Bard PowerPort Lawsuit: A Split Verdict, Then Round Two
The first bellwether ended in a defense win on warnings and a hung jury on design. The second, testing fracture claims, started August 18, 2026.
Table of Contents (8 sections)
The first bellwether trial over a Bard PowerPort catheter ended with the defense winning on some claims and the jury simply unable to agree on the one that matters most. Three months later, a second trial testing a completely different injury theory is already underway — and neither side has answered the question thousands of pending cases are actually waiting on.
Quick answer: Lawsuits allege Bard PowerPort implanted catheters contain excessive barium sulfate, weakening the tubing and making it prone to fracture, crack, or migrate. More than 3,700 cases are consolidated in MDL No. 3081 (District of Arizona, Judge David G. Campbell) against Becton, Dickinson and Company. The first bellwether trial (May 2026) ended in a defense verdict on failure-to-warn and consumer-fraud claims, but the jury deadlocked on the design-defect claim — the plaintiff has since moved for a new trial. A second bellwether trial, testing a catheter-fracture claim for the first time, began August 18, 2026, with more trials scheduled into 2027. No global settlement exists yet.
What’s Actually Being Alleged
A PowerPort is a small device implanted under the skin, typically in the chest, to give repeated vein access for chemotherapy, blood draws, or other long-term IV treatment. Lawsuits allege the catheter tubing contains excessive levels of barium sulfate — an additive included so the device shows up on X-rays — and that this weakens the surrounding polyurethane material over time, making the catheter prone to fracture, cracking, or migration within the body, in some cases shedding fragments into the bloodstream. A related failure-to-warn theory alleges the manufacturer knew about this degradation risk without adequately disclosing it.
The Litigation: Over 3,700 Cases, One Federal Docket
More than 3,700 lawsuits are consolidated in MDL No. 3081, In re: Bard PowerPort Implanted Port Catheter Products Liability Litigation, centralized in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona before Judge David G. Campbell since August 2023. The named defendant is Becton, Dickinson and Company (BD), which acquired the device’s original manufacturer, C.R. Bard, in 2017.
The First Bellwether: A Result That Answered Less Than It Looks Like
In Cook v. Becton, Dickinson and Company, tried over roughly three weeks in Phoenix and decided in May 2026, the jury found the defendants not liable on the plaintiff’s failure-to-warn, failure-to-instruct, and consumer-fraud claims. But on the case’s central design-defect claim, the jury deadlocked — unable to reach a unanimous verdict after deliberating only about eleven hours across four complex claims and two affirmative defenses, and the court accepted the partial verdict rather than sending the jury back for further deliberation.
A hung jury on the claim that matters most is not the same as a finding the device is safe. On June 3, 2026, plaintiff Robert Cook filed a motion for a mistrial and new trial — and, alternatively, judgment as a matter of law — arguing the unusually short deliberation reflected faulty jury instructions rather than a genuinely considered result. No ruling on that motion has been reported as of this writing.
Round Two: A Different Injury, a Different Test
The first trial centered on an infection allegation. The second, which began August 18, 2026, is the first PowerPort trial to put a catheter-fracture claim directly in front of a jury — brought by plaintiff Kimberly Divelbliss. That the case survived summary judgment before trial was itself treated as significant for the roughly 3,700 pending cases watching the outcome, since it confirmed a fracture-based claim could reach a jury at all. Further bellwether trials are already scheduled for October 13, 2026, December 1, 2026, and February 2, 2027 — each expected to test different aspects of the same underlying design-defect allegation, similar to how our explainer on how mass tort litigation actually works describes multiple bellwethers testing different fact patterns before any global resolution takes shape.
Not the Same Case as the Bard IVC Filter Litigation
It’s worth understanding this as a separate litigation, not a continuation of an older one — even though the underlying allegation will sound familiar. Our guide to the IVC filter lawsuit covers a similar fracture-and-migration allegation against a different implanted Bard device, the inferior vena cava filter, which has already resolved through confidential settlements covering more than 8,600 cases. This PowerPort litigation proceeds under an entirely separate MDL number, with its own case population and its own — still very early — bellwether-trial record.
Practical Steps
- Confirm the device is specifically a PowerPort from your implant records, rather than a different manufacturer’s port catheter, since this litigation is specific to that product line.
- Gather imaging showing the catheter’s current position, or any documented fracture, crack, or migration.
- Document any removal or revision procedure made necessary by a complication.
- Connect the specific injury to the device, whether that’s vessel or organ damage, embolization of a broken fragment, or a related infection.
- Don’t rely on a specific dollar figure quoted online — no global settlement exists yet, and any number you see is a marketing estimate, not a court-established amount.
- Consult an attorney experienced in implanted-device mass tort litigation, given how early this litigation remains and how much the two bellwether trials so far have left unresolved.
Sources & Further Reading
- U.S. District Court, District of Arizona — docket for MDL No. 3081, In re: Bard PowerPort Implanted Port Catheter Products Liability Litigation, before Judge David G. Campbell
- Court filings in Cook v. Becton, Dickinson and Company, including the May 2026 partial verdict and the plaintiff’s June 3, 2026 motion for a new trial
- See our guides to defective product claims and the three liability theories for the design-defect framework this litigation is built on, how mass tort litigation actually works for what a bellwether trial is meant to accomplish, and the Bard IVC filter litigation for a related but entirely separate device-fracture case against the same corporate family
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a Bard PowerPort, and what do these lawsuits allege?
A PowerPort is an implanted port catheter — a small device placed under the skin, usually in the chest, to give repeated access to a vein for chemotherapy, blood draws, or other long-term IV treatment without a new needle stick each time. Lawsuits allege the catheter tubing contains excessive levels of barium sulfate — an additive used to make the device visible on X-rays — and that this weakens the polyurethane material over time, making it prone to fracture, crack, or migrate within the body, sometimes shedding fragments into the bloodstream. A related failure-to-warn theory alleges the manufacturer knew about this degradation risk without adequately disclosing it to physicians and patients.
How many cases are involved, and where is this litigation centralized?
More than 3,700 lawsuits are consolidated in MDL No. 3081, In re: Bard PowerPort Implanted Port Catheter Products Liability Litigation, centralized in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona before Judge David G. Campbell since August 2023. The defendants are Becton, Dickinson and Company (BD), which acquired the device's original maker, C.R. Bard, in 2017.
What happened in the first bellwether trial?
A mixed result that didn't resolve the litigation's core question either way. In Cook v. Becton, Dickinson and Company — tried over roughly three weeks in Phoenix and decided in May 2026 — the jury found the defendants not liable on the plaintiff's failure-to-warn, failure-to-instruct, and consumer-fraud claims, but deadlocked on the central design-defect claim after deliberating only about eleven hours across four complex claims and two affirmative defenses. The court accepted the partial verdict rather than requiring further deliberation on the deadlocked claim.
Does a hung jury on the design-defect claim mean the device was found safe?
No — a deadlocked jury means the jury could not reach the unanimous verdict required to decide that specific claim either way, not that the device was cleared. On June 3, 2026, the plaintiff, Robert Cook, filed a motion for a mistrial and a new trial (and, alternatively, judgment as a matter of law), arguing the truncated eleven-hour deliberation reflected faulty jury instructions rather than a genuine, fully-considered result. As of this writing, no ruling on that motion has been reported.
What's happening with the second bellwether trial?
It started on August 18, 2026, and is the first PowerPort trial to put a catheter-fracture claim — rather than an infection claim, as in the first trial — directly in front of a jury. The case, brought by plaintiff Kimberly Divelbliss, survived summary judgment before trial, which itself was seen as significant for the roughly 3,700 pending cases watching the outcome. Additional bellwether trials are scheduled for October 13, 2026, December 1, 2026, and February 2, 2027, each expected to test different aspects of the same core allegations.
Is this the same litigation as the Bard IVC filter lawsuits?
No, though the parallel is worth understanding — both are separate mass torts against the same corporate family, alleging that a different implanted Bard device fractured or migrated in the body. See our guide to the IVC filter litigation for how a similar allegation against Bard's blood-clot filters has already resolved through confidential settlements covering more than 8,600 cases, while this PowerPort litigation is still at the early bellwether-trial stage with no global settlement yet. The two litigations proceed under entirely separate MDL numbers with separate case populations.
Can I still file a claim, and has any settlement been reached?
Generally yes, subject to your state's statute of limitations, and no global settlement exists as of this writing — only two bellwether trials have occurred, with a mixed result in the first and the second still deciding a different injury theory. Be skeptical of any specific dollar figure you see quoted for what a PowerPort case is 'worth' before any global resolution exists; those figures are typically law firm marketing estimates, not court-established amounts, and can vary enormously based on your specific complication and its severity.
What evidence actually matters in a PowerPort claim?
Implant records identifying the device as a PowerPort specifically (rather than a different manufacturer's port catheter), imaging showing the catheter's current position or any fracture, crack, or migration, records of any removal or revision procedure made necessary by the complication, and documentation connecting a specific injury — vessel or organ damage, embolization of a broken fragment, or a related infection — to the device itself rather than to an unrelated cause.
Related Guides
- Mass Tort Claims
3M Combat Arms Earplug Lawsuit: Where the $6B Settlement Stands
The largest mass tort in U.S. history began with a whistleblower's fraud suit and a failed subsidiary bankruptcy. Over half the $6 billion has now been paid.
- Mass Tort Claims
Suing an AI Chatbot Company: What Courts Have Ruled So Far
A federal judge ruled a chatbot's output isn't clearly protected speech, letting product liability and wrongful death claims proceed. One case already settled.
- Mass Tort Claims
Boeing 737 MAX: What Crash Victims' Families Actually Got
A secret 2021 deal shielded Boeing from prosecution. A judge ruled crash victims should have been consulted first — then said he couldn't fix it.
About the Author
InjuryClaimHub Editorial Team
Research & Editorial
The InjuryClaimHub editorial team researches and writes plain-English guides to personal injury and accident claims. Every guide is built from primary sources — statutes, federal regulations, court rules and government data — and cites them so readers can verify the law themselves. We are not attorneys and our guides are not reviewed by one, which is why every guide tells you to confirm deadlines and figures with a licensed attorney in your state.