619.541.6609
We are available 24/7
Thousands of pending Bard PowerPort cases are being shaped by rapidly unfolding developments in the litigation.
A partial defense verdict in the first bellwether trial and a swift plaintiff appeal motion have changed the momentum.
More than 3,376 cases are active in the federal MDL, and with internal company documents now in evidence, early trial results are starting to set the tone for settlement values across remaining claims.
The first Bard PowerPort bellwether trial resulted in a partial defense verdict and hung jury when it concluded on May 11, 2026. The jury cleared Bard and Becton Dickinson on failure to warn and failure to instruct claims and rejected the consumer fraud claim entirely, but could not agree on whether the PowerPort was defectively designed or whether the companies engaged in unlawful trade practices.
While Bard claims the outcome as a defense victory, the results proved less damaging for plaintiffs than headlines suggest. Jurors reportedly indicated they would have answered yes if asked whether the PowerPort could have been made safer. Company employees testified they recommended design updates, and testimony addressed Bard's knowledge of infection risk. The design defect issue was never settled, and that core theory of litigation remains viable for future trials.
The plaintiff moved for a new trial on June 5, 2026, arguing that flawed jury instructions confused legal standards and pushed jurors toward a partial verdict. The motion also contends jurors felt pressured to reach a decision by a deadline. A successful motion would erase Bard's first defense win and set the case for retrial, giving plaintiffs real momentum going into fall bellwether trials.
The Bard PowerPort MDL had 3,376 pending cases as of June 4, 2026, and the number is still climbing. It is growing because more patients are linking the device to their serious complications. The MDL was created in August 2023, and patient and physician awareness of device failures is growing.
Bard's objections to a major internal PowerPoint were sustained by Judge David G. Campbell, who allowed it into evidence on April 27, 2026. The document covered infection rates, antimicrobial coating feasibility, and the impact of infections on cancer patients. Bard argued the whole thing was unfairly prejudicial, but the court only agreed to cut language calling Bard the market's king. The rest was admitted, substantially helping the plaintiff's case.
What companies knew internally about design risks and alternatives before implanting patients is often the most powerful evidence in medical device cases. The admission demonstrates Bard's internal knowledge of infection risks and feasible design alternatives.
Some PowerPort cases are far stronger than others. The most compelling involve patients implanted within the past ten years who went on to experience serious complications like device fractures, leaks, migration, mechanical failures needing surgical removal, or severe conditions such as sepsis, endocarditis, internal bleeding, and organ perforation.
Clear causation evidence is what gives a case its best chance of success:
Infection cases require more careful evidence gathering than fracture and migration cases because infections can have multiple causes, making causation more complex for juries to decide.
A March 21, 2026 ruling by Judge Campbell prohibited Bard's FDA expert from telling the jury that the PowerPort design was safe or that 510(k) clearance meant the devices were safe and effective. The judge recognized that 510(k) clearance is not the same as a product safety determination for implanted patients.
On February 22, 2026, Judge Campbell permitted important testimony from interventional radiology experts, but did not permit certain opinions that went beyond the scope of clinical expertise. Bard failed to secure sweeping expert exclusions, allowing core medical causation testimony to survive.
While a Bard PowerPort settlement is expected, settlement numbers will not look the same for every plaintiff. Weaker settlement offers are likely for early cases involving relatively minor injuries gathered during the litigation's earliest phases. Strong fracture, migration, vascular damage, thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, sepsis, and surgical retrieval cases should not be valued the same way.
If Bard offers a global settlement path for all claims, plaintiffs with strong cases should exercise caution. A global settlement can be useful but also flatten case values if the scoring system does not distinguish serious injuries from minor claims.
If you received a Bard PowerPort implant and experienced serious complications requiring surgery or hospitalization, you may be eligible for litigation. Atraxia Law represents patients in the federal MDL and coordinated state litigation, and will evaluate your medical records and device history to assess your case. Contact us today for a free, confidential case evaluation.