporting says Bard signaled it would pursue post-trial and appeal options, so the award could still change.

Why two trials had two outcomes

We can’t know exactly what each jury was thinking. But the cases differed in ways that often matter in product cases:

• Type of injury. Infections can have many causes, including how a port is cared for. A catheter that breaks apart is harder to explain without looking at the device itself.
• Physical evidence. A retrieved fragment and imaging can show what happened. An infection may leave less direct proof of a defect.
• Legal theory. The Cook case focused on coatings and infection risk. The Divelbliss case focused on catheter fracture, which is closer to the core claim in the MDL.
• Harm and treatment. A fragment in the heart, emergency surgery and ongoing cardiac care are serious, lasting harms that juries can see clearly.

The MDL’s central theory is that too much barium sulfate in the catheter can weaken it. You can read more in our guide to MDL 3081 and the barium sulfate theory.

What the verdicts may mean for claim value

A bellwether verdict does not decide anyone else’s case. As one litigation analysis put it, verdicts help parties see how juries may respond to different injuries and evidence.

Here is what these results suggest, in general terms:

• Fracture and migration claims may draw more attention after the Divelbliss verdict, especially where a piece of catheter was found in the heart or lungs.
• Infection claims may face closer questions about cause. The next bellwether, set for October 13, 2026, is also an infection case, according to AboutLawsuits.
• Medical proof matters. Imaging, operative notes and records showing what was removed can make a big difference. See what documents make or break a Bard PowerPort claim.
• No settlement numbers exist yet. As of September 2026, no global settlement had been announced. Any figure you see online for “average payouts” is a guess.

What is next in the bellwether program

Judge Campbell’s case management order originally set six bellwether trials in 2026. The schedule has shifted since then. Current reports list trials starting October 13, 2026, December 1, 2026, and February 2, 2027.

Meanwhile, the MDL keeps growing. The JPML’s September 1, 2026 report listed 3,734 pending actions in MDL 3081.

Each new verdict gives both sides more information. That is often how large product cases move toward settlement talks, although there is no set timeline.

How bellwether verdicts can shape the rest of the litigation

With thousands of cases pending, the court can’t try each one. Bellwether trials give both sides a preview. Lawyers watch which claims juries accept, which evidence persuades them, and how they value harm.

That is why the split results matter. The Cook jury rejected the warning claims in an infection case. The Divelbliss jury accepted warning and design claims in a fracture case. Each side can point to a result that supports its view.

Some things to keep in mind:

• Verdicts can change. Post-trial motions and appeals can reduce, reverse, or confirm an award. That process can take many months.
• Retrials are possible. When a jury can’t agree on a claim, that claim may be tried again, as Cook’s lawyer has said he plans to do.
• One verdict is not a pattern. Two trials are a small sample. Upcoming trials will add more information.
• State law matters. Each bellwether applies the law of the plaintiff’s home state, which can affect damages and defenses.

What factors may affect the value of your own claim

Participating law firms look at many details when they review a Bard port claim. No single factor decides the outcome, but these often come up:

• Injury type: fracture, migration, infection, or clot
• Severity: whether you needed surgery, a hospital stay, or ongoing treatment
• Device proof: records that name the Bard model and lot number
• Timing: when the port was placed and when problems started
• Effect on treatment: for example, delays to cancer care
• Lasting harm: such as heart damage or permanent limits

If a loved one died after a port complication, a firm may also review whether a wrongful death claim is possible under your state’s law.

What Happens After Bard PowerPort Verdicts Are Announced

A jury verdict is a big moment, but it is not the last word. After Bard PowerPort verdicts are read in court, both sides can ask the judge to review the result. This stage can take months, and the numbers in the headlines can change.

Here is how the process usually works in federal court, in plain terms.

Step 1: The court enters a judgment

The verdict is what the jury decides. The judgment is the court’s formal order based on that verdict. Many deadlines start from the date the judgment is entered, not the date the jury spoke. For Bard PowerPort verdicts, the judgment date is the one to watch.

Step 2: Post-trial motions

Under the federal rules, a party can ask for a new trial. Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure says a motion for a new trial must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of judgment. A party can also renew a request for judgment as a matter of law within the same 28-day window.

In simple terms, the losing side may argue that the evidence did not support the result, that the jury got bad instructions, or that the award is too high. The judge decides these motions before any appeal moves forward.

• A judge may leave the verdict as it is.
• A judge may order a new trial on some or all claims.
• A judge may reduce an award the court finds too high. This is often called remittitur.
• In some cases, a judge may set aside the verdict entirely.

This is why Bard PowerPort verdicts should be read as a snapshot, not a final outcome. Reporting on the second trial says Bard signaled it would pursue post-trial and appeal options.

Step 3: Appeals

After the judge rules on post-trial motions, the losing side can appeal. In a civil case, Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4 generally gives 30 days after the judgment or order to file a notice of appeal. When certain post-trial motions are filed, that 30-day clock starts after the court rules on the last of them.

Cases from federal court in Arizona go to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Appeals often take many months, and sometimes more than a year. During that time, the award is usually not paid.

What this means for people with pending claims

For most people, post-trial steps do not change what they need to do today. Your claim is still judged on your own facts. Keeping your records organized and knowing your deadlines matters more than any single headline about Bard PowerPort verdicts.

A Plain-Language Glossary for Bard PowerPort Verdicts

News stories about Bard PowerPort verdicts use a lot of legal terms. This short glossary explains the words you are most likely to see.

Terms about the case

• MDL (multidistrict litigation): A way federal courts group many similar cases before one judge for shared pretrial work. Each person still has an individual case.
• Bellwether trial: A test case picked to show how juries may react to the evidence. The result does not bind other cases.
• Plaintiff: The person who brings the lawsuit. Defendant: The company being sued, here Bard and related companies.
• Retrial: A new trial on a claim. This can happen when a jury cannot agree, as in part of the first trial.

Terms about the claims

These claim types come up in almost every report on Bard PowerPort verdicts.

• Design defect: A claim that the product was unsafe because of how it was designed, for every unit, not just one bad batch.
• Manufacturing defect: A claim that a specific unit was made wrong. The second jury rejected this claim.
• Failure to warn: A claim that the maker did not give doctors or patients enough warning about known risks.
• Strict liability: A legal theory where a maker can be responsible for a defective product without proof of carelessness.
• Negligence: A claim that the company did not use reasonable care.

Terms about money

Money terms cause the most confusion in coverage of Bard PowerPort verdicts.

• Compensatory damages: Money meant to make up for actual harm, such as medical bills, lost income, pain and suffering. The $40 million award was compensatory.
• Punitive damages: Extra money meant to punish very serious misconduct. The second jury did not award these.
• Judgment: The court’s formal order based on the verdict.
• Settlement: An agreement to resolve claims without a trial. As of the latest reports, no global settlement had been announced.

Knowing these words makes it easier to tell what Bard PowerPort verdicts actually decided, and what they left open.

How to Read News About Bard PowerPort Verdicts

After a large award, many websites rush out articles and ads. Some are careful. Others mix up facts or suggest that every case is worth a similar amount. A few simple checks can help you stay grounded.

A quick checklist for any news story

Not every article about Bard PowerPort verdicts tells the full story. Before you rely on one, ask:

1. Check the date. The bellwether schedule has shifted more than once. Older articles may list trial dates that have since changed.
2. Look for the word “verdict” versus “settlement.” A verdict is one jury’s decision in one case. A settlement is an agreement between parties. They are not the same thing.
3. See if the article mentions post-trial steps. Careful reporting notes that awards can be reduced, reversed or retried.
4. Watch for “average payout” claims. With no global settlement announced, any average figure is a guess, not a fact.
5. Find the source. Strong articles name the court, the judge and the case. Court records and official reports are more reliable than ads.

Where official numbers come from

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation publishes regular reports on pending cases. Its October 1, 2026 report listed 4,140 pending actions in MDL 3081, up from 3,734 a month earlier. That growth shows how many people are watching Bard PowerPort verdicts as they decide what to do.

A larger docket does not change the facts of your own case. But it does mean each upcoming trial will be closely watched by both sides.

Keep the focus on your own facts

It is natural to compare yourself to the people in the trials. Try to remember that each jury heard one person’s story, one set of records and one state’s law. Bard PowerPort verdicts can show which kinds of evidence persuade juries, but they cannot tell you what your claim may be worth.

Questions to Ask About Bard PowerPort Verdicts and Your Claim

If you talk with a participating law firm, it can help to bring a few questions. You do not need to understand the law to ask them. Good questions help you understand how recent Bard PowerPort verdicts may or may not relate to you.

About the trials

• How is my injury similar to, or different from, the injuries in the bellwether trials?
• Does my state’s law differ from the law used in those trials?
• If the $40 million award is reduced or appealed, would that affect my claim?
• Are there upcoming trials with injuries like mine?

About your records

• Do my records clearly show that my port was a Bard device?
• Is there imaging or a removal report that shows what happened to my catheter?
• Are there gaps in my records that we should try to fill now?
• Was the removed device or fragment saved, and how do we find out?

About next steps

• What deadline may apply to my claim, and when does it start?
• How will I get updates as more trials take place?
• What will you need from me over the next few months?
• How are fees and case costs handled, and will I get that in writing?

Write down the answers, and ask the firm to explain anything that is unclear. Bard PowerPort verdicts will keep coming as the bellwether program moves forward, so it helps to know how the firm plans to keep you informed.

Remember that a firm may review your situation and still decide it cannot take the case. That is a normal part of the process, and you are free to seek another opinion.

Bard PowerPort verdicts: frequently asked questions

How Direct2Attorney can help

If you had a port fracture, migration, infection, clot or other complication, Direct2Attorney can connect you with a participating law firm for a free review. A firm may look at your records and explain whether you may qualify. Learn more on our Bard PowerPort lawsuit page.

The two Bard PowerPort verdicts show that the facts of each case matter. Knowing where your injury fits can help you decide your next step.

Direct2Attorney is a legal marketing and referral service, not a law firm. This article is general information, not legal advice. Submitting information does not create an attorney-client relationship.