AngioDynamics Vortex Failure Led to Port Catheter Removal, Lawsuit

Lawsuit indicates an AngioDynamics port catheter recall should have been issued, alleging the manufacturer has known about risks for years.

A Georgia man is pursuing a lawsuit against AngioDynamics, alleging that his Vortex port catheter failed, became infected, and ultimately required surgical removal, indicating that the manufacturers knew or should have known about problems with the device for years.

Matthew Massingill filed the complaint (PDF) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on December 22, joining a growing number of port catheter lawsuits now being pursued against AngioDynamics Inc. and Navilyst Medical Inc., each raising similar allegations that the implants are defectively designed and prone to failure.

The Vortex is one of a line of AngioDynamics port catheters, which consist of an injection port and polyurethane silicon catheter. The implants are designed to give doctors a way to deliver repeated drug and fluid injections needed for some medical treatments, including chemotherapy. However, former patients indicate that they have been left with painful and debilitating injuries when they device failed.

Port catheters from AngioDynamics and other medical device manufacturers have come under increased scrutiny over the last several years following reports of problem, including microfractures that lead to infections, blood clots, device migration and the need for corrective surgery. This has led to a growing number of AngioDynamics port catheter lawsuits and Bard PowerPort lawsuits being pursued in the federal court system over the past year.

Massingill’s complaint indicates he was implanted with a Vortex port catheter in August 2013 and diagnosed with an infection just a few months later.

The lawsuit notes that doctors determined the Vortex port catheter was the source of the infection, resulting in the implant’s surgical removal in January 2014.

“As a result of having the Vortex implanted, Plaintiff sustained significant mental and physical pain and suffering, suffered permanent injury, permanent and substantial physical deformity, underwent corrective surgery or surgeries, and suffered financial or economic loss, including, but not limited to, obligations for medical services and expenses.”

– Matthew Massingill v. AngioDynamics Inc. et al

According to the lawsuit, the company knew about the problems with its port catheters for years, yet refused to adequately inform the medical community, while failing to establish an appropriate post-marketing surveillance system. Massingill’s lawsuit calls for a Vortex port recall to remove the allegedly defective port catheters from the market.

Massingill presents claims of negligence, failure to warn, design defect, breach of warranty, fraudulent concealment, and violations of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act. He seeks both compensatory and punitive damages.

AngioDynamics Port Catheter Lawsuits

The complaint will be consolidated with nearly 300 other AngioDynamics port catheter lawsuits filed in federal courts nationwide, which have been centralized for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings in the Southern District of California under U.S. District Judge Jinsook Ohta.

Last year, Judge Ohta indicated that she plans to hold a series of AngioDynamics “bellwether” early trials to help the parties see how juries may respond to evidence and testimony that could be repeated throughout the litigation.

Lawyers have been ordered to select 18 cases, including nine chosen by plaintiffs and nine chosen by the manufacturer, representing the range of reported injuries involved in the litigation, including infections, fractures and blood clots. From that group, eight lawsuits will move forward as potential bellwether trials to gauge how juries evaluate the evidence and expert testimony.

While these early trial dates will not be binding on other port catheter claims, they could have significant influence on any potential AngioDynamics port catheter settlement negotiations. However, if the bellwether trials end without a settlement being reached, Judge Ohta may remand the cases back to their original courts for individual trial dates.