Founded in 1982, Bard Access Systems has been a leading producer of vascular access systems, including catheters for chemotherapy and dialysis. With its headquarters in Utah’s Salt Lake City, Bard has been a household name in the urological supply industry.
However, the company has recently gained a dark reputation marked by public criticism and legal battles. Its notable product, the implantable Bard power port, is currently under the scrutiny of Federal courts.
What is the chaos surrounding Bard’s power port all about? In this article, we will delve deeper into the Bard PowerPort lawsuit.
Severe Injuries Caused by the Bard PowerPort
Bard Access Systems’ power port is a catheter that makes it possible to deliver medications intravenously to patients. It is largely made of polyurethane called ChronoFlex AL and has a plastic + titanium housing.
Apart from this, the catheter comes with a silicone septum for easy medication access. This product is essentially used for therapies requiring repeated access to vascular systems. Under normal circumstances, catheters like the ones manufactured by Bard are useful medical equipment.
Unfortunately, product defects are all too common. As in the case of Bard, patients have had to suffer from issues like catheter breakage, migration, and fractures. According to TorHoerman Law, victims have filed a lawsuit for injuries like severe bleeding, thromboembolism, intense pain, and cardiac arrhythmia.
Many plaintiffs have had to undergo multiple surgeries to remove parts of the device lodged in other organs like the heart or lungs. They are hoping to receive fair compensation for their injuries. The Bard Power Port lawsuit settlement amount for individual cases will vary depending on the case strength, severity of injuries, age, etc.
Case Consolidation into a Class-Action MDL
The Bard PowerPort lawsuit is a fairly new litigation in its early stages. In June 2023, a joint motion was filed to consolidate the 10 cases into a class-action multi-district litigation (MDL).
With this, plaintiffs could pool their resources to fight against a better-funded defendant for fair verdicts. The motion was later approved, and a class-action MDL was formed in August 2023 despite Bard’s attempts to prevent the same.
Over the months following case consolidation, plenty of new cases were filed across Federal courts. The most alarming thing was that the allegations against the defendant became worse with each new filing.
It was revealed that Bard had every reason to know of the risks associated with its product. Soon after the device was launched in the market, several adverse event reports (AERs) were made by healthcare providers. Most reports stated that the device was defective, having a perforated internal vasculature.
The incorrect proportion of barium sulfate in the product made it brittle and vulnerable to fracture and migration. Even then, the company failed to warn doctors and patients of the risks involved. It even went as far as participating in illegal marketing tactics (bold false claims).
Litigation Progression and Bellwether Trials
Soon after the filing of AERs, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) looked into the matter. Bard’s power port had a higher failure rate than its competitor brands. In March 2020, the agency issued a Class 2 recall for Bard PowerPort’s three models.
In other words, this recall warning meant that the device could lead to temporary or reversible health damages. However, that was seldom the case. The lawsuits in the following years alleged that victims suffered immense losses in terms of health, finances, etc.
When the defendant saw that it was losing ground, Bard’s idea of damage control can best be described as opportunistic. It launched another line of implantable catheters, marketing it as an ‘enhanced version’ of the defective one. The plaintiff’s counsel was able to see right through such insincere efforts.
The premise of the current litigation is not just the severe injuries but the defendant’s intention to deceive healthcare professionals and patients. As per the current status of the litigation, there are 64 cases awaiting settlements.
Towards the end of November 2023, Judge Campbell issued six Case Management Orders outlining all the rules and procedures involved in the upcoming Bellwether trials. Cases will be selected for the discovery process before they are presented before the jury (trials likely to be held in the first half of 2024).
As we close, there is some good news in this litigation with the creation of the master complaint. Judge Campbell is doing everything in his power to streamline the process so that plaintiffs can receive fair hearings and verdicts.
With the master complaint detailing the collective complaints of all plaintiffs, only short-form complaints will be required for new cases. In other words, the short-form complaint will only specify the power port’s model and the plaintiff’s injuries.
