AngioDynamics Vortex Port Lawsuit Filed Over Infection, Need for Surgical Removal

Manufacturers failed to warn the public of high failure rates linked to AngioDynamics port catheters, lawsuit claims.

A lawsuit filed on behalf of a deceased Virginia woman indicates her AngioDynamics Vortex chemo port had to be surgically removed after it caused a severe infection, which could have been avoided with a better design or adequate warnings for users and the medical community.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Youwith Pinnock, on behalf of the estate of Tiffany Gadson, on February 6, naming AngioDynamics, Inc. and Navilyst Medical, Inc. as the defendants.

The AngioDynamics Vortex port catheter system was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2003. Originally called the Triumph VTX port, it was created by Horizon Medical Products, which was later acquired by AngioDynamics. The implantable port allows long-term access to the vascular system to deliver medications, nutrients and treatments, such as chemotherapy, directly into a patient’s bloodstream.

While the AngioDynamics Vortex has been marketed as a safe and effective medical device, Pinnok’s lawsuit joins a growing number of AngioDynamics port catheter lawsuits filed in recent months. Each of the lawsuits raise similar allegations that the chemo port was defectively designed with materials that are prone to degrading, creating a risk of failure, migration and infection.

Similar allegations are also being pursued in a series of Bard PowerPort lawsuits against C.R. Bard, each indicating that the chemo ports are prone to fracturing, migrating and causing infections due to the breakdown of barium sulfate used during the manufacturing process.

According to the lawsuit, Gadson was implanted with an AngioDynamics Vortex port in April 2011. However, in October 2015, she was hospitalized for a sickle cell crisis when she tested positive for a Coagulase Negative Staphylococcus infection.

Usually found harmlessly in cultures on the skin, this kind of bacteria can also cause serious infections. The lawsuit alleges that the Vortex port was the cause of the infection, and doctors surgically removed the implant in 2018.

The complaint indicates that the manufacturers had received numerous reports of implant failures caused by infections linked to the port catheters, but neglected those concerns, and placed profits over patient safety.

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

Gadson died in August 2022, but the lawsuit does not link her death with the infection or the Vortex port. It does, however, present claims of fraudulent concealment, negligence,  failure to warn, design defect, breach of warranty, violation of Virginia consumer protection laws, and seeks both compensatory and punitive damages.

February 2025 AngioDynamics Port Catheter Lawsuits Update

Gadson’s lawsuit was filed in the Southern District of California, where a growing number of similar AngioDynamics port catheter lawsuits are currently centralized for coordinated pretrial proceedings under U.S. District Judge Jinsook Ohta.

It is anticipated that Judge Ohta will establish a bellwether trial process, which will result in the selection of a handful of representative cases 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 AngioDynamics port catheter injury claims.

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.