December 18, 2024
- New Bard PowerPort Lawsuit Filed: A Wisconsin plaintiff has filed a lawsuit in the Bard PowerPort MDL, alleging that a Bard PowerPort implantable catheter device caused complications including catheter fracture. The lawsuit claims the device was defectively designed and manufactured, and that the defendants, including Becton, Dickinson and Company, failed to adequately warn of the risks. The plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages.
December 6, 2024
- Bard PowerPort MDL: Case Management Conference Update: A status conference was held this week in the Bard PowerPort MDL, resulting in several key developments. Deadlines for fact discovery and expert disclosures were extended to allow for thorough completion. New deadlines include February 28, 2025, for fact discovery, with expert disclosures due in March and April, and expert depositions concluding by July 25, 2025.
The court also addressed procedural compliance issues, including issuing a show cause order for non-compliance and considering sanctions in one case. Further amendments to the Master Complaint were finalized, and the next case management conference is scheduled for January 16, 2025.
December 3, 2024
- Bard PowerPort MDL Growth Slows: After a surge in new cases in October, the Bard PowerPort MDL saw a decrease in November, with 93 new cases filed. The total number of pending cases now stands at 813.
November 26, 2024
- New Lawsuit Filed: The executor of the estate of a California man has filed a lawsuit in the Bard PowerPort MDL, alleging that the use of a Bard PowerPort implantable catheter device caused complications, including catheter fracture, infection, and thrombosis. The lawsuit seeks compensation for the man's medical bills and pain and suffering prior to his death, but it is not a wrongful death lawsuit.
November 21, 2024
- Parties Reach Agreement on Successor Liability: The parties in the Bard PowerPort MDL have reached an agreement to streamline the litigation by treating Bard entities as a single group for liability purposes. Becton, Dickinson, the parent company, has agreed to satisfy any judgments or settlements if the Bard entities cannot, while reserving the right to challenge liability on specific legal grounds. In exchange, plaintiffs have withdrawn certain discovery requests and will amend their master complaint to remove claims based on successor liability.
November 12, 2024
- Case Management Conference Addresses Key Issues: The 11th Case Management Conference for the Bard PowerPort MDL addressed several key issues, including scheduling depositions, reviewing potentially privileged documents, and ensuring compliance with previous court orders. The court denied the plaintiffs' request to extend the fact discovery period and set deadlines for the completion of depositions and responses to discovery requests.
November 6, 2024
- Successor Liability a Key Issue: A key issue in the Bard PowerPort MDL is whether successor liability applies to Becton, Dickinson, the parent company of Bard. Plaintiffs argue that BD should share liability for PowerPort-related claims, as it inherited the product line and potential safety concerns. A ruling in favor of the plaintiffs on this issue could significantly impact the amount of compensation available to those affected by allegedly defective PowerPort devices.
November 1, 2024
- Bard PowerPort MDL Sees Continued Growth: The Bard PowerPort class action MDL continues its recent trend of strong growth, with nearly 200 new cases added in October. This brings the total number of pending cases to 720, marking the third consecutive month of substantial increases. While the initial growth was slower than anticipated, the recent surge suggests the litigation is gaining momentum.
October 22, 2024
- Scheduling Dispute in Bard PowerPort MDL: Plaintiffs' lawyers are seeking to modify the scheduling order in the Bard PowerPort MDL to extend deadlines for key events like discovery and expert disclosures. They argue this is necessary to allow sufficient time for depositions and other pretrial preparations. However, Bard's attorneys oppose the extension, claiming the plaintiffs' concerns are either speculative or caused by their own delays, and assert that nearly all depositions are on track to be completed by the current deadlines.
October 8, 2024
- AngioDynamics MDL: The MDL Panel has consolidated over 50 lawsuits against AngioDynamics regarding its port catheter devices into a multidistrict litigation in the Southern District of California. These product liability claims allege that the devices, used primarily for chemotherapy, are defective and pose serious health risks, similar to allegations in the PowerPort cases, including issues like fracturing, migration, and severe infections.
October 1, 2024
- Bard PowerPort MDL Cases Surge: The Bard PowerPort class action MDL continues to experience a wave of new lawsuits. Following the addition of over 100 new cases in August, another 94 cases were filed or transferred into the MDL in September, bringing the total number of pending cases to 527. This recent surge means that almost 40% of all claims in this litigation have been filed in just the last two months.
September 10, 2024:
- New Plaintiff from California Joins MDL: A woman from Vacaville, California, has filed a lawsuit in the Bard PowerPort class action MDL, alleging that defects in the PowerPort M.R.I. Implantable Port caused her to develop an infection and pericardial effusion.
September 3, 2024:
- Significant Increase in MDL Cases: The Bard PowerPort class action MDL saw a substantial rise in new cases in August, with nearly 100 cases added. This marks the highest monthly volume of new cases since the MDL's creation, bringing the total number of pending cases to 427.
August 27, 2024:
- Missouri Woman Joins MDL: A woman from Caruthersville, Missouri, filed a lawsuit in the Bard PowerPort class action MDL, claiming that defects in the PowerPort Implantable Port led to her developing thrombosis.
August 26, 2024:
- Bard PowerPort Lawsuits Continue to Increase: The latest JPML docket report shows that 37 new Bard PowerPort lawsuits were filed in July 2024, bringing the total number of pending claims in the Bard Implanted Port Catheter Products Liability Litigation to 336.
July 18, 2024:
- Bard PowerPort MDL Case Count Update: The Bard PowerPort MDL has seen a significant increase in pending cases, now totaling 322. Additionally, there are 47 cases pending in the Superior Court of New Jersey, with about one-fourth of those plaintiffs being from the state itself.
July 9, 2024:
- Bard PowerPort Bellwether Cases Selected: The parties involved in the Bard PowerPort litigation have jointly identified 24 initial bellwether lawsuits. These cases will undergo case-specific discovery and be prepared for the first trial dates in the litigation. Plaintiffs in these cases must submit Fact Sheets by July 31, 2024, providing written answers to specific questions, before the court can determine a schedule and protocol for depositions and further discovery.
June 5, 2024:
- Bard PowerPort MDL Discovery Update: The latest case management order indicates progress in the discovery phase, with agreements on search terms for the first 30 custodians and ongoing discussions for the second group. Some disputes remain, including DocuShare document deadlines and successor liability issues. Agreements on discovery scopes for specific medical devices and technologies have been reached. The next case management conference is scheduled for July 9, 2024, via Zoom, with a joint memorandum due by July 8, 2024, providing updates on these topics.
June 3, 2024:
- PowerPort MDL Growth: The Bard PowerPort class action MDL experiences steady growth, with 45 new cases added in the past month. The total number of pending cases now stands at 232. Law firms continue to actively accept Bard PowerPort cases, and more filings are expected.
May 2024:
- Defendants Seek Additional Medical Records: Defendants in the Bard PowerPort MDL request additional medical records for several plaintiffs under consideration for bellwether trials. Without these records, these plaintiffs may be excluded from the trial pool.
April 2024:
- Judge Denies Bard's Request for Delay: Judge David G. Campbell denies Bard's motion to postpone bellwether trials, ordering both sides to adhere to the schedule and submit candidate cases by July 1, 2024.
- Bard PowerPort MDL Sees Increased Cases: The Bard PowerPort MDL continues to expand, indicating a growing number of patients alleging complications due to allegedly defective Bard PowerPort catheters. The ongoing discovery phase is crucial for gathering evidence to support both sides' claims.
February 2024:
- Lawsuits Transferred to MDL: Several lawsuits from state courts in Colorado, New Jersey, and Texas are transferred into the Bard PowerPort MDL. No trials have been scheduled yet.
Is the Bard PowerPort safe?
You might've heard about Bard PowerPort catheters if you or someone you know has been in for some long-term medical treatments like chemotherapy. These medical devices sit under the skin and aim to take the 'ouch' factor out of treatment by reducing the need for multiple needle sticks. A godsend? Sure, until they're not.
Is the Bard PowerPort safe?
It's unsettling to think that a device meant to aid your recovery could become the source of further health concerns. Yet, this has been the reality for some patients with the Bard PowerPort catheter. Here's a quick rundown of the complications that have been reported:
- Fractures: The catheter can break inside the body, leaving pieces where they shouldn't be.
- Migration: The device may move from its original placement.
- Infections: Unwanted bacteria at the port site leading to illness.
- Embolisms: Broken PowerPort pieces can lead to blockages in blood vessels.
- Leakage at Port Site: Medication or bodily fluids not staying where they're supposed to. If medication doesn’t go where it’s needed, it could cause life-threatening complications.
A closer look at PowerPort catheter complications
When we talk about the issues linked to the PowerPort catheter, it's important to quantify their frequency and impact. Here's a list of common complications that have been reported, some of which appeared more than 90 days post-implantation:
- Breakage
- Fragments lodged in arteries or organs
- Catheter pieces journeying through the heart
- Vein or organ perforation
- Cardiac/pericardial tamponade
- Cardiac puncture
- Dislodgement or disconnection of the catheter
- Hematoma
- Hemorrhage
- Laceration of blood vessels
- Necrosis surrounding the port
- Persistent pain at the port or catheter site
- Late-emerging issues such as arrhythmia, blood clots, infections, and thromboembolic events
PowerPort material and manufacturing concerns
The core concern with Bard PowerPort catheters lies in the materials and construction methods used. Allegations suggest the manufacturer was aware of the risks, such as potential fractures and migrations, but failed to provide adequate warnings.
Some injured patients began filing Bard PowerPort catheter lawsuits in 2023. Litigation for the Bard Port-a-Cath is still in its beginning stages and courts are now prepping for some test trials, which could set the scene for how all this plays out. To give you a sense of the real-life implications, here are some examples of lawsuits filed:
- A chemotherapy patient who suffered from a fractured catheter, leading to deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and emergency surgery.
- A patient who experienced a bloodstream infection and embolism, necessitating multiple corrective procedures.
- A case involving catheter fracture and migration that required emergency surgery to remove fragments from a patient's heart.
Did the makers of Bard PowerPort keep secrets?
Here's where it gets a bit more complicated. The crux of the lawsuits revolve around the question: Did the makers of the Bard PowerPort have prior knowledge of the catheter's potential to fail and, if so, why wasn't this communicated clearly to those most at risk—patients and healthcare providers? The contention hinges on claims that Bard may have used regulatory pathways, specifically the FDA's 510(k) premarket notification and the Alternative Summary Reporting (ASR) program, in a way that allowed them to quietly inform the FDA about device failures, bypassing public disclosure.
Adding to this is the 2020 recall of certain Bard PowerPort models by Becton, Dickson and Company, deemed a Class 2 recall. This suggests that while the devices' defects could result in adverse effects, these were considered temporary or reversible with medical intervention.
Bard PowerPort lawsuits
The situation with the Bard PowerPort has escalated to the point where a multidistrict litigation (MDL) process is underway. This is a way for the courts to handle lots of similar cases efficiently. As of now, there's a pool of cases being prepared for trial, which will likely influence any future lawsuits and potential settlements.
In mid-2023, a pivotal step was taken when existing Bard PowerPort cases were corralled under MDL #3081, following a successful motion for consolidation. As the year drew to a close, the number of related cases ticked past the 65 mark.
The MDL process starts with moving cases to the federal court system, where they are then bundled by a judicial panel for the pretrial phase. This involves a single court managing the initial legal skirmishes and discovery processes. After this, each case will return to its home court to continue its individual battle.
Seeking justice and compensation
The Bard PowerPort catheter represents a significant stride in medical device innovation, yet it's not immune to problems. For those considering a PowerPort or dealing with one, it's essential to stay informed about potential issues and the legal avenues available.
If you or a loved one suffered health complications stemming from a Bard PowerPort catheter, legal recourse is an option. The lawsuit process can be complex and lengthy, but it can also help you get justice and compensation for your injuries. Your health and peace of mind are paramount.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Mass torts vs. class actions at a glance
When we're talking about mass tort and class action lawsuits, we're discussing two distinct legal approaches used to handle claims where many individuals are harmed by the same entity or event.
Mass tort lawsuits are a way to handle legal cases where many individuals have been harmed, but each person's situation is distinct. Think of it like a neighborhood where every house has different damage after a storm. In a mass tort, each homeowner would file their own lawsuit, but because the storm is the common factor, the court groups the lawsuits together to manage them more efficiently. The key here is that each person retains their own case and has a say in how it's settled, which reflects their unique damages.
In contrast, class action lawsuits and class action settlements bring people together under a single legal action. It's as if the whole neighborhood decided to sue the storm together, with one or a few neighbors representing everyone's interests. Here, individual control is limited. The representative, known as the lead plaintiff, along with their legal team, makes decisions that affect the entire group. When it comes to the payout, it's typically split evenly, or based on a formula that applies to all members.
What's best for you?
Let's quickly sum up the main points to help you decide which legal route could work better for your situation:
- Control: More personal control in mass torts; limited control in class actions.
- Compensation: Individualized in mass torts; uniform in class actions.
- Applicability: Mass torts fit for varied individual damages; class actions for uniform damages across the group.
- Efficiency: Class actions can be quicker and use fewer resources by combining claims.
So, if you're part of a group that's been wronged and you're thinking about legal action, consider these points. Do you need to maintain control over your case, or are you okay with a representative taking the lead? Do your damages require individual attention, or are they similar enough to others to share in a collective claim? Your answers will help determine whether a mass tort or a class action is the best route for your situation.
