Law firms representing patients harmed by defective implantable port catheters can partner with Atraxia Media to acquire qualified clients whose cases align with the surviving legal theories in MDL 3081.
Our expert team has the necessary marketing experience to successfully match these cases with your personal injury law firm. Atraxia Media can help you develop your case inventory. We can assist you with onboarding, intake review, client communication, and marketing strategies. In the end you will be provided port catheter product failure cases that meet your eligibility and your law firm will have much higher visibility.
Current signed contract costs: ***subject to change
The reliable and experienced team of marketing professionals at Atraxia Media uses the most effective approach to find and onboard clients who are a good fit for your law firm based on your criteria. The marketing strategy that helps us find families affected by port catheter device failure can be divided into the following stages:
Patients may be eligible to file a claim for Bard port catheter product failure if they:
From our first interaction with a potential client until the moment they sign the engagement letter, we handle everything, including ad development, social media buying, and screening. We only need to know the number of Bard port catheter cases your law firm would like to receive. Atraxia Media's marketing process is more than just securing potential clients - it is a whole process of attracting and signing new clients as per your needs.
Implanted venous access devices, commonly called port catheters or Port-a-Cath systems, became increasingly common beginning in the 1980s and 1990s for delivering chemotherapy, long-term IV medications, nutritional therapy, and chronic illness treatment. Manufacturers marketed these devices as safer and more convenient alternatives to repeated needle sticks. As usage expanded, reports of catheter fractures and migration complications began surfacing in medical literature and adverse event reporting systems.
From the 2000s into the 2010s, the FDA's MAUDE database saw a steady climb in adverse event reports tied to implanted vascular access devices. Medical journals were documenting more cases of catheter breakage, embolization, infection, thrombosis, and device failure. Some patients needed emergency retrievals, cardiac procedures, or open surgery. Researchers started noticing that certain materials and designs kept showing up in the failures.
Litigation during the 2000s and 2010s focused on allegations including defective catheter materials, inadequate durability testing, failure to warn physicians and patients, and design defects causing fracture or migration. A number of lawsuits have claimed that manufacturers were aware of higher risks of failure, but continued to sell the devices without more serious warnings.
By the mid-2010s, litigation over implantable ports was picking up, with claims zeroing in on specific devices, particularly those made by Becton Dickinson through C.R. Bard. The plaintiffs focused most of their attention on the Bard PowerPort line, citing catheter fractures, device migration, material degradation, and bloodstream complications. Some claims stated that the polyurethane catheter components were likely to crack or fail inside the body during normal use.
Starting around 2020, law firms across the country began taking a hard look at port catheter injuries, particularly fractured fragments, heart and lung complications, device embolization, and infections resulting in sepsis. Claims increasingly argued that manufacturers had safer design options, failed to warn patients of the risks, and that these failures happened under ordinary conditions. Medical imaging became central to building those cases.
A significant shift came in 2023 when federal courts pulled Bard PowerPort lawsuits together into multidistrict litigation, MDL No. 3081 in the District of Arizona, assigned to Judge David G. Campbell. The cases center on catheter fractures, migration and embolization, infection risks, and material degradation. The Judicial Panel concluded the cases shared enough common ground on design, manufacturing, and warnings to consolidate them.
IN RE BARD IMPLANTED PORT CATHETER PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL NO. 3081
Location: District of Arizona
Presiding Judge: Judge David G. Campbell
Plaintiffs: Those who had a Bard implantable port catheter surgically placed and later suffered device failure, fractures, migration, infections, or other serious complications requiring emergency care or removal.
Defendants:
Products: Bard implantable port catheter systems, including polyurethane catheter components, port reservoirs, and related vascular access devices intended for long-term medical therapy delivery.
Plaintiff Allegations: The lawsuits claim Bard used polyurethane materials in its implantable port catheters that were prone to fracturing, cracking, and degrading under everyday use conditions. Plaintiffs say those materials couldn't hold up to the pressures involved or the length of time they were implanted. Specific allegations cover gaps in premarket safety testing, inadequate risk warnings to physicians and patients, failure to disclose known degradation problems, continued marketing of the devices despite high failure rates, and not switching to safer designs that were already technically feasible.
Plaintiffs claim that catheter fractures lead to embolization with fragments migrating through the bloodstream and potentially lodging in the heart, lungs, or blood vessels, causing life-threatening complications. Other claims include infections caused by failure or contamination of the device, blood clots on or around the device, and organ damage caused by fragments that had broken off. Claims include strict liability for defective design, negligent design and testing of the product, failure to warn of known risks, fraudulent concealment of safety information, and breach of implied warranties. The lawsuit is about the way Bard has designed and manufactured its products, not the implantation methods of individual surgeons.
History:
2025-2026: Discovery Continues and Bellwether Development
Discovery continues (as of 2026) with experts evaluating the design of the catheter and the degradation of the polymers used in the device. Bellwether selection and trial preparation continue. Key issues being considered include whether the design of the catheter materials was flawed, sufficient warning of the risks of fracture by manufacturers, the prevalence of migration and embolization events, and internal communications about device safety. The litigation continues and is expected to set future benchmarks for the security of implantable vascular devices.
2024: Spike in Cases
Plaintiffs say they are suffering from heart damage, lung injury, blood clots, emergency surgeries, and long-term vascular issues. The litigation is now focusing on internal testing data, failure rates, material science evidence, and what the manufacturer knew about the risk of fractures. Bellwether case preparation began to take shape during this time period.
2023: Bard PowerPort MDL Created
In 2023, federal courts consolidated Bard PowerPort lawsuits into one multidistrict litigation proceeding, MDL No. 3081 in the District of Arizona before Judge David G. Campbell. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation found that the cases shared common factual issues concerning product design, manufacturing, and warnings. The consolidation acknowledged that thousands of similar claims could gain from coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.
2020-2022: National Advertising and Case Investigations Increase
Injuries related to port catheters came under increased scrutiny by law firms across the country, especially those involving broken fragments, cardiac and pulmonary complications, device embolization, and serious infections. Plaintiffs alleged that safer designs were available, risk disclosures were missing, and the devices failed under normal use. Medical imaging ended up playing a central role in building those cases.
Mid-2010s: Bard PowerPort and Other Similar Device Claims Garner Attention
Litigation surrounding implantable ports increased, and claims focused on devices made by Becton Dickinson through C.R. Bard. The Bard PowerPort received much attention, as plaintiffs cited catheter fractures, migration, material breakdown, and bloodstream complications. Some alleged that the polyurethane catheter components were susceptible to cracking or failure once implanted in the body.
2000s-2010s: FDA Safety Reporting and Product Liability Claims Expand
Adverse event reports involving implanted vascular access devices were climbing in the FDA's MAUDE database. Litigation during this period took aim at defective catheter materials, inadequate durability testing, failure to warn physicians and patients, and design defects tied to fracture or migration. Some lawsuits say the makers knew about the increased risk of failure but sold the devices without stronger warning labels.
Early 2000s: Growing Reports of Catheter Fractures and Migration
Medical literature and adverse event systems were documenting a growing number of complications, from catheter breakage and embolization to infection, thrombosis, and device malfunction. Some of those cases required emergency retrieval, cardiac procedures, or open surgery. Researchers started recognizing that specific materials and designs were showing up repeatedly in the failures.
1980s-1990s: Widespread Adoption of Implanted Ports
Chemotherapy, long-term IV medications, nutritional therapy, and chronic illness care all drove growing demand for implanted venous access devices. Manufacturers marketed them as a practical and less invasive alternative to repeated venipuncture. With increasing use of these catheters, the medical literature began to reflect an increased reporting of catheter fracture and migration complications.
Atraxia Media brings 25 years of mass tort marketing experience to help your firm with advertising, screening, and qualifying potential clients. We take all these tools and integrate them into your firm's strategy, so every marketing dollar you spend delivers real value. The opportunity to strategically enter MDL 3081 remains available, but law firms that move quickly to build case inventory with well-documented claims will position themselves for leadership roles in inevitable settlement discussions. Contact Atraxia Media to discuss current capacity, clinical vetting protocols, and how we can help you build a strong inventory in Bard port catheter product failure litigation.