Which Bard PowerPort Models Are Involved – ClearVUE, MRI, Duo, isp and Slim

Bard PowerPort models sit at the center of one of the largest medical device lawsuits in the country today. Thousands of cancer patients, dialysis patients, and people on long-term IV therapy received these implanted ports. Many later reported catheter fractures, blood clots, and serious infections. The litigation focuses on a specific family of Bard PowerPort models, including the ClearVUE, M.R.I., duo, isp, and Slim versions. Understanding which device you received matters. However, model identification is only the first step in evaluating a potential claim.

What the Bard PowerPort Models Lawsuit Is About

An implanted port is a small device placed under the skin, usually in the chest. A thin catheter runs from the port into a large vein. Nurses access the port with a needle instead of starting a new IV each visit. For example, chemotherapy patients may keep a port for months or years. Bard Access Systems, a subsidiary of C.R. Bard and now part of Becton Dickinson, manufactures the PowerPort line.

The lawsuits do not target the port body itself. They target the catheter tubing. Plaintiffs allege the catheter is made from Chronoflex AL, a polyurethane blended with barium sulfate. Barium sulfate makes the tube visible on X-rays. However, plaintiffs claim Bard used too high a concentration. As a result, the particles allegedly migrate out of the surface over time. That leaves pits and microfractures in the tubing.

The complaints say this degradation causes the catheter to become brittle, crack, or break apart inside the body. Reported injuries include catheter fracture and migration of broken fragments to the heart or lungs. Other claims involve deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, bloodstream infection, sepsis, and cardiac arrhythmia. Many patients required emergency surgery to retrieve fragments. Bard denies the allegations and maintains the devices are safe and properly designed.

Which Bard PowerPort Models Are Named in the Litigation

The various Bard PowerPort models share the same catheter material family. That is why the litigation sweeps in so many product names. Devices commonly identified in filings include the PowerPort ClearVUE isp, PowerPort ClearVUE Slim, PowerPort duo M.R.I., PowerPort isp, PowerPort isp M.R.I., PowerPort M.R.I., PowerPort Slim, PowerPort VUE M.R.I., and PowerPort VUE Titanium. Related devices such as the SlimPort Dual-Lumen Rosenblatt, Titanium SlimPort, and X-Port isp M.R.I. also appear in claims.

The naming conventions describe features, not different catheter chemistry. “M.R.I.” indicates the port is labeled MRI-conditional. “isp” refers to an integrated septum design. “Slim” describes a lower-profile housing for thinner patients. “duo” means a dual-lumen port with two separate channels. “ClearVUE” and “VUE” refer to imaging visibility features. In most cases, the underlying catheter allegations remain the same across these Bard PowerPort models.

Importantly, no broad FDA recall exists for the catheter defect alleged in these suits. Bard did conduct a Class 2 recall in March 2020 covering certain PowerPort kits. That action involved an incorrect tunneler instrument packaged with the kit, not the catheter material. The FDA terminated that recall in February 2022. You can search device recalls through the FDA Medical Device Recall Database.

MDL Case Status and Key Facts

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated these federal cases in Arizona in August 2023. Case volume has grown steadily since. Filings increased by roughly 190 cases between June and July 2026 alone. You can confirm current MDL statistics through the JPML pending MDL statistics page.

Judge Campbell selected six bellwether cases for trial. Three involve infection claims, two involve thrombosis, and one involves catheter fracture. The first trial, Cook v. Becton Dickinson, reached a verdict in May 2026. Jurors rejected the negligence, consumer fraud, and failure-to-warn claims. However, they deadlocked on the design defect question. As a result, neither side gained a clean win.

The August 2026 trial is significant. It will be the first bellwether centered on a catheter fracture claim. Typically, fracture cases present clearer causation evidence than infection cases. Court filings are available through the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.

Who Qualifies for a Bard PowerPort Models Claim

Eligibility generally starts with device identification. You must have received one of the Bard PowerPort models or a related Bard implanted port. Implant records, operative reports, and device stickers in your chart usually confirm the model. Your implanting hospital keeps these records. In most cases, an attorney can request them on your behalf.

Qualifying injuries typically include catheter fracture or breakage, catheter migration, and device-related bloodstream infection or sepsis. Other claims involve deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and cardiac perforation or arrhythmia. Many claims involve a revision or removal surgery. Injuries that stem from ordinary surgical risk, rather than device failure, are harder to pursue.

Timing matters as well. Most claims involve devices implanted from roughly 2000 forward, though individual facts vary. Statutes of limitations differ by state and often run from the date of discovery. For example, some states allow two years while others allow three or more. Because these deadlines are strict, consult a licensed attorney promptly to learn whether your claim remains timely.

How to File a Bard PowerPort Models Claim

Start by gathering documentation. Collect implant and explant operative reports, imaging studies, hospital discharge summaries, and pathology records. Radiology reports often describe a fractured or migrated catheter directly. Billing records can also establish implant dates. Keep a written timeline of your symptoms and treatment.

Next, consult a product liability attorney experienced with device MDLs. Most work on contingency, so no upfront fee is typically required. If your case proceeds, counsel will file either directly into MDL 3081 in Arizona or in a state court with proper jurisdiction. Direct filing avoids transfer delays. General background on multidistrict litigation is available from Cornell Legal Information Institute’s summary of 28 U.S.C. § 1407.

After filing, plaintiffs must complete a Plaintiff Fact Sheet. This sworn document covers your medical history, device details, injuries, and treating providers. Deadlines are firm, and incomplete sheets can lead to dismissal. As a result, respond to your attorney’s document requests quickly. Discovery, expert workup, and possible bellwether selection follow.

Settlement Updates and What to Expect

No global settlement exists in MDL 3081 as of July 2026. There is also no class action, so no automatic payout fund exists. Anyone promising guaranteed compensation is not describing this litigation accurately. You may qualify to file a claim, but outcomes remain individual and uncertain.

Settlement talks in device MDLs typically follow several bellwether verdicts. The split May 2026 result did not give either side clear leverage. The remaining trials through February 2027 will likely shape negotiations. Typically, a defendant facing consistent plaintiff verdicts moves toward a settlement framework. Consistent defense verdicts push the other direction.

If settlements do occur, values vary widely and depend on individual facts. Relevant factors usually include injury severity, whether surgery was required, permanent damage, medical expenses, lost income, and your state’s damage caps. Cases involving sepsis, embolism, or death typically carry higher values. However, no one can predict an individual figure in advance. Discuss realistic expectations with your attorney rather than relying on advertised estimates.

State-by-State Considerations

State law still governs many issues inside a federal MDL. The transferee court applies the substantive law of the state where the case originated. As a result, damage caps, statutes of repose, and comparative fault rules vary meaningfully. Texas, for example, caps noneconomic damages in some health-care claims. California, Florida, New York, and Pennsylvania each contribute substantial case volume given their large cancer-treatment populations.

Discovery rules also differ. Some states start the clock when the injury occurs. Others start when the patient reasonably should have connected the injury to the device. That distinction matters for patients whose catheter fracture was found years after implant. Review your state’s rules with a licensed attorney before assuming a deadline has passed.

Frequently Asked Questions

Were the Bard PowerPort models recalled?

No broad recall exists for the catheter defect alleged in the lawsuits. Bard conducted a limited Class 2 recall in March 2020 involving an incorrect tunneler packaged with certain kits. The FDA terminated that recall in February 2022, and it is unrelated to the current claims.

How do I find out which Bard PowerPort model I received?

Your implant records are the best source. Hospitals typically place a device identification sticker in the operative report or implant log. Your oncologist, surgeon, or medical records department can provide these documents on request.

Do I need my port removed to file a claim?

Not necessarily, but documented injury is generally required. Claims usually involve a fracture, infection, clot, or migration confirmed by imaging or medical records. An attorney can review your records and explain whether your specific situation supports a claim.

Check If You May Qualify

Mass tort eligibility depends on your specific exposure, injuries, and the state where you live. A licensed mass tort attorney can evaluate your situation at no upfront cost — most work on contingency, meaning you pay nothing unless you recover compensation.

Official Sources & Resources

For verified mass tort and MDL information:

• JPML: jpml.uscourts.gov — official MDL statistics and transfer orders
• DOJ: justice.gov — settlement announcements and press releases
• FDA: fda.gov — drug recalls, warning letters, and safety alerts
• CDC: cdc.gov — health condition data and exposure guidelines
• EPA: epa.gov — environmental contamination data
• Cornell LII: law.cornell.edu — plain-English legal definitions

Content last reviewed July 2026. This is general educational information, not legal advice. If you notice outdated information, please contact us.

Related Guides

• All Active MDL Cases
• More in This Category
• Tort Reform by State — 50-State Comparison
• All 50 State Tort Reform Guides
• Mass Tort Explainers
• Demographic Guides
• Mass Tort Tips
• Ohio Tort Reform Guide
• Florida Tort Reform Guide
• Pennsylvania Tort Reform Guide

Attorney Advertising. The information on this page is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is created by accessing or using this content. Every case is unique, and results depend on the specific facts and circumstances involved. Past settlement amounts and case outcomes do not guarantee similar results in your case. If you believe you have a legal claim, you should consult with a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction who can evaluate your specific situation.