The powerport lawsuit is gaining serious momentum in 2026, with thousands of claims now consolidated in federal court. Patients who suffered infections, catheter fractures, or organ damage from Bard PowerPort devices are seeking compensation from manufacturer Becton Dickinson.
This lawsuit could reshape how medical device companies handle safety testing. As of early 2026, more than 3,500 cases sit in the MDL, and bellwether trials are on the horizon.
In this article, you will learn the latest case updates, who qualifies to file, what settlement payouts might look like, and how the process works from start to finish. One key detail: FDA adverse event reports for PowerPort devices number in the thousands, and that data is becoming a centerpiece of the litigation.
If you or someone you know had a Bard PowerPort implanted and experienced complications, this is the breakdown you need right now.
PowerPort Lawsuit
The powerport lawsuit refers to thousands of legal claims filed against Becton Dickinson and its subsidiary C.R. Bard over defective implantable port catheter devices. Plaintiffs allege that the Bard PowerPort was designed with materials prone to fracture, migration, and infection.
These cases center on a small medical device implanted under the skin, usually in the chest. It provides long-term venous access for chemotherapy, blood draws, and IV medications. When the device works properly, it saves patients from repeated needle sticks.
But when it fails, the consequences can be severe. Broken catheter pieces can travel through the bloodstream to the heart or lungs. Infections at the port site can lead to sepsis and hospitalization.
| Quick Facts | Details |
|---|---|
| Defendant | Becton Dickinson / C.R. Bard |
| Device | Bard PowerPort implantable port catheter |
| Main Allegations | Catheter fracture, migration, infection, design defects |
| Number of Cases (2026) | Over 3,500 in the MDL |
| Court | U.S. District Court, District of Arizona |
Lawsuits allege that Bard knew about these risks for years. Internal testing documents and FDA adverse event reports form the backbone of the plaintiffs’ arguments. The company continued selling the device without adequate warnings or design changes, according to court filings.
PowerPort Lawsuit Update 2026
The biggest powerport lawsuit update for 2026 is that bellwether trial selections are underway in the Arizona MDL. Judge David G. Campbell is overseeing the case management and has set a schedule designed to push toward early resolutions.
Bellwether trials are test cases. The court picks a small group of representative claims, tries them before a jury, and uses the outcomes to gauge what the broader litigation is worth. Think of them as dress rehearsals that set the tone for settlement talks.
In early 2026, the parties completed fact discovery for the initial trial pool. Expert depositions are scheduled for mid-2026. If the timeline holds, the first bellwether trial could begin in late 2026 or early 2027.
- Discovery completion: First half of 2026
- Expert reports due: Mid-2026
- Daubert motions (expert challenges): Late summer 2026
- Potential bellwether trial: Late 2026 to early 2027
- Settlement discussions: Could accelerate after first trial verdict
The defendant, Becton Dickinson, has filed multiple motions to exclude plaintiff expert testimony. The outcome of those motions will heavily influence how strong the plaintiffs’ cases look heading into trial.
Each update from the court brings more clarity. Patients watching this case should know that the pace of litigation is picking up, not slowing down.
Bard PowerPort Lawsuit
The Bard PowerPort lawsuit specifically targets the PowerPort line of implantable venous access devices manufactured by C.R. Bard, now a subsidiary of Becton Dickinson (BD). BD acquired Bard in 2017 for approximately $24 billion, inheriting all of Bard’s product liability exposure.
Plaintiffs argue that Bard designed the PowerPort with a catheter made from barium sulfate polyurethane. This material, they claim, degrades over time inside the body. As it breaks down, the catheter becomes brittle and prone to fracturing.
The lawsuits also target the Groshong-style catheter tip used in some PowerPort models. Court documents suggest this valve design can malfunction, leading to blood clots and blocked ports.
| PowerPort Models Named in Lawsuits | Key Feature |
|---|---|
| Bard PowerPort MRI | MRI-compatible titanium port |
| Bard PowerPort ClearVue | Radiolucent body for imaging |
| Bard PowerPort Slim | Low-profile design for smaller patients |
| Bard PowerPort isp | Integrated injection site |
Bard sold these devices to hospitals and clinics across the country. Oncology patients make up the largest group of users. Many received the device before starting chemotherapy and trusted their doctors that the port was safe.
BD has denied wrongdoing. The company maintains that PowerPort devices meet FDA standards and carry appropriate warnings. But plaintiffs’ attorneys point to thousands of adverse event reports filed with the FDA as evidence that the company knew problems were widespread.
Key Takeaway: The Bard PowerPort lawsuit targets specific design and material defects in a device used by thousands of cancer patients, and the litigation is now in an active discovery and trial preparation phase.
PowerPort Lawsuit Settlement Amounts
No official powerport lawsuit settlement amounts have been announced yet as of 2026. The case has not reached a global settlement, and no bellwether verdicts have been delivered. However, legal analysts and attorneys involved in the MDL have published estimated ranges.
Settlement projections depend heavily on injury severity. A patient who needed emergency surgery to retrieve a fractured catheter fragment from their heart will likely receive far more than someone who experienced a localized infection treated with antibiotics.
| Injury Tier | Description | Estimated Settlement Range |
|---|---|---|
| Tier 1 (Severe) | Cardiac damage, pulmonary embolism, death | $250,000 to $500,000+ |
| Tier 2 (Serious) | Surgical removal of catheter fragment, DVT, sepsis | $100,000 to $250,000 |
| Tier 3 (Moderate) | Hospitalization for infection, port failure requiring replacement | $50,000 to $100,000 |
| Tier 4 (Minor) | Port malfunction, minor infection, additional medical visits | $10,000 to $50,000 |
These numbers are estimates based on similar medical device litigation outcomes. The Bard hernia mesh settlements, for example, resulted in payouts ranging from $35,000 to over $250,000 per claimant, depending on injury severity.
The total value of the PowerPort MDL could reach into the billions. BD reported $20 billion in annual revenue in 2024, meaning the company has deep pockets to fund a large-scale resolution.
Keep in mind that individual payouts are always reduced by attorney fees, which typically run 33% to 40% of the gross settlement amount. Court costs and medical lien reductions can also reduce the final check.
PowerPort Lawsuit Eligibility
PowerPort lawsuit eligibility comes down to three basic requirements: you had a Bard PowerPort implanted, you experienced a qualifying complication, and you can connect that complication to the device. Meeting all three opens the door to filing a claim.
The device had to be a Bard-manufactured PowerPort, not a generic port or a competing product from companies like AngioDynamics or Cook Medical. Medical records showing the brand and model of the implanted device are the first piece of evidence attorneys look for.
Your complication must be one of the recognized injuries linked to PowerPort defects. These include catheter fracture, catheter migration, infection, blood clots, and organ damage.
Eligibility checklist:
- Had a Bard PowerPort catheter implanted
- Experienced a device-related complication
- Required medical treatment, hospitalization, or surgery due to the complication
- Can obtain medical records documenting the device and injury
- Have not previously settled a claim against Bard or BD for this device
There is no minimum age requirement. Both adult and pediatric patients who received PowerPort devices may qualify. Family members can file on behalf of deceased patients in wrongful death cases.
The statute of limitations varies by state. In most states, you have two to three years from the date you discovered (or should have discovered) the injury. Because this is an MDL, filing sooner is better for positioning your claim in the litigation.
Who Qualifies for the PowerPort Lawsuit
Anyone who had a Bard PowerPort implanted and suffered a recognized complication may qualify for this lawsuit. The most common qualifying group is cancer patients who received the port for chemotherapy access.
But it is not limited to cancer patients. People who received PowerPort devices for long-term IV antibiotics, parenteral nutrition, or chronic illness management are also eligible. The qualifying factor is the device, not the underlying medical condition.
Here is a breakdown of who is filing claims:
- Oncology patients who had PowerPorts for chemo infusions
- Patients with chronic illnesses like Crohn’s disease or cystic fibrosis
- Kidney disease patients needing long-term IV access
- Patients who received the device between 2000 and 2024
- Families of patients who died from PowerPort-related complications
You do not need to have the device still implanted. Many claimants already had the PowerPort removed, sometimes in an emergency procedure. Records from the removal surgery often contain critical evidence about the device’s condition at the time of explant.
One important detail: simply having a PowerPort that needed to be removed does not automatically qualify you. You must have experienced a documented medical complication tied to a defect in the device, not just a routine end-of-use removal.
Key Takeaway: Qualification hinges on three things: a Bard PowerPort device, a documented medical complication, and evidence linking the two, regardless of why the port was originally placed.
PowerPort Catheter Lawsuit
The powerport catheter lawsuit focuses specifically on the catheter component of the device, which is the thin tube that threads from the port chamber into a large vein and toward the heart. This is the part most prone to failure.
Think of it like a garden hose that slowly cracks from sun damage. The polyurethane material used in the PowerPort catheter is alleged to degrade inside the body over time. Exposure to blood, body temperature, and the chemicals infused through the port can accelerate this breakdown.
When the catheter fractures, a piece can break off and travel through the vascular system. This is called catheter embolization. The fragment can lodge in the heart, lungs, or major blood vessels, creating a life-threatening emergency.
| Catheter Failure Type | What Happens | Risk Level |
|---|---|---|
| Fracture | Catheter breaks into pieces | High |
| Migration | Catheter tip moves from original position | Moderate to High |
| Occlusion | Catheter becomes blocked | Moderate |
| Disconnection | Catheter separates from port chamber | High |
| Degradation | Material breaks down over time | Varies |
Retrieval of a broken catheter fragment typically requires an interventional radiology procedure or open surgery. In some cases, the fragment cannot be safely removed and must be left in place, creating ongoing health risks.
Court filings allege that Bard received hundreds of complaints about catheter failures but did not redesign the product or issue stronger warnings to physicians. Internal documents obtained during discovery may show that the company prioritized market share over patient safety.
Bard PowerPort Settlement
A formal Bard PowerPort settlement has not been reached as of 2026. Settlement negotiations in medical device MDLs typically begin in earnest after bellwether trial verdicts establish the value of claims. The litigation has not yet reached that stage.
That said, the conditions for settlement are building. BD has faced massive litigation before. The company settled its hernia mesh MDL for significant sums. The IVC filter litigation brought by Bard patients also resulted in substantial payouts.
Signs that settlement talks could begin soon:
- Bellwether trial pool has been selected
- Discovery is producing damaging internal documents
- FDA adverse event data supports plaintiffs’ allegations
- BD has financial reserves to fund a settlement
- The number of filed cases continues to grow
In similar medical device cases, global settlements typically arrive 12 to 24 months after the first bellwether verdict. If the first PowerPort trial happens in late 2026 or early 2027, a settlement framework could emerge by 2027 or 2028.
BD may also pursue individual settlements with claimants who have the strongest cases before a bellwether trial. This is a common defense strategy to remove the most damaging claims from the trial pool and reduce overall exposure.
For now, the best move for claimants is to file their claim, gather medical records, and wait for the litigation to progress. Early filers tend to have better positioning when settlements are distributed.
PowerPort Lawsuit Payout Per Person
The powerport lawsuit payout per person will depend on the severity of the injury, the strength of the medical evidence, and the outcome of bellwether trials or settlement negotiations. No individual payouts have been distributed yet.
Based on similar medical device MDL outcomes, here is what analysts expect:
| Comparable MDL | Average Payout Per Person | Total Settlement Value |
|---|---|---|
| Bard Hernia Mesh | $35,000 to $250,000 | Over $1 billion |
| Bard IVC Filter | $50,000 to $150,000 | Confidential |
| Stryker Hip Implant | $300,000+ | $1.4 billion |
| Ethicon Mesh | $50,000 to $200,000 | Over $8 billion |
The PowerPort litigation could follow a similar pattern. Cases involving death or cardiac damage will command the highest payouts. Cases involving infections treated with antibiotics will likely fall on the lower end.
Attorney fees will reduce the gross payout. Most firms handling these cases work on a contingency basis, meaning they take 33% to 40% of any recovery. Some courts cap fees in MDL settlements to protect claimants.
After fees, court costs, and medical lien reductions, the net check a claimant receives is typically 55% to 65% of the gross settlement amount. On a $100,000 gross payout, that means roughly $55,000 to $65,000 in your pocket.
Key Takeaway: Individual payouts will vary widely based on injury severity, but comparable medical device cases suggest a range of $10,000 to $500,000 or more per person before fees.
PowerPort Complications Lawsuit
The powerport complications lawsuit revolves around specific medical problems that patients experienced after receiving the device. These are not minor inconveniences. Many required hospitalization, surgery, or caused permanent health damage.
The most commonly alleged complications include:
- Catheter fracture: The tube breaks inside the body, sending fragments into the bloodstream
- Catheter migration: The tip shifts from its intended position near the heart
- Bloodstream infections: Bacteria enter through or around the device, causing sepsis
- Deep vein thrombosis (DVT): Blood clots form around the catheter
- Cardiac perforation: Catheter tip punctures the heart wall
- Pulmonary embolism: Catheter fragment or blood clot travels to the lungs
- Port site infection: Infection develops at the implantation site under the skin
- Port flipping: The device rotates under the skin, making it unusable
Each complication has its own medical documentation requirements. A fractured catheter, for instance, is usually confirmed by imaging studies showing the fragment location. An infection might be documented through blood cultures and hospitalization records.
Plaintiffs argue that many of these complications were preventable. Alternative catheter materials and designs existed when Bard chose to use barium sulfate polyurethane. Safer valve mechanisms were available. The company allegedly chose cheaper, less durable options to maximize profit margins.
Some patients experienced multiple complications from the same device. A port might fracture, requiring emergency surgery, and then the patient could develop an infection at the surgical site. These compounded injuries strengthen a claim significantly.
Bard Power Port Injuries
Bard power port injuries range from painful infections to life-threatening emergencies. The severity of the injury is the single biggest factor in determining the value of a legal claim.
Minor injuries include localized port site pain, minor infections treated with oral antibiotics, and port malfunction requiring routine replacement. These cause inconvenience and additional medical costs but typically do not result in permanent harm.
Serious injuries include deep vein thrombosis, bloodstream infections requiring IV antibiotics and hospitalization, and catheter fractures requiring interventional radiology procedures to retrieve fragments. Recovery can take weeks or months.
Severe and catastrophic injuries include cardiac tamponade (fluid buildup around the heart), pulmonary embolism, septic shock, organ damage, and death. These cases carry the highest legal value and the most urgent need for representation.
| Injury Category | Examples | Typical Medical Response |
|---|---|---|
| Minor | Port site pain, minor infection | Outpatient treatment, antibiotics |
| Serious | DVT, bloodstream infection, catheter fracture | Hospitalization, interventional procedures |
| Severe | Cardiac damage, sepsis, pulmonary embolism | ICU admission, emergency surgery |
| Fatal | Death from embolism, septic shock, cardiac arrest | Wrongful death claim |
According to FDA MAUDE database records, thousands of adverse events involving Bard PowerPort devices have been reported. These reports include detailed descriptions of injuries, device failures, and patient outcomes. They serve as powerful evidence in the litigation.
Many patients were already dealing with cancer or other serious illnesses when the PowerPort failed. The added trauma of a device-related emergency on top of an existing health crisis is something juries tend to respond to strongly.
Key Takeaway: Injuries from Bard PowerPort devices span a wide spectrum, and the severity of your specific injury is the primary driver of your claim’s potential value.
PowerPort MDL Update
The powerport MDL (multidistrict litigation) is consolidated under MDL No. 3081 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. Judge David G. Campbell is the presiding judge overseeing all pretrial proceedings.
An MDL works differently from a class action. Each case remains individual, with its own plaintiff, injuries, and potential payout. But all cases share common pretrial activities like discovery, depositions, and expert analysis. This eliminates repetitive work across thousands of similar lawsuits.
MDL 3081 Status as of 2026:
- Total pending cases: Over 3,500
- New cases filing monthly: Approximately 100 to 200
- Discovery phase: Active, with ongoing document production from BD
- Bellwether selection: Trial pool being narrowed
- Key depositions: BD engineers, quality control personnel, marketing executives
- Expert witness reports: Due mid-2026
The MDL panel transferred these cases to Arizona in 2024. Since then, the pace of litigation has accelerated. Judge Campbell has imposed firm deadlines on both sides, which is a good sign for plaintiffs who want the case to move forward.
One significant development: plaintiffs’ attorneys obtained internal Bard documents during discovery that allegedly show the company received early warnings about catheter durability problems. The specifics of these documents remain under seal, but they could prove decisive in bellwether trials.
BD has countered by arguing that the PowerPort met all FDA requirements and that complications are inherent risks of any implantable device. The battle of expert witnesses will likely determine which narrative the jury believes.
How to File a PowerPort Lawsuit
Filing a powerport lawsuit starts with contacting an attorney experienced in medical device litigation. Most firms offer free case evaluations and work on contingency, meaning you pay nothing upfront.
Here is the step-by-step process:
Step 1: Free case evaluation. An attorney reviews your situation to determine if you have a viable claim. This usually involves a phone call or online intake form.
Step 2: Medical records collection. Your attorney gathers records showing the PowerPort implantation, any complications, treatments, and device removal. This is the most time-consuming part.
Step 3: Complaint filing. A formal legal complaint is drafted and filed in the appropriate court. For MDL cases, it gets transferred to the Arizona federal court.
Step 4: Discovery. Your attorney works with the plaintiffs’ steering committee to share evidence, take depositions, and build the case.
Step 5: Wait for resolution. Either through bellwether trial outcomes, individual settlement, or global settlement.
| Filing Step | Typical Timeline |
|---|---|
| Case evaluation | 1 to 3 days |
| Medical records gathering | 2 to 8 weeks |
| Complaint filing | 1 to 2 weeks after records |
| Transfer to MDL | 1 to 3 months |
| Active litigation | Ongoing until resolution |
You do not need to live in Arizona to file. The MDL accepts cases from all 50 states. Your attorney handles everything remotely.
The most important thing is to act before the statute of limitations expires. Each state sets its own deadline, but most allow two to three years from the date you discovered the injury. Waiting too long can permanently bar your claim.
Key Takeaway: Filing a PowerPort lawsuit is a straightforward process handled almost entirely by your attorney, but gathering medical records early and filing before the deadline are critical steps you should not delay.
PowerPort Class Action Lawsuit
The powerport class action lawsuit is a term people frequently search, but it is technically inaccurate. The PowerPort litigation is not a class action. It is a multidistrict litigation (MDL), and the difference matters.
In a class action, one plaintiff or a small group represents everyone. All class members receive the same outcome. One payout formula applies to all. You do not get individual attention.
In an MDL, every case is separate. Your injuries, your medical records, and your specific damages determine your outcome. This means someone with a severe cardiac injury is not lumped in with someone who had a minor infection. Your case stands on its own.
| Feature | Class Action | MDL |
|---|---|---|
| Individual claims | No | Yes |
| Custom payouts | No | Yes |
| Shared pretrial work | Yes | Yes |
| One verdict for all | Yes | No |
| Your own attorney | Sometimes | Always |
| Tailored to your injuries | No | Yes |
This distinction is important because MDL claims typically result in higher individual payouts than class actions. You keep your own case, your own evidence, and your own shot at fair compensation.
Some states may have individual lawsuits pending in state courts alongside the federal MDL. Your attorney can advise whether federal or state court is the better venue for your specific claim.
The bottom line: do not avoid filing because you think it is “just a class action” where everyone gets $12. This is individualized litigation where serious injuries can result in serious compensation.
PowerPort Lawsuit Deadline 2026
The powerport lawsuit deadline in 2026 depends on your state’s statute of limitations and when you discovered your injury. There is no single national deadline, but time is running out for many potential claimants.
Most states set a two to three year statute of limitations for product liability claims. The clock typically starts on the date you discovered (or reasonably should have discovered) that your injury was caused by the PowerPort device. This is called the “discovery rule.”
Statute of limitations by state (selected examples):
| State | Product Liability Statute | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| California | 2 years | From date of injury discovery |
| Texas | 2 years | Strict deadline |
| Florida | 4 years (reduced to 2 in 2024) | New law changed timeline |
| New York | 3 years | From date of injury |
| Illinois | 2 years | From discovery of injury |
| Pennsylvania | 2 years | From injury date |
| Ohio | 2 years | Product liability statute |
If your injury occurred in 2023 and you live in a state with a two-year statute, your deadline could be as early as 2025. If you are reading this in 2026, you may have already missed it unless the discovery rule extends your window.
Do not assume you have time. Even within the MDL, late filers may face procedural disadvantages. Cases filed earlier in the litigation tend to receive priority in settlement distributions.
Key Takeaway: There is no universal filing deadline, but most states give you two to three years from injury discovery, and waiting until the last minute can hurt your claim’s position in the MDL.
Bard PowerPort Catheter Recall
There has been no formal Bard PowerPort catheter recall issued by the FDA or voluntarily by Becton Dickinson as of 2026. The devices remain on the market and continue to be implanted in patients.
This is a point of frustration for plaintiff attorneys and patient advocates. Despite thousands of adverse event reports in the FDA’s MAUDE database, the agency has not taken action to pull the device. The PowerPort was cleared through the FDA’s 510(k) pathway, which is a less rigorous approval process than full premarket approval (PMA).
Under the 510(k) process, a manufacturer only needs to show that a new device is “substantially equivalent” to an existing one. It does not require clinical trials proving safety and effectiveness. Critics argue this pathway allowed the PowerPort to reach patients without adequate long-term testing.
FDA adverse event data for Bard PowerPort:
- Thousands of MAUDE reports filed
- Reports include catheter fractures, infections, and deaths
- No mandatory recall issued
- No safety communication specific to PowerPort
The absence of a recall does not mean the device is safe. It means the FDA has not yet taken formal regulatory action. Plaintiff attorneys argue that the FDA’s failure to act does not absolve Bard of liability, especially if the company had internal data showing problems before reports were filed.
If BD were to issue a voluntary recall during the litigation, it could significantly strengthen plaintiffs’ claims. A recall would be an implicit admission that the device has safety defects. For now, the legal battle continues without one.
PowerPort Device Failure Lawsuits
PowerPort device failure lawsuits allege that the Bard PowerPort was defectively designed, manufactured with substandard materials, and sold without adequate warnings about known risks. These three legal theories form the foundation of nearly every claim.
Design defect: Plaintiffs argue that the PowerPort’s catheter material (barium sulfate polyurethane) is inherently prone to degradation inside the body. Safer alternatives existed. Bard chose a cheaper material.
Manufacturing defect: Some claims allege that specific batches of PowerPort devices had quality control issues. Manufacturing records obtained during discovery may show inconsistencies in production standards.
Failure to warn: Even if some risk is inherent in implantable devices, Bard had a duty to warn doctors and patients about the specific risks associated with PowerPort catheters. Plaintiffs claim the warnings were insufficient and downplayed the frequency of serious complications.
| Legal Theory | Core Argument | Evidence Sources |
|---|---|---|
| Design defect | Catheter material prone to failure | Engineering analysis, competitor comparisons |
| Manufacturing defect | Quality control failures | Production records, batch testing data |
| Failure to warn | Inadequate risk disclosures | Product labeling, FDA submissions, internal memos |
Many plaintiffs bring all three theories simultaneously. This gives their attorneys multiple paths to prove liability. If one theory is weaker, the others can carry the case.
The device failure lawsuits also raise questions about BD’s post-market surveillance obligations. Federal law requires medical device manufacturers to monitor their products after market clearance and report problems to the FDA. Plaintiffs allege that BD underreported adverse events and failed to investigate complaints thoroughly.
These failures, if proven, could result in punitive damages on top of compensatory damages. Punitive damages are designed to punish particularly egregious corporate behavior and deter future misconduct.
Key Takeaway: PowerPort device failure lawsuits attack the product from three legal angles, design, manufacturing, and warnings, giving plaintiffs multiple paths to prove Becton Dickinson’s liability.
Frequently Asked Questions
How much money can I get from the PowerPort lawsuit?
Most legal analysts estimate payouts between $10,000 and $500,000 per person.
The exact amount depends on your injury severity, medical documentation, and the outcome of bellwether trials.
No settlements have been paid yet as of 2026, but comparable medical device cases provide a reliable range.
What is the deadline to file a PowerPort lawsuit in 2026?
The deadline depends on your state’s statute of limitations, which is typically two to three years from the date you discovered your injury.
Some states have shorter windows, and recent law changes in states like Florida have tightened deadlines.
Filing as early as possible gives your claim better positioning in the MDL.
Does the PowerPort lawsuit qualify as a class action?
No, the PowerPort lawsuit is an MDL (multidistrict litigation), not a class action.
Each case is treated individually with its own evidence, injuries, and potential payout.
This structure typically results in higher compensation than a traditional class action.
What injuries qualify for the Bard PowerPort lawsuit?
Qualifying injuries include catheter fracture, catheter migration, bloodstream infection, deep vein thrombosis, cardiac perforation, pulmonary embolism, and sepsis.
You must have medical documentation linking the injury to your Bard PowerPort device.
Both minor complications and catastrophic injuries can qualify, though payouts scale with severity.
Has Bard or Becton Dickinson recalled the PowerPort?
No, there has been no formal recall of the Bard PowerPort as of 2026.
The device remains on the market despite thousands of FDA adverse event reports.
The absence of a recall does not affect your ability to file a lawsuit or qualify for compensation.
What You Should Do Right Now
The PowerPort lawsuit is heading toward its most critical phase yet. Bellwether trials, settlement discussions, and filing deadlines are all converging in 2026 and beyond.
If you had a Bard PowerPort and suffered complications, now is the time to gather your medical records and talk to an attorney. Early action protects your legal rights and gives your claim the strongest possible position.
Do not wait for a settlement announcement to start. By then, the window to file may have already closed.
