Bard PowerPort Lawsuit – Most Latest Updates and Defective Product Compensation Lawyers

Product Liability Lawsuits are filed by individuals injured due to a defective Bard PowerPort implant i.e., Bard powerport Lawsuit. The Justice Now accepts new cases for anyone who has had a Bard port cath implanted and was wounded by a fracture or migration.

We are accepting new cases for individuals injured by defective Bard PowerPort implants. For a free consultation with our Bard PowerPort attorneys, call us today at +1 (817) 672 0196 Reach out online.

Bard PowerPort Lawsuit Updates

November 1, 2020: Let’s look at the maths for the Bard PowerPort Class Action. Bard had a 70% market share with 300,000 installed devices nationwide. This could mean between 8,000 and 12,000 machines. There are only 62 cases in the MDL. Why?

Bard PowerPort is still in its early stages. This is not the complete answer. I am unsure if doctors or patients correctly identify the PowerPort as an injury-causing device. This could change with increased awareness.

October 27, 2023: Over 60 Bard PowerPort cases have already been consolidated in a federal class action MDL. A larger group of PowerPort suits will now be reduced in a New Jersey State Court version of an MDL. New Jersey’s MCL process (multi-county lawsuit) works similarly to the MDL in federal court. A group of plaintiffs with PowerPort cases in New Jersey filed a motion to the New Jersey Supreme Court asking that a new MCL be formed for the Bard PowerPort case. According to the action, over 500 PowerPort lawsuits will soon be filed in New Jersey.

October 16 2023: 62 cases are pending in the Bard PowerPort class action MDL at federal court. In the past month, 12 patients have been transferred to the MDL. Initially, we anticipated a small monthly volume in this MDL. However, eventually, it could be over 100 cases per month.

October 11, 2023: Chicago woman becomes one of the latest plaintiffs in a Bard PowerPort case. A woman in Chicago had a PowerPort placed in her neck to treat breast cancer. The PowerPort fragmented in nine months, and the pieces were lost in her veins and heart. She underwent several surgeries to remove fragments from the spirit and other parts. Her lawsuit will be filed in the Northern District of Chicago as part of the Bard PowerPort MDL.

October 2, 2023: Judge David Campbell has been assigned the new Bard PowerPort MDL in the U.S. District Court for Arizona. Judge Campbell was a conservative appointed by President Bush in 2003. He had a private practice in Phoenix before being appointed as a judge and is well respected.

September 17, 2023:The Bard PowerPort MDL has significantly increased in its first two months. The MDL had only ten cases pending last month. In the past 30 days, however, 40 new cases were added, bringing the total to 50.

August 17, 2023: A Kansas woman was implanted with a Bard Power Port through her right internal vein to help her undergo chemotherapy for breast cancer. She reported complications with her port years later. These included a hematoma in her arm and a high temperature. They suspected a bloodstream infection and ordered an X-ray.

Her infected catheter was surgically removed. The lawsuit claims that she continues to suffer from multiple adverse effects due to the defective device. The lawsuit alleges that she has been hospitalized several times due to infections. She also faces a higher risk of suffering severe and lasting harm.

In her Bard PowerPort suit, she alleges that the defendants intentionally kept the plaintiff’s doctors and herself in the dark about the PowerPort’s inherent dangers. The Defendants were aware of numerous PowerPort-related infections before the plaintiff was implanted, even though there had been no errors by the healthcare providers.

The complaint claims that the defendants aggressively promoted PowerPort as a safe option. They misrepresented these complications through various marketing channels, such as the usage instructions and interactions between sales representatives and the plaintiff’s doctors. The plaintiff and her doctors were not informed of the actual risks of infection associated with the PowerPort.

August 12, 2023: We now have the Bard PowerPort lawsuit. A federal panel has ruled the Bard PowerPort class actions filed in federal courts will be consolidated into an MDL under a single judge.

This is the best outcome for all, whether Bard knows it or not. A class action will simplify pretrial discovery and make it easier for Bard PowerPoint to settle.

This class action case number is 2:23 md 03081.

August 2, 2020: Today, we have a new BardPower Port Video explaining the litigation to those who prefer that method of getting information.

July 25 2023: we will file a Bard PowerPort Class Action Lawsuit. The U.S. The U.S.

Multidistrict Litigation, or MDL, can be beneficial to plaintiffs. In recent months, product liability suits have flooded various U.S. District Courts, each expressing similar allegations regarding complications with Bard PowerPort and comparable Bard implantable port catheter systems. These are implanted under the skin for medication delivery, such as chemotherapy.

Consolidating these cases in an MDL-class action can result in more consistent and efficient rulings that may lead to a fairer outcome for victims. MDL also helps to avoid duplication of efforts in discovery, which reduces litigation costs for the plaintiffs.

June 21, 2023: Despite the increasing number of federal suits against Bard PowerPort citing the same allegations of severe complications caused by the port catheter design, the manufacturer resists the push to consolidate all of these lawsuits before trial under one judge. Plaintiffs allege that Bard Ports has a design flaw, which can lead to fractures and infections. They also claim blood clots and other complications.

June 12, 2023: Recently filed a motion requesting the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidate all Bard PowerPort products liability lawsuits in federal court into a class action MDL. The sign states ten PowerPort lawsuits have been filed in different federal districts. The motion does indicate that the number will rise significantly in the coming year.

About Bard PowerPort Catheter

Bard Access Systems, Inc. (a wholly-owned subsidiary of Becton, Dickinson, and Company) has designed, manufactured, and marketed the Bard PowerPort. The PowerPort is an implantable vascular device that allows repeated access to the blood vessels to deliver medications, intravenous solutions, parenteral nutritional solutions and blood products.

The Bard PowerPort Implantable Port is colloquially known as the “PowerPort.” It’s a medical product manufactured, distributed and sold by a corporate group that has not been named. The PowerPort device belongs to the port/catheter system category. It is designed to allow repeated access to the patient’s vascular systems. It delivers medications, intravenous liquids, blood products and parenteral nutritional solutions directly into their bloodstream. The PowerPort is implanted in the patient surgically inserted under the skin.

The structure of the device is made up of two main components: a polyurethane cathode and an injection port. The injection port is marked by a raised “septum” or centre. This is where the needle will be inserted to deliver the medication. The medication is then delivered into the bloodstream through a flexible catheter.

A catheter delivers the medication from the port directly into the bloodstream. PowerPorts are used for patients who need repeated and extended access to their vascular system in order to administer IV fluids or medications.

Chronoflex AL

The PowerPort catheter is made of a material called Chronoflex AL, a polyurethane. The Bard PowerPort suits are based on this material. In a growing number of lawsuits, it is alleged that a flaw was found in the design and manufacture of the Chronoflex Catheters. This led to the PowerPort becoming weaker and less durable. These flaws make the PowerPort prone to fracture, migrate, or malfunction after it is implanted.

The polyurethane in the catheter, known as Chronoflex AL, sourced from a biomaterials supplier named AdvanSourceBiomaterials Corporation, has been controversial. This catheter is made of a polyurethane-barium sulfate mixture, which makes it more visible in radiologic studies. Over time, barium sulfate dissociates from the surface of the catheter, resulting in microfractures and structural changes that compromise the mechanical characteristics of the catheter.

Even worse, it has been claimed that the manufacturer over-concentrated barium particles during the manufacturing process. This led to problems such as improper mixing, the formation of air pockets and barium sulfate in the body of the catheter. It is claimed that these manufacturing defects led to an uneven catheter surface with fissures and pits. This, in turn, increased the risk of infection or sepsis.

Injury Linked to Defective PowerPort

Bard PowerPort is prone to fracture after implant due to manufacturing and design issues. The port implant may migrate after fracturing, causing vascular damage. PowerPort can also be prone to other malfunctions.

Fractures and migration have caused several serious injuries. These include bleeding, cardiac/pericardial (blood-filled) tamponade, thromboembolism, infection, cardiac arrhythmias, severe pain, perforations, organ damage, and the need for further surgery to remove the defective PowerPort. These complications are often life-threatening.

The plaintiffs fall into these three categories:

The following are some of the most common injuries that the failure or malfunctioning of the Bard power port implant can cause:

• Infection: When individuals develop infections or sepsis after using the Bard PowerPort, this can have severe health effects and require extensive medical care.
• Catheter fracture: This is when the catheter on the Bard PowerPort has been broken or fractured. This can cause serious health complications and risks. PowerPort lawsuits claimed that this was because the product had been made poorly.
• Deep Vein Thrombosis: When the Bard PowerPort has caused blood clots (DVT) or deep vein thrombosis, posing an increased risk to health and possibly requiring further medical intervention.
• Catheter migration: When the catheter has been moved away from the intended position. This can lead to cardiac problems and other issues that require treatment.
• The PowerPort can also cause damage to veins and other tissues. It is feared that the device will cause perforations and damage to surrounding tissues or blood vessels, leading to complications.

Bard had reason to know about the problems with the PowerPort.

Bard received many adverse event reports (AERs) from healthcare providers shortly after the PowerPort hit the market. These AERs reported that the PowerPort fractured post-implantation. Bard received a large number of AERs stating that the implant had perforated internal vessels.

Bard knew or should have known, as a result of these reports, that the PowerPort’s failure rate was significantly higher than similar products available on the market. Bard also should have known that the PowerPort’s problems were due to flaws within the Chronoflex materials used to manufacture the device.

The FDA issued in March 2020 a class 2 recall of three models of Bard PowerPort. The memory listed issues including bloodstream infection, device displacement and catheter breakage. Each patient had a different case with the PowerPort. There is no recall of the Bard PowerPort.

Failure to Warn

After the PowerPort was released, the defendants received several adverse event reports about internal perforations and infections. They included severe injuries such as haemorrhages and cardiac problems, as well as pain, tissue damage, and even death.

Bard Doubles Down

PowerPort failed more than competitors, but Defendants did not warn the users. Bard PowerPort lawsuits claim that the company hid powerport-related severe problems. Instead of improving PowerPort or issuing a warning, the Defendants aggressively marketed the product as safe despite its known issues. The Defendants were unable to control the damage they caused, as evidence was stacked against them. They introduced a new line of products, promoting it as “enhanced”. Sceptics, however, quickly pointed out that the PowerPort was flawed and questioned whether the improvements were genuine.

The lawsuits claim that the defendants not only failed to warn but also intentionally misled medical professionals and patients about the safety of PowerPort. The lawsuits claim that the manufacturer deliberately put a dangerous device on the market without warning users of the potential risks. The current cases are centred around the alleged failure of the manufacturer to warn users about product issues. This is an opportunity for plaintiffs who want to get punitive damages.

Complaints continue

The legal complaints are becoming more alarming with each new case. One of the main allegations focuses on the apparent refusal by the manufacturer to change the PowerPort design to make it safer. The defendants have been accused of prioritizing profits over patient safety despite the mounting evidence that the device poses risks. They chose to release a defective product on the market despite the growing evidence.

Critics claim that this attitude of neglect towards safety is not just unethical but also illegal.

The PowerPort’s risks were not always disclosed to patients undergoing procedures. They were at risk of sepsis and infection as the barium sulfate continued to leak from the surface of the catheter.

Plaintiffs claim that the defendants were aware of the flaws in the device, but did nothing to fix it. They continued to aggressively and actively market the PowerPort despite knowing of many reports of thromboembolism and other severe injuries associated with its use.

A string of lawsuits have been filed in the wake of the accusations. They argue that the defendants are responsible for causing unnecessary suffering to patients. According to reports, these patients were implanted with PowerPorts without knowing that they were defective devices that could cause a variety of life-threatening complications.

Bard’s internal documents will be essential.

Documents have been found that show Bard was aware of the risks associated with PowerPort long before it became known to the public. These documents could be evidence of the Defendants’ deliberate disregard for any harm they may have caused. The potential punitive damages may have a more significant impact on Bard PowerPort settlements if the scale of deception is as grand as the Bard PowerPort suits suggest.

Who can file a Bard PowerPort Lawsuit?

Those who meet the following criteria can sue Bard PowerPort and receive financial compensation.

• You have a Bard PowerPort (or other Bard port/cath devices) implanted.
• Bard PowerPort has fractured, migrated or malfunctioned post-implantation
• Your PowerPort implant caused you to suffer severe physical injuries.

Bard PowerPort Failures & Complications

Bard PowerPort is prone to three primary complications and post-implantation failures due to design flaws. The three main complications are listed below.

Fracture in the PowerPort

A fractured port is the most common failure and complication with the Bard power port. PowerPorts are brittle due to flaws in the material they’re made of. The tubing and other parts are susceptible to breaking or lodging within the patient’s blood vessels. PowerPort fractures can cause serious injuries, including vascular damage.

Migration to the PowerPort

The same design flaws which make Bard PowerPort susceptible to fracture also make it prone to post-implantation migration. Migration is usually caused by the flexible tube pieces inserted into blood vessels. The migration can happen by itself or with a Bard PowerPort fracture.

PowerPort Infection

When the material of the Bard powerPort breaks or degrades, bacteria can enter. Infections originating from the port are the third most common complication of this device.

Bard PowerPort Device Lawsuit Settlements

The amount of compensation you could receive from a PowerPort settlement or jury verdict will depend on the severity of your injury. Damages that may be recoverable include:

• Medical treatment costs in the past and future
• Loss of past and future earnings
• Diminished future income potential
• Diminished enjoyment in life
• Pain and suffering in the past and future
• Loss of loved ones

Bard PowerPort lawyers can help you understand the details of your case and tell you what you may be entitled to recover.

Research and Studies About Implanted Port Devices

• Outcomes after port-a catheter placement in the Medicare Population — Khalid et. al., 3 Surgery Open Science, 39 (2021): The study included 93,756 port implants. Researchers found a higher than 49% rate of complications within five years after the port implant. The complications included arrhythmogenic, thromboembolic, and mechanical complications such as fractures of the catheter.
• Mechanic properties and surface properties after removal of central-venous catheters: A comparison between polyurethane rubber and silicon rubber materials – Braun, et. al. 2016, J Mech Behav. Biomed Mater. 2016 Dec; 64:281-91: Researchers compared central vein port devices made from silicone rubber and thermoplastic polyurethane. The researchers found that catheters made of both materials had small notches which could act as breakpoints. These notches are related to the loss in barium sulfate due to mechanical stress. The authors claim that materials with low mechanical characteristics, such as silicone rubber, can cause a “complete mechanical failure” in the medical device.
• The role that polymer surface degradation plays in the pathogenesis and development of catheter-related infections — Verbeke et al. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2010 Apr;25(4) 1207-13: This randomized controlled trial evaluated the susceptibility of intravascular catheters to infection and thrombosis. Bacterial growth was evident on catheters that were degraded. Researchers found that catheters exposed to blood for a short time released BaSO(4) barium sulfate. This caused irregularities on the surfaces of the catheters, which made them susceptible to bacterial growth.
• Roughness of the outer surface of intravascular catheters – Hecker JF and Scandrett LA. , Biomed Mater Res. 1985 Apr;19(4):381-95. doi: 10.1002/jbm.820190404. PMID: 4055822: Researchers tested 37 different catheters, made of polyurethane or silicone rubber, polyethylene and polyvinylchloride, for thrombogenesis, in the cephalic veins of sheep. According to scanning electron microscopy (SEM), roughness is often related to radiopaque particle presence, which was used to enhance images in X-rays. Plastic catheters with a rougher texture are more likely to thrombogene.

Defective PowerPort Catheter Defects: Liability

Medical device manufacturers are required to make sure that the products made available to the public by them are effective and safe.

What did Bard know about the PowerPort’s defects?

According to the lawsuits pending, Bard received many adverse event reports shortly after introducing its PowerPorts to the market. This indicates that the company was aware or should have been aware that patients implanted by the PowerPorts were at increased risk of life-threatening injuries.

Who is responsible for harm caused by Bard PowerPort Catheters

Becton Dickinson purchased Bard as a fully-owned subsidiary in 2017. Becton Dickinson and Bard could be held liable as a result.

The complaint alleges that when C.R. Bard received adverse event reports and could have prevented hundreds of injuries and deaths if it had done even one of these things:

• Recalling the product
• Remove barium sulfate (barium sulfate) from the product
• Encapsulate barium sulfate
• Use a different formulation of polymer
• Update the warning labels to include the risks known

Bard, however, continues to promote the product as being safe and effective.

The company may have concealed the harmful effects of the product from the public by not taking steps to protect them.

When Should I Contact an Attorney at Bard PowerPort?

Each state has its statute of limitations for filing a suit. You can lose the right to seek Justice for your injuries if you fail to file your lawsuit before the deadline or if it is not tolled. You must consult an attorney as quickly as possible after discovering your injuries.

Our product litigation attorneys are dedicated and hardworking. They can help you determine the impact of the statutes of limitations on your case and ensure that your claim is filed in time.

Contact Justice Now to start your claim today.

You may be able to file a lawsuit against Bard or Becton-Dickinson if you or a loved one suffered injuries due to catheter fracture or migration, such as infections, organ damage and life-threatening clots.

• Bard Power-Injectable Implantable Ports
• Bardport (r), Slimport (r), and X-Port (r) implanted ports
• Power-injectable implantable ports with Chronoflex Polyurethane catheters
• Powerport Implantable Port
• Powerport Clearvue Slim Implantable Port
• Powerport Duo MRI Implanted port with 9.5 Fr. Dual Lumen Chronoflex Polyurethane Cathéter
• Powerport Implanted port with Groshong Catheter
• MRI Powerport Implanted port with 9.6 Fr silicone catheter
• Titanium Powerport Isp Embedded Port with 6 Fr Chronoflex Polyurethane Catheter
• Titanium Powerport Isp – Implanted Port

   

We have won cases against medical device and drug manufacturers. Contact us for a case evaluation.