Have you ever wondered about the tiny medical devices that make huge differences in healthcare? One such device is the Bard PowerPort, a small, implantable port designed to administer medication, draw blood, and deliver treatments like chemotherapy directly into a patient’s bloodstream.

However, this medical technology was at the heart of a significant legal battle. According to Lawsuit Legal News, the Bard PowerPort lawsuit initiated several years ago has brought critical attention to the safety and reliability of medical devices.

Not just this, Lawsuit Legal News is a goldmine when it comes to law-related information. The website contains resources to help the average American understand their rights. Not just that, Lawsuit Legal News also provides updates on the latest mass torts and other lawsuits, allowing victims to stay updated on their case proceedings.

This article aims to delve into the events leading up to this lawsuit and its considerable impact on the medical device industry, shedding light on the complexities and the crucial nature of such legal scrutiny in healthcare.

Understanding Bard PowerPort

Implantable port devices, like the Bard PowerPort, play a vital role in modern medical treatments. They offer a less invasive method for delivering treatments and drawing blood, which is especially beneficial for patients undergoing long-term therapy.

Bard, the company behind PowerPort, has been a significant player in the medical device industry for years and is known for its innovation and reliability. Their history is marked by a commitment to improving patient care through advanced technology, cementing their reputation as a trusted name in healthcare.

The Origin of the Lawsuit

The lawsuit against Bard’s PowerPort originated from initial reports of complications linked to the device. Patients and healthcare professionals began noticing issues, ranging from discomfort to more serious medical complications, which raised concerns.

Specific cases and personal testimonials started to surface, highlighting the potential risks of the PowerPort. These individual stories painted a troubling picture, prompting a deeper investigation.

Regulatory bodies like the FDA played a pivotal role during this crucial phase. Their responsibility to monitor and evaluate medical devices meant they were vital in assessing the severity of these reports and determining the necessary course of action.

Why Are People Filing PowerPort Lawsuits?

The surge in PowerPort lawsuits stems from claims that Bard’s device harbors design flaws potentially leading to severe health risks. Patients and healthcare providers have reported cases where the PowerPort’s design allegedly caused organ damage, infections, and blood clots. One of the primary concerns is the device’s high injection flow rates, coupled with a tendency for the catheter to break, posing a significant threat to patient safety.

A properly functioning port catheter, like the PowerPort, is implanted under the skin to provide easy venous access for medication delivery, such as chemotherapy. It includes a reservoir for medication injection, with a catheter typically made of silicone or polyurethane extending into the vein.

However, issues arise when the Bard PowerPort’s design increases injection flow, exerting undue pressure on the tubing. Over time, this pressure can cause the barium sulfate tubing to fracture, potentially allowing bacteria to enter and accumulate in these tiny cracks.

This escalation of pressure and the resulting fractures can lead to severe complications. Patients have reported experiencing abnormal heart rhythms, blood clots, heart and pulmonary embolisms, and ruptured blood vessels due to plastic fragments from the PowerPort entering the bloodstream. Other reported side effects include

  • Difficulty breathing
  • Confusion
  • Drainage at the port site
  • Fever
  • Inflammation
  • Kidney problems
  • Swelling

Compounding these concerns are allegations that Becton Dickinson, the company responsible for manufacturing and selling the Bard PowerPort, may have been aware of these issues for years. Lawsuits allege that the company failed to adequately report these device failures, potentially concealing thousands of injury reports from doctors and patients.

These accusations suggest that Becton Dickinson did not fully disclose the safety risks associated with the PowerPort, nor did they provide timely warnings to healthcare providers or initiate an immediate recall.

The company’s actions, or lack thereof, are central to the legal battles and have raised serious questions about the responsibility of medical device manufacturers in ensuring patient safety.

Bard PowerPort Devices in Lawsuits

Bard PowerPort Devices in Lawsuits

Recent legal actions against Bard bring to light the accusation that the company did not sufficiently inform patients about the risks of their implantable port devices despite receiving multiple adverse event reports (AERs) that signaled potential dangers.

These reports, pivotal in the lawsuits, suggest that Bard may have been aware of the risks but failed to communicate them effectively to patients and healthcare providers.

The lawsuits encompass several of Bard’s implantable catheter ports, including models such as:

  • PowerPort™ ClearVUE™ Implantable Port
  • PowerPort™ ClearVUE™ ISP Implantable Port
  • PowerPort™ ClearVUE™ Slim Implantable Port
  • PowerPort™ isp M.R.I.™ Implantable Port
  • PowerPort™ M.R.I.™ Implantable Port

Despite the mounting legal challenges, it’s important to note that Bard PowerPort devices continue to hold approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This ongoing approval indicates compliance with basic safety and effectiveness standards per FDA guidelines, even as the legal scrutiny of their safety practices intensifies.

The juxtaposition of FDA approval with legal allegations raises complex questions about medical device regulation and manufacturers’ responsibilities in ensuring patients’ safety and well-being.

Who Qualifies to File a Bard PowerPort Lawsuit?

If you’ve had a Bard PowerPort device implanted and subsequently suffered related injuries, you might be wondering about your eligibility to file a lawsuit. It’s crucial to consult an experienced attorney to determine if your situation qualifies for a lawsuit.

Common injuries cited in these lawsuits include:

  • Blood clots, like deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism
  • Cardiac punctures
  • Hemorrhages or hematomas
  • Infections
  • Necrosis, or tissue death
  • Pericardial effusion, which is fluid buildup around the heart
  • Severe or persistent pain
  • Tearing or perforation of blood vessels, organs, or tissue

When speaking with a Bard PowerPort lawyer, having a detailed record of your symptoms and medical complications post-implantation is beneficial. If you’re uncertain about your diagnosis, a lawyer can guide you in obtaining your medical records.

Time is of the essence in legal matters. If you’re considering filing a lawsuit, contacting an attorney is advisable. There’s a time limit for filing such claims, known as a statute of limitations. Missing this deadline could forfeit your chance to pursue legal action.


This article has navigated the intricate details of the Bard PowerPort lawsuit, highlighting the alleged design flaws and the resulting legal and medical implications. The ongoing lawsuit affects the patients directly involved and casts a broader shadow over the medical device industry and regulatory practices.

It underscores the critical importance of legal oversight in ensuring device safety and manufacturer accountability. Such legal battles are necessary to safeguard patient health and fortify trust in medical technologies. As this case unfolds, it reminds us of the delicate balance between innovation and safety in healthcare.