Lawsuits over port catheter infections allege that Bard PowerPort tubing degrades inside the body in a way that lets bacteria take hold, and that safer materials existed. A claim is generally considered when a diagnosed infection led to port removal, hospitalization, or interrupted cancer treatment. Federal cases are consolidated before a single judge in Arizona.

The port was supposed to make treatment easier. Instead there was a fever, then chills, then a call telling you to come to the emergency room. Blood cultures came back positive, the port came out, and chemotherapy stopped while antibiotics ran.

If that is close to your experience, you have probably already asked the question that brought you here. Was that the device, or was it just something that happens?

There is no way to answer that from a web page. What this article can do is explain what the lawsuits actually allege, where the litigation stands as of late August 2026, and the specific circumstances that make it sensible to have someone look at your records.

What do the lawsuits say about port infections?

An implanted port is a small reservoir placed under the skin, usually in the chest, connected to a thin catheter that runs into a large vein. It spares patients repeated needle sticks during chemotherapy.

Thousands of people who received a Bard PowerPort have filed suit against C.R. Bard and its parent company, Becton Dickinson. Plaintiffs allege that the catheter tubing, a polyurethane blend containing barium sulfate that makes the device visible on imaging, degrades inside the body. As the surface breaks down, the lawsuits claim, it develops pits and cracks where bacteria can settle into a film that antibiotics struggle to reach.

The filings also allege that Bard studied safer options years before these injuries occurred, including antimicrobial coatings and smoother catheter surfaces, and did not bring them to market.

Bard denies all of it. The company's position is that the device met the applicable standards, that its labeling disclosed infection risk, and that port infections have many causes unrelated to the device itself. None of the allegations above has been established as fact, and no court has found the PowerPort defective.

One point of precision that matters, because a lot of advertising blurs it: the PowerPort has not been recalled over infection risk. It remains on the market and is still being implanted. A device generating adverse event reports and a device being recalled are not the same thing.

Where does the litigation stand right now?

Federal cases are gathered in a multidistrict litigation, or MDL, which is a procedure that moves similar lawsuits from around the country to one judge for shared discovery and early test trials. Each person keeps their own individual case; the cases are not merged into a class action.

This one is MDL 3081, In re: Bard Implanted Port Catheter Products Liability Litigation, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona before Judge David G. Campbell. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation's August 3, 2026 report counted 3,734 cases pending, up from roughly 3,564 a month earlier.

You should know what happened in the first trial, because it was an infection case.

In Cook v. Becton Dickinson, the jury cleared Bard on failure to warn, failure to instruct, and consumer fraud, and deadlocked on the central design defect claim. Jurors concluded that the plaintiff's infection was not caused by the device. The verdict came in May 2026, and the plaintiff has since asked the court for a new trial, arguing the jury instructions were flawed. That motion is still pending.

These are called bellwether trials. A bellwether is a test case: its result binds nobody else, but both sides use it to gauge how juries respond to the evidence.

The second bellwether, a catheter fracture case brought by a New Mexico plaintiff, opened on August 18, 2026 and is the first to put the fracture theory in front of a jury. Further trials are scheduled for October and December 2026 and February 2027, and two of those involve infection injuries. No global settlement exists, and no settlement framework or fund has been announced.

The honest read is that this litigation is unsettled. The first infection case did not go the plaintiff's way, and the design question that sits underneath every one of these claims is still open. Anyone telling you otherwise is selling something.

Not sure whether your situation fits?

The free case review asks a handful of questions about your device, your infection, and your treatment. It takes about two minutes, it is confidential, and there is no obligation.

Check your eligibility

Who may have a claim?

The pattern that generally gets a closer look involves all three of the following.

A Bard port, specifically. Ports are made by several manufacturers. The claims here concern Bard devices, including the PowerPort, the PowerPort M.R.I., and the PowerPort duo M.R.I. If your port came from AngioDynamics or another maker, that is separate litigation at a much earlier stage.

A diagnosed infection, not a suspected one. Something in the record that names it: positive blood cultures, a catheter-related bloodstream infection, sepsis, an infection at the port pocket, or endocarditis.

Consequences that show up in the chart. Emergency removal of the port, a hospital admission, IV antibiotics, delayed or interrupted chemotherapy, a second surgery to place a replacement, or a longer chain of complications that followed.

You may qualify without a perfect match on all three. A free review is what confirms whether your situation fits, and it is a faster answer than trying to reason it out yourself.

When an infection probably is not a case

Saying this plainly, because it saves people time and false hope.

Port infections happen for reasons that have nothing to do with the design of the device. Chemotherapy suppresses the immune system by design, which is the whole reason infections are a known and disclosed risk of having a port at all. Contamination during placement or during routine access, an infection that traveled from somewhere else in the body, and an underlying condition that raised the risk all point away from a product claim.

Time is also a factor. If the port was placed many years ago and the infection was resolved without significant consequence, a lawyer may look at it and decline. That is not a comment on what you went through.

What records matter most?

The device is the hardest part, so start there. Manufacturer and model come from the implant record: the operative report, the device sticker or implant card, or the manufacturer's own patient registration. If you no longer have it, the hospital or the implanting physician has it, and an attorney can request it.

Beyond that, the useful set is the operative reports for both placement and removal, culture results and infectious disease notes, discharge summaries from any related admission, oncology notes showing treatment that was postponed, and imaging.

If the explanted port is still in a pathology lab somewhere, say so early. Preserved devices are unusual and they matter.

What does this cost, and will I end up in court?

These claims are handled on a contingency fee, meaning the attorney is paid a percentage of any recovery and nothing if there is none. Case review and case costs are not billed to you up front.

As for court: most people in an MDL of this size never testify in front of a jury. Six cases out of nearly four thousand were selected as bellwethers. What participation usually looks like is a detailed questionnaire about your medical history, gathering records, and possibly a deposition, which is sworn questioning by the other side's lawyers with your own attorney present, held in a conference room rather than a courtroom.

How long do you have to file?

Every state has a statute of limitations, a hard deadline after which a claim cannot be brought at all. For product injury claims these commonly run two to four years, though the exact period and the way it is calculated vary by state.

The part people misjudge is when the clock starts. Many states use a discovery rule, which starts the period when you knew or reasonably should have known that an injury may have been caused by the device, not necessarily the day the infection was diagnosed. That distinction can make a case timely that seems long expired, or expire one that feels recent.

This is not something to estimate on your own. It is a short conversation with someone who can look at your dates against your state's rules.

What to do now

Find the implant record if you can, or at least know which hospital placed the port. Write down the approximate dates: when it went in, when the infection was diagnosed, when it came out. Then have someone review it.

If the answer is that your situation does not fit, you will have spent a few minutes and can stop wondering.

Have the dates and the device?

A free case review confirms whether the record supports a claim and whether your filing window is still open. Confidential, no obligation.

Start your free review
My port was removed and discarded. Does that end the claim?
No. Most explanted ports are discarded as medical waste, so cases are built from the implant record, operative reports, and culture results rather than the device itself.
The infection was treated with antibiotics and the port stayed in. Does that count?
It may. Severity and what followed matter more than whether the device was removed, so having the records reviewed beats assuming.
Can I pursue a claim if the patient has died?
In most states a spouse, child, or the representative of the estate can. Deadlines for these claims often run from the date of death and differ from the injured person's own deadline.
Will filing affect my treatment or my relationship with my oncologist?
No. These claims are against the device manufacturer, not the hospital or the treating physician, and the treatment team is not the target of the litigation.
What if my port was made by AngioDynamics?
That is a separate multidistrict litigation, still in early pretrial with no trials expected for some time. Say the manufacturer's name during your review so you are pointed to the right one.

Disclaimer: This article is general information, not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Injury Advocate Group is an advertising service, not a law firm. Litigation status changes; eligibility can only be confirmed through a case review with an attorney.