Bard PowerPort Trial Results: One Verdict Down, Bigger Battles Awaits

On July 27, 2026, three weeks before the second bellwether trial in this MDL, the Divelbliss case survived summary judgment. That ruling did something no other development in this litigation has done. It cleared a catheter-fracture claim to go before a jury for the first time in MDL-3081’s history. In re Bard Implanted Port Catheter Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3081, Transfer Order (Aug. 8, 2023).¹⁴ 

The litigation centers on allegations that the Bard PowerPort’s catheter can fracture inside a cancer patient’s body, allowing fragments to travel toward the heart and potentially causing chemotherapy drugs to leak into surrounding tissue. The first MDL bellwether trial, involving an infection claim, produced a mixed result: Bard prevailed on failure-to-warn, but the jury deadlocked on the central question of whether the device was defectively designed. That unresolved design-defect issue is now set to receive further consideration in the next bellwether trial beginning August 18. 

The Bifurcation Fight - What Has to Be Resolved Before Jury Selection  

The key pre-trial dispute before the August 18 bellwether trial concerns whether punitive damages should be tried separately. Bard has asked Judge Campbell to bifurcate the proceedings so the jury first determines liability and compensatory damages and considers punitive damages only if liability is established. Plaintiff Kimberly Divelbliss opposes the request, arguing that the evidence concerning Bard’s knowledge of alleged device defects is central to both liability and punitive damages and should be presented together. The court’s ruling could significantly shape the trial because the same internal documents concerning device degradation, alleged safer alternatives, and adverse-event reporting may be central to both issues. Judge Campbell’s decision on bifurcation is therefore an important development to watch before trial begins. 

What Round One Actually Told Us - and What It Did Not – by means of Cook v. Becton, Dickinson and Company | April 21 – May 2026 | Infection Claim   

The first bellwether trial in Cook v. Becton, Dickinson and Company, which began on April 21, 2026, gave Bard an important but limited victory. Robert Cook alleged that his Bard PowerPort caused a serious infection that resulted in a six-day hospitalization and delayed his chemotherapy by two weeks, while his expert, interventional radiologist Dr. Darren Hurst, testified that his own hospital had stopped using Bard products entirely in 2014. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that Bard had known for decades about the infection risks associated with its devices while failing to adopt potentially safer technologies, including antimicrobial coatings, non-fouling surfaces, and smoother catheter materials.  

In May 2026, the jury rejected the failure-to-warn, failure-to-instruct, and consumer-fraud claims, but it could not reach a unanimous decision on the critical defective-design claim. Thus, while Round One went to Bard on the warning-related theories, it did not resolve the central question confronting the Bard PowerPort MDL, as to whether the device itself was defectively designed. With thousands of plaintiffs still pursuing similar claims and a motion for a new trial on the unresolved claims pending, Cook provides limited guidance rather than a definitive roadmap for Bard. That distinction makes the next bellwether, Divelbliss, particularly significant, with Round Two being a different fight entirely, because the focus can shift from what Bard allegedly told physicians and patients about the PowerPort to whether the design of the device itself was unreasonably dangerous and whether safer, technologically feasible alternatives were available. 

The Science at the Center of August 18  

The Divelbliss trial will focus on allegations concerning the PowerPort’s design and Bard’s knowledge of its alleged risks. Plaintiffs contend that the catheter’s polyurethane material, ChronoFlex AL, contains barium sulfate for radiographic visibility and that excessive barium sulfate may contribute to material degradation, brittleness, and fracture over time. They allege that fractured catheter fragments can migrate through the bloodstream to the heart or lungs, potentially requiring emergency removal, while surface degradation may also increase susceptibility to bacterial colonization and serious bloodstream infections. The trial will therefore place both the underlying materials-science evidence and Bard’s corporate knowledge of the alleged risks at issue. 

One additional angle plaintiff will press is the 510(k)-clearance argument. The Power Port reached the market through the FDA’s 510(k) clearance pathway, which allows a device to be sold by showing it is substantially equivalent to an already-marketed product, rather than through the more rigorous premarket approval pathway. In a fracture case, the absence of independent premarket safety testing on fracture risk is a powerful narrative, one that the Cook infection trial did not emphasize as heavily.¹⁵ 

The FDA’s MAUDE database includes 438 reports of PowerPort complications between December 1, 2025 and February 28, 2026 alone.   

The Five Things to Watch When Trial Begins   

For PI attorneys tracking this litigation, is what matters most once the Divelbliss trial gets underway:  

1. The bifurcation ruling, whether granted or denied, will set the entire evidentiary temperature of the trial before a single witness takes the stand.

2. The materials science experts. The fracture case lives or dies on expert testimony about Chronoflex AL degradation and barium sulfate particle separation. Any Daubert rulings on plaintiff’s materials experts will shape every future fracture case in the MDL.

3. The internal documents. Lawsuits allege Bard misrepresented device safety and concealed adverse event reports through the FDA’s former Alternative Summary Reporting program. Whether those documents come in  and how the jury reacts, will be the most closely watched moment of the trial.

4. The punitive damages argument. Even if bifurcated, the evidence of corporate knowledge-shelved safer alternatives, concealment from regulators, internal testing data, are the plaintiff’s most powerful narrative tool. It is worth watching how plaintiff’s counsel threads that needle in the liability phase.

5. The verdict form. A design-defect finding, even without a plaintiff damages verdict, would be the single most significant development in this litigation since MDL consolidation. It would be the first jury in this MDL to say, on the record, that the PowerPort is defective by design. That finding alone reshapes settlement negotiations for every case in the queue.

The Full Trial Calendar - And What Judge Campbell Has Signaled  

The August 18 trial does not stand alone. Additional bellwether trials are already scheduled for October 13 and December 1, 2026, and February 2, 2027, covering thrombosis and additional fracture and infection claims.¹⁶ 

Judge Campbell has already outlined the endgame explicitly that “The five scheduled bellwether trials will provide a meaningful and representative test of the claims and defenses in this MDL. As in the previous Bard MDL, cases that are not resolved by settlement after these bellwethers, and within a schedule to be set by the Court, will be transferred or remanded to their home districts for resolution.”  

That sentence is the roadmap. Campbell oversaw the Bard IVC filter MDL, which followed exactly this pattern - bellwether trials, settlement negotiations shaped by those results, then resolution of the remaining inventory. The PowerPort MDL is on the same track. No global settlement exists as of August 2026, but every bellwether verdict moves the needle on what a global resolution looks like.  

Between June 1 and July 1 alone, 472 new plaintiffs joined the MDL, bringing total active claims to approximately 3,848. With more than 300,000 port implants performed annually and Bard holding a majority market share, the outcome of these trials will be closely watched across the medical device industry.¹⁷ 

PowerPort and Why the Patient Population Matters  

These are cancer patients, who are already enduring some of the most physically and emotionally demanding treatment in medicine. The PowerPort is supposed to make that treatment more bearable. The allegation at the center of this MDL is that it made it more dangerous.  

Bard PowerPort injuries result in numerous damages to potential victims, including medical bills, future medical expenses, lost wages or lost earning capacity, permanent disability, pain and suffering, emotional damages, and other compensatory damages.  

The Takeaway 

The first bellwether told what a Bard PowerPort jury will not do, which is find liability on failure-to-warn for an infection claim. The August 18 trial will tell what a jury thinks about the device itself.  

Bard won Round One on the theory most defendants win on warnings. Round Two tests the theory that is hardest to defend that the product was broken before it was ever implanted. The answer will define the trajectory of this litigation through 2027 and shape the settlement calculus for nearly 4,000 plaintiffs still waiting in line.