Bard PowerPort Catheter Infection Problems Concealed from Doctors and Public, Lawsuit Alleges

A Louisiana woman has filed a product liability lawsuit after developing a devastating catheter infections from a Bard PowerPort, indicating that the manufacturer was aware the design increased the risk of infection problems for years before the port catheter was implanted, but false and misleading information was provided to patients and doctors for years.

The complaint (PDF) was filed earlier this month by Dene Magnon in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, indicating that Becton, Dickinson and Company and its C.R. Bard and Bard Access Systems subsidiaries have concealed information about the Bard PowerPort catheter infection problems, and continue to aggressively market the device as safe.

The Bard PowerPort is a vascular access device, which is implanted below the skin to provide a port that allows the easy delivery of medications to a patient’s blood stream. It consists mainly of an injection port, where the needle is inserted to deliver medications, and a polyurethane catheter tube which carries the drug into the blood vessel.

Unlike other implanted ports, such as Port-a-cath or Mediport, the Bard PowerPort is marketed as a special type of port catheter, which is intended to withstand higher injection pressures. However, Magnon now joins a growing number of individuals nationwide who are pursuing Bard PowerPort infection lawsuits, alleging that the catheter tube is prone to fracture and rupture, which can cause life-threatening infections, pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis and other complications.

According to the lawsuit, Magnon received a Bard PowerPort catheter in July 2019, for the administration of chemotherapy drugs to treat her cervical cancer. However, in February 2020, she received a port catheter infection diagnosis, which doctors said was linked to the implant.

As a result of the Bard PowerPort problems, Magnon underwent another surgical procedure to remove the device from her chest wall. However, that came after she required multiple hospital admissions, and experienced severe anxiety. Even though the port has been removed, she continues to face an increased risk of future severe and permanent injuries, according to the lawsuit.

Magnon indicates that the manufacturers knew about the increased risk of catheter infection problems with the Bard PowerPort, but kept that data hidden from the medical community and patients.

“Soon after the PowerPort was introduced to market, which was years before Plaintiff was implanted with her Device, Defendants began receiving large numbers of Adverse Event Reports (“AERs”) from healthcare providers reporting that the PowerPort was precipitating serious PowerPort-related infections in the PowerPort’s users,” the lawsuit states. “Defendants knew or should have known that the PowerPort had a substantially higher failure rate than other similar products on the market, yet Defendants failed to adequately warn healthcare providers and consumers of this fact.”

September 2023 Bard PowerPort Lawsuit Update

With a growing number of similar claims being filed throughout the federal court system, each raising similar allegations that Bard failed disclose the potential chemo port risks, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) decided last month to consolidate all Bard PowerPort lawsuits in the District of Arizona, where U.S. District Judge David Campbell was assigned to preside over coordinated pretrial procedures.

Each of the complaints involve injuries that allegedly resulted from a failure of a Bard port catheter, including migration of the device, infections, blood clots, deep vein thrombosis, perforations and other damage caused by a Bard PowerPort fracture.

As part of the management of the port catheter lawsuits, it is expected that Judge Campbell will coordinate discovery into common issues that impact all of the claims, and select a small group of representative cases that will be prepared for early trial dates, to help gauge how juries may respond to certain evidence and testimony that will be repeated throughout the litigation. However, if the manufacturer fails to negotiation Bard Port settlements following these MDL proceedings, each case may later be remanded back to the U.S. District Court where it was originally filed for a separate trial date in the future.