What the 2026 Bard PowerPort Trials Could Mean for Patient Safety
When it comes to medical device safety, real change usually doesn’t happen right away. At first, early reports of injuries are often called rare or expected complications. Manufacturers defend their products, regulators keep watch, and patients keep using the device.
Often, it takes years before lawsuits bring internal testing data, reporting practices and design decisions into public view.
This pattern seems to be happening now with the Bard PowerPort litigation. Over 2,500 cases are pending in federal court, and bellwether trials are scheduled for 2026.
Despite the ongoing legal process, patients continue to report serious injuries. Notably, the device’s design and warnings have not changed to protect patients.
What Is a Bard PowerPort?
The Bard PowerPort is an implanted device used to deliver chemotherapy and other long-term IV treatments. It is meant for some of the most medically vulnerable patients.
However, lawsuits claim the device is too dangerous and that its risks were not properly communicated.
Plaintiffs specifically claim that high levels of barium sulfate in the catheter material may cause it to break down and fracture over time. They say that broken catheters can travel through the bloodstream, causing serious port complications like pulmonary embolism, stroke, blood clots and emergency removal procedures.
The first lawsuits were filed in 2023, but plaintiffs say concerns about catheter fractures go back decades. Court documents claim Bard used the FDA’s Alternative Summary Reporting (ASR) program to send bundled adverse event reports instead of individual public filings for years.
When the ASR program ended and old reports became easier to access, plaintiffs say thousands more injury reports appeared. Bard denies any wrongdoing. Still, the lawsuits have raised important questions about transparency and reporting.
New Case Study Highlights ‘Tough Reality’ of Bard PowerPort Problems
Recent medical literature shows the problem is not just in the past. In a case study published last month, doctors described a Bard port catheter that broke on its own, with a piece traveling into the patient’s pulmonary artery, which carries blood from the heart to the lungs.
Doctors were forced to perform an additional procedure to retrieve the fragment.
Cases like this highlight a tough reality. While thousands of lawsuits are ongoing, similar injuries keep happening. Plaintiffs say warnings have not been improved in a meaningful way and that no major design changes have been made to lower the risk of fractures.
This dynamic is not unique to one product.
Product Liability Lawsuits Bring Major Safety Changes
In other big product liability cases, major safety changes have come only after years of lawsuits.
Johnson & Johnson stopped selling talc-based baby powder worldwide in 2023, after decades of contamination claims and tens of thousands of talcum powder lawsuits.
Bayer decided to remove glyphosate from residential weed killer products only after many Roundup lawsuits and ongoing legal pressure, even though it still defends the product’s safety in court.
In many industries, reform rarely begins with voluntary action. It often starts when lawsuits force companies to share internal documents, executives testify under oath, and juries hold companies financially responsible for their decisions.
Lawsuits often act as a separate safety system.
2026 Bard PowerPort Trials Could Shape Settlements
The upcoming bellwether trials in the PowerPort MDL mark an important turning point. These cases are meant to test evidence before juries and help both sides see how their arguments are received in court.
For plaintiffs, early verdicts may give them greater leverage to secure a broader settlement. For defendants, knowing how juries will decide, especially in cases involving cancer patients, may influence their strategy.
For the public, these trials will also provide an important benefit: transparency. Jurors will hear expert testimony on device design, materials, testing methods and adverse events reporting. Internal communications that were mostly hidden may become public.
In the end, the biggest impact of these trials may not be just the verdicts or settlements. It may be whether they lead to real changes that protect future patients.
Throughout the history of product safety, big jury verdicts and ongoing public attention have often led to reform. Even with that kind of pressure, change tends to be slow.
As the Bard PowerPort cases head to trial, one key question remains: Will safety improvements happen before a verdict, or only because of one?
