The second federal Bard PowerPort bellwether trial begins on August 18, 2026. It follows the first case, which finished in April and resulted in a partial defense win for the medical port manufacturer, Beckton, Dickson and Company (BD).
While the company prevailed against some claims in the first trial, the jury couldn’t reach a unanimous decision about the central question: Does the Bard PowerPort have a defective design?
But in less than a week, the plaintiff’s attorneys will begin the process of demonstrating the alleged defect, something the manufacturer has consistently denied.
While similar, the second Bard PowerPort bellwether trial will test a different kind of device failure and resulting injuries, reinforcing the complexity of the largescale multidistrict litigation (MDL).
Such differences are why the trial outcome in April is not a blueprint for how the second case and others will play out in court.
The federal product liability lawsuits have been closely watched and are still growing. In June, over 400 cases were added to the defective Bard PowerPort MDL. The influx has increased the total number of plaintiffs to more than 3,500, and legal experts say that number is likely to continue rising.
Why the Second Bard PowerPort Trial is Different
At the first trial in April 2026, the jury didn’t find the Bard PowerPort manufacturer liable for failure to warn patients of the risks of infection, among other claims. But it was only a partial win because jurors were deadlocked on whether the medical device itself was defective.
Compared to that trial, rather than an infection, the second Bard PowerPort case to go to federal court is focused on something different – what happens when the medical port itself breaks.
That distinction is important because port-related infections can occur for numerous reasons, making it difficult to prove a device was the cause.
In contrast, the second trial involves allegations that the Bard PowerPort broke due to an alleged defect related to the material used in the device (polyurethane and barium sulfate), causing it to fracture. The plaintiff further claims their injuries occurred from a roughly seven-inch section of the catheter that migrated and lodged into the right atrium of her heart.
Why is a Fractured Port Dangerous?
Much of the evidence in the Bard PowerPort litigation is based on extensive research about the harm patients may experience from broken ports. Several studies show that removal of fractured access ports carries risks of complications, and in some cases, port catheter fractures are life-threatening.
The break is alleged to have occurred after it was implanted through the plaintiff’s subclavian vein – a detail that matters because Bard has argued that some catheter fractures are caused by how a device is implanted.
Their argument is based on what’s called pinch-off syndrome. This is when a Bard port catheter placed through the subclavian vein can be compressed between the clavicle and first rib.
The device fracture case represents many others in the Bard PowerPort MDL that allege pieces of their broken port migrated, causing infections, sepsis, vascular injuries like cardiovascular perforations, and thrombosis (clotting). Several plaintiffs required additional medical procedures, including surgery.
While plaintiffs previously argued it’s important to have different types of fracture cases represented in the bellwether trials, the case that begins on August 18 is the only one during this part of the litigation.
Why the Second Medical Port Bellwether Trial Matters for Other Plaintiffs
The Bard PowerPort MDL was consolidated in 2023 and now includes thousands of patients with a wide range of injuries related to catheter fractures and degradation, infections, blood clots, migration, and other serious complications.
The upcoming trial won’t determine whether every patient who experienced a device-related injury or complication has a valid claim. Instead, the second bellwether case will show how jurors respond to evidence involving a device fracture allegedly caused by a defect.
A favorable verdict for the plaintiff – one that includes the jury deciding the port has a defect – would be a major win for those who experienced a device breakage. But it still wouldn’t guarantee the outcome of the remaining test cases because they involve different injuries.
Likewise, another defense verdict wouldn’t automatically eliminate other lawsuits filed against the manufacturer of Bard PowerPorts.
That doesn’t mean the bellwether trials will have no effect; they could significantly influence the rest of the litigation, especially during negotiations. And if a substantial jury verdict is reached, it could pressure manufacturers to settle.
The First Bellwether Wasn’t a Complete Defense Victory
After the first bellwether trial resulted in a partial victory for Beckton, Dickson and Company, it appeared to be a major setback for plaintiffs, but the outcome was much more complicated.
The jury couldn’t reach a unanimous decision on whether the port was defectively designed. This is an unresolved issue that’s particularly crucial because alleged design defects are central to the broader Bard PowerPort lawsuits.
There’s also the fact that the plaintiff has asked for a new trial, arguing that problems with the jury instructions affected the outcome.
Considering all of these factors, the second bellwether PowerPort trial could become an even greater indicator of where the defective device litigation is headed.
What is a Medical Port?
Ports like Bard PowerPorts are implantable medical devices commonly used in patients who repeatedly receive chemotherapy, IV fluids, blood transfusions, and other medications and treatments. The device includes a catheter that carries medication from the port into the bloodstream.
There are several risks of medical ports, both during the surgery to implant them and once they’re ready for use. Beyond pain and swelling, skin and bloodstream infections, blood clots, and vascular perforation during placement are possible complications of devices like Bard PowerPorts.
While rare, mechanical failures, such as fractured port catheters, can also occur, leading to serious injuries.
How Much are Bard PowerPort Settlements Worth?
At this point in the Bard PowerPort MDL, it’s impossible to know how much potential compensation patients allegedly harmed by the device will receive. There’s no global settlement yet, but the test trials have a clear purpose. They’re designed to help both parties evaluate the strength of and how jurors respond to evidence and arguments.
After the August 18 case involving a fractured Bard PowerPort that migrated to the plaintiff’s heart, there are bellwether trials scheduled for October and December 2026, and February 2027. Two of those cases involve infection injuries, while the remaining is centered around blockages.
Sometimes, settlements are reached before bellwether trials are complete. If that doesn’t happen here, the outcome of every bellwether case could influence what happens to the thousands of people who were injured by PowerPorts they claim are defective.
What to do If Injured by a Medical Port
Individuals who experienced a catheter fracture, migration, unexplained chest pain, blood clot, infection, sepsis, or emergency removal of a Bard PowerPort may want to consult with a defective device attorney. The exact device model, implantation location, medical records, imaging, and unique circumstances surrounding a complication could all affect whether a lawsuit is the best course of action.
Like similar mass torts, including the defective spinal cord stimulator MDL, such claims require specific evidence and a legal team with related experience.
