Jury Selection Underway in First Bard PowerPort Trial Over Infection Claims

Trial begins in a federal court room in the District of Arizona on April 21, involving claims that a defective Bard PowerPort port catheter caused serious infection complications.

A Bard PowerPort catheter bellwether trial is scheduled to begin jury selection on April 21, marking the first time the litigation will be tested before jurors in a case that will be closely watched by lawyers and thousands of plaintiffs.

According to an order (PDF) issued on April 13, the jury pool has already been significantly narrowed ahead of trial. Many prospective jurors were excused due to hardship or failure to respond to questionnaires distributed during the screening process.

A final group of 40 jurors has now been selected to report to court on Tuesday for voir dire, where attorneys for both sides will question candidates to determine their suitability to serve on the jury. The streamlined pool indicates the case is fully prepared to proceed, with the court signaling that the trial will move forward as scheduled.

Bard PowerPort Defects

Becton Dickinson and its C.R. Bard subsidiary currently face more than 3,000 product liability lawsuits over the Bard PowerPort, a port catheter implant designed to deliver medications and other fluids into patients repeatedly without the need for a needle stick each time. Consisting of a small injection port and a polyurethane catheter, these devices are often used for chemotherapy and similar repeat injection treatments.

While being marketed by its manufacturers as safe and effective, plaintiffs pursuing Bard PowerPort lawsuits allege that the device is defectively designed, carrying an increased risk of port catheter infections, fractures and migration injuries.

The complaints claim the manufacturers knew about these problems, yet failed to correct the design or warn the medical community of the risk of complications that can include pulmonary embolism, blood clots, infections and the need for revision surgery to remove the failed port catheters.

Given common facts and law at issue throughout the litigation, all federal Bard PowerPort lawsuits have been consolidated in the District of Arizona for coordination and pretrial proceedings before U.S. District Judge David G. Campbell. The judge has been working with the plaintiffs and defendants for months preparing a series of six bellwether trials, selecting cases meant to be representative of the majority of claims.

The first case selected to go to trial was filed by Robert Cook of Minnesota, who suffered a Bard PowerPort infection. 

Bard PowerPort Pretrial Rulings

In advance of Cook’s trial, the court also issued a court order (PDF) on April 14, announcing a series of rulings that will define what evidence jurors are permitted to hear.

One of the most significant decisions limits the defense’s expert testimony. The judge ruled that a key expert could not testify because his opinions were only meant to rebut other experts who will not appear at trial. In simple terms, jurors will not hear that portion of the defense’s scientific response, narrowing the scope of their argument.

The court also barred the defense from suggesting the device was proven safe based on FDA clearance. While the PowerPort went through the agency’s 510(k) process, the judge emphasized that this pathway focuses on whether a device is similar to existing products, not whether it is actually safe. As a result, jurors will not hear arguments implying federal regulators endorsed the device’s safety.

Another notable ruling involves an internal email from a doctor at Memorial Sloan Kettering, which mentioned concerns about the device’s materials. Plaintiffs wanted to use the email to show the manufacturer had early warning signs about potential problems. However, the judge excluded it, finding there was not enough evidence the company formally adopted or relied on those concerns. This means jurors will not see one piece of evidence plaintiffs hoped would suggest prior knowledge of risks.

At the same time, the court will allow arguments about an alternative catheter design known as Avertex. Plaintiffs claim this design could have reduced infection risks, while the defense is expected to argue it was not feasible or would not have been safer. This issue is likely to be a central point of dispute at trial.

Finally, the trial will be split into two phases. Jurors will first decide whether the manufacturer is liable and whether the plaintiff is entitled to compensation. Only if they find in favor of the plaintiff will they then consider punitive damages, which are meant to punish wrongdoing rather than compensate for injuries.

First BardPowerPort Bellwether Trial

As the first bellwether case to reach a jury, the Cook trial will offer an early indication of how these claims may be received in court.

Bellwether trials are used to gauge how juries evaluate the core allegations and defenses, often shaping the direction of the broader litigation, including whether the parties move toward settlement or continue preparing cases for trial.

With more than 3,000 lawsuits pending, the outcome is expected to carry significant weight for both sides.

As the trial moves forward, attorneys will be focused on how jurors interpret the central questions in the case, including whether the device’s design created an unreasonable risk of infection and whether a safer alternative was realistically available.

The defense is also likely to highlight the role of physicians in selecting and using the device, arguing that clinical judgment plays a key part in patient outcomes.

Another key development will be whether the case proceeds to a second phase on punitive damages, which would signal the jury found evidence of conduct warranting potential financial penalties beyond basic compensation.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.