The Bard PowerPort litigation has reached a point where the remaining bellwethers should be viewed as a sequence, not as four unrelated verdicts.
The first federal bellwether, Cook v. C.R. Bard, ended in May with a partial defense verdict. Bard prevailed on negligence, consumer fraud and failure-to-warn claims, but the jury did not reach a verdict on design defect or unlawful trade practices. That left an important part of the liability case unresolved.
Now underway in Phoenix, Divelbliss presents a markedly different fact pattern. It involves a fractured Groshong catheter, surgical intervention and a defense centered on subclavian placement, pinch-off syndrome and the conduct of the implanting physician. On September 2, the case entered its tenth day of trial. Three more bellwethers follow:
- Lattanzio will test an infection claim involving a non-Groshong silicone catheter.
- Hicks will move the litigation into thrombus-related injuries involving a polyurethane catheter.
- Sorensen returns to infection, but with port removal, treatment and a six-week hospitalization.
Each case changes at least one important variable: catheter material, injury mechanism, placement, treating-physician testimony, alternative causation or damages.
That makes the sequence especially valuable for plaintiff firms. A simple plaintiff-versus-defense win count will not provide the information needed to evaluate the inventory. The useful intelligence will come from identifying why each jury decided the claims the way it did, which defenses succeeded, and whether those defenses can be transferred to other PowerPort cases.
The Cook Baseline
Cook involved a polyurethane catheter and an infection allegedly associated with the implanted port. The jury found Bard not liable for negligence, consumer fraud and failure to warn or instruct. It did not reach a unanimous verdict on design defect or unlawful trade practices. For plaintiff firms, that distinction matters.
Bard obtained a favorable result on the claims the jury decided, but Cook was not a complete rejection of the broader design case. Nor should one infection verdict be applied automatically to fracture, thrombus or infection cases involving a different catheter material. Evidence presented in Cook also gave the defense a case-specific alternative-causation narrative concerning the handling and de-accessing of the port. Future infection cases may not present the same facts.
The proper use of Cook is as a baseline. The remaining trials will show which parts of Bard’s defense can be repeated and which depended on the specific medical history and product configuration before that jury.
Divelbliss: The Fracture Trial
Divelbliss is the only fracture case currently scheduled for trial in the federal bellwether program. That gives the verdict unusual importance, but it does not necessarily make the case representative of every catheter-fracture claim in the MDL.
The Groshong catheter in Divelbliss was placed through the subclavian route. Bard contends that the fracture can be attributed to pinch-off syndrome, improper placement or substandard care by the implanting physician. The adequacy of Bard’s warnings concerning subclavian placement and pinch-off is also directly at issue. That defense creates two separate questions for the jury.
First, did the catheter fail because of its design or because it was compressed after placement? Second, did Bard adequately warn the implanting physician about the risk and the steps necessary to avoid it?
For plaintiff counsel, the most important evidence may come from the intersection of the product proof and the physician testimony. A visible device fracture and resulting surgery provide a more concrete injury presentation than a disputed infection source, but Bard does not need to dispute that the catheter fractured. It can argue that the mechanism was clinical rather than product-related.
Several points deserve close attention as the case moves toward a verdict:
- Whether jurors distinguish the fact of the fracture from the cause of the fracture.
- How the implanting physician addresses Bard’s instructions and warnings.
- Whether Bard can shift responsibility to the implantation procedure without undermining its own warning position.
- Which claims reach the verdict form and how the jury answers each claim.
- Whether a verdict appears to turn on product design, placement, warnings or physician conduct.
A defense verdict driven by subclavian placement or pinch-off would not carry the same weight in a fracture case involving a different insertion route. The basis of the verdict will be more important than the headline.
Lattanzio: The Material Comparison
Scheduled to begin October 13, Lattanzio is an infection case involving a non-Groshong silicone catheter. This may become the most useful comparison in the sequence.
Both Cook and Lattanzio involve infection, but the catheter materials and configurations differ. Cook involved polyurethane. Lattanzio involves the only non-Groshong silicone catheter selected for the original bellwether group.
Holding the general injury category constant while changing the catheter configuration should give the parties a better opportunity to determine whether the Cook result reflected the infection theory generally or the facts and product involved in that particular case. Plaintiff firms should compare:
- The timing and clinical course of each infection.
- Culture, microbiology and source evidence.
- The alternative infection sources offered by Bard.
- The design evidence admitted in each trial.
- The implanting and treating physicians’ testimony.
- What each physician knew about the alleged infection risk.
- Whether the defense again focuses on patient care rather than product design.
A different result in Lattanzio would not necessarily establish that silicone cases are stronger. It could reflect better causation evidence, fewer competing infection sources or more favorable physician testimony.
Likewise, another defense result would require a claim-by-claim review before being applied to the larger infection inventory.
Hicks: The Thrombus Test
Hicks is scheduled for trial beginning December 1. It involves a polyurethane catheter and an alleged thrombus injury. The causation contest in a clot case is different from the one presented by infection or fracture.
Bard is likely to emphasize the many clinical and patient-specific factors that may contribute to thrombosis. Plaintiff counsel will need to connect the device to the clot through the medical timeline, imaging, catheter location, treating-physician testimony and available design evidence. The central trial question may be whether jurors view the thrombosis as a product-related event or as a recognized complication of the claimant’s underlying medical condition and treatment.
Important points will include:
- The timing of the thrombus in relation to implantation and use.
- The location of the clot in relation to the catheter.
- Other medical risk factors for thrombosis.
- The extent to which treating physicians attribute the event to the device.
- Evidence concerning catheter material and surface interaction.
- Whether Bard can characterize the event as an unavoidable clinical complication.
- The treatment required and any interruption of the claimant’s underlying medical care.
Hicks should provide the first meaningful federal jury read on how the thrombus inventory differs from the infection cases.
Sorensen: The Severe Infection Case
The final scheduled bellwether, Sorensen, is set to begin February 2, 2027. Like Cook, it involves a polyurethane catheter and infection. The medical course, however, is more extensive. The case involves port removal, treatment of the infection and a six-week hospitalization. That makes Sorensen a direct comparison with Cook, but with a different damages presentation.
A prolonged hospitalization can make the consequences of an infection more tangible to a jury. It does not, by itself, establish where the infection originated. Bard will still be able to challenge product causation and point to patient, procedural or clinical sources. The trial should help answer whether a more serious medical course affects only damages or also changes how jurors evaluate liability.
Key questions include:
- How closely the infection can be linked to the implanted port.
- Whether the treating physicians identify another plausible source.
- What the removal procedure revealed.
- How quickly the claimant improved following removal and treatment.
- Whether Bard’s warning evidence differs from what was presented in Cook.
- How the court separates evidence relevant to causation from evidence relevant primarily to damages.
For firms holding polyurethane infection cases, Sorensen may ultimately provide a more useful comparison than Lattanzio because the product configuration is closer to Cook. The contrast will be the severity, treatment history and case-specific causation evidence.
What the Sequence Can Tell Plaintiff Firms
Injury Mechanism
Fracture, infection and thrombus cases do not rely on the same causation proof. A fracture can often be demonstrated through imaging, retrieval records or examination of the catheter. Infection and thrombosis require a more detailed medical explanation of source, timing and competing causes. The verdicts may show whether jurors respond differently to a visible mechanical failure than to injuries requiring a longer expert-causation analysis.
Catheter Material and Configuration
The bellwether group includes polyurethane, Groshong silicone and non-Groshong silicone catheters. Results should not be applied across those categories without determining whether the alleged defect and failure mechanism are actually comparable. A design argument that gains traction in a silicone-fracture case may have little relevance to a polyurethane-infection claim.
Treating-Physician Testimony
Physician testimony is likely to influence both causation and warnings. In Divelbliss, the implanting physician’s placement decision and understanding of pinch-off risk are central. In infection and thrombus cases, treating physicians may determine whether the device is identified as the probable source or merely one of several possible causes. Firms should track not only what the physicians say, but also how Bard uses their testimony to shift the case away from product design.
Alternative Causation
Each injury category gives Bard a different alternative explanation:
- Placement and pinch-off in a fracture case.
- Patient care, access procedures or another infection source in an infection case.
- Underlying disease, treatment or other clinical risks in a thrombus case.
The scorecard should identify which alternative-causation arguments juries accept and the evidence that made those arguments effective.
Verdict-Form Structure
A broad report that Bard “won” or the plaintiff “won” can conceal the most valuable trial information. Cook is the clearest example. Bard prevailed on several claims, but design defect remained unresolved. Future results should be reported claim by claim, including any questions the jury could not answer.
That detail will matter when firms compare state-law claims, warning theories, and case-specific proof.
Inventory Implications
Before using these verdicts for case valuation, plaintiff firms should separate their inventories by:
- Exact port and catheter model.
- Catheter material and configuration.
- Subclavian, jugular or other insertion route.
- Fracture, infection or thrombus injury.
- Timing between implantation and injury.
- Imaging, culture, pathology and retrieval evidence.
- Treating-physician opinions on causation.
- Physician testimony concerning warnings.
- Competing patient or clinical risk factors.
- Port removal, surgery, hospitalization and interruption of treatment.
An undifferentiated PowerPort inventory will make the bellwether results appear more transferable than they are.
What Comes Next
The federal bellwether program is expected to conclude with Sorensen in February 2027. Judge Campbell has already declined to add another fracture case to the federal sequence. He has also indicated that cases not resolved following the five scheduled bellwethers may be transferred or remanded to their home districts under a future schedule. That raises the practical stakes. These trials are not simply settlement data points. They will influence which cases are selected for individual litigation, which experts are retained, how treating physicians are developed and which claims are likely to survive in transferor courts.
Bottom Line
The remaining PowerPort bellwethers are not four versions of the same case.
- Divelbliss tests whether mechanical-fracture evidence can overcome a defense based on placement, pinch-off and physician conduct.
- Lattanzio tests whether the infection result in Cook carries over to a different catheter material and configuration.
- Hicks gives the litigation its thrombus test.
- Sorensen returns to polyurethane infection with removal, prolonged hospitalization and a substantially different damages presentation.
By February 2027, the plaintiff bar should have a meaningful comparison across injury mechanisms, catheter materials, physician testimony and alternative-causation defenses. The proper measure will not be the number of plaintiff and defense verdicts. It will be which facts controlled each result, which arguments moved the jury and how far those results can reasonably be applied to the remaining inventory.