AngioDynamics Lawsuit Claims Xcela Port Catheter Caused Acute Embolism

Lawsuit indicates that the Angiodynamics Xcela port catheter has a long history of problems, high failure rates and adverse events, due to design defects.

An Oregon man has filed a product liability lawsuit against AngioDynamics after his Xcela port catheter failed, alleging that design defects caused him to suffer painful and life-threatening blood clots, resulting in the need for surgical removal of the device.

The Xcela is part of a line of AngioDynamics port catheters, which also includes the SmartPort and Vortex Port. These are implantable venous access devices used to deliver medications, nutrients and other fluids directly into the bloodstream, which consist of a port component and and a catheter that delivers the fluids into the body, both of which are intended for long-term use under the skin.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Frank Browning in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on March 17, joining a growing number of AngioDynamics port catheter lawsuits filed in recent months, alleging that Angiodynamics, Inc. and Navilyst Medical, Inc. have sold unreasonably dangerous and defective medical implants.

According to the lawsuit, Browning was implanted with the Xcela in March 2022 for chemotherapy. However, a little more than a year later, in May 2023, he went to the hospital complaining of severe pain.

Doctors determined that the pain was being caused by an acute embolism and thrombosis, meaning a blood clot had formed suddenly, blocking an artery, which can lead to severe injury and death. The lawsuit indicates doctors traced the problem back to Browning’s Xcela chemoport and indicated it should be removed.

Browning’s lawsuit against Angiodynamics indicates that his Xcela port was successfully removed in June 2023. However, he claims that AngioDynamics has known for years that the Xcela was linked to high failure rates, infections and device migration and fracture, but failed to warn the medical community or recipients.

“Defendants were aware or should have been aware that the Xcela had a substantially higher failure rate than other products on the market, yet Defendants failed to warn consumers of this fact,” Browning’s lawsuit states. “Defendants also intentionally concealed the severity of complications caused by the Xcela and the likelihood of these events occurring.”

Instead, the lawsuit notes that AngioDynamics continued to “actively and aggressively” market the implant.

Browning presents claims of negligence, design defect, manufacturing defect, failure to warn, breach of warranty, fraudulent concealment and violations of Oregon’s Unlawful Trade Practices Act. He seeks both compensatory and punitive damages.

March 2025 AngioDynamics Port Catheter Lawsuit Update

Given common questions of fact and law raised in similar claims being pursued throughout the federal court system, all AngioDynamics port catheter lawsuits are currently centralized in the Southern District of California under U.S. District Judge Jinsook Ohta, for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings. 

Although the federal MDL (multidistrict litigaton) for the lawsuits against Angiodynamics was just established in October 2024, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) indicates that there were already at least 120 claims pending before before Judge Ohta as of March 3, 2025.

As part of the coordinated management of the growing litigation, it is expected that Judge Ohta will want to establish a bellwether trial process, during which a handful of representative cases will be selected for early trial dates.

These trials will allow both parties to evaluate how juries may respond to evidence and expert testimony likely to be repeated throughout the litigation.

While the results of those bellwether trials would not be binding, they could help the parties reach an AngioDynamics port catheter lawsuit settlement agreement. If the parties do not reach an agreement, and no other resolution is found to the litigation, Judge Ohta may then remand each case back to the U.S. District Court where it originated for a future trial date.