$40 Million Jury Verdict in Bard PowerPort Catheter Fracture Case in Arizona

$40 Million Jury Verdict in Bard PowerPort Catheter Fracture Case in Arizona

Introduction

Federal Jury Awards $40 Million to Bard PowerPort Plaintiff

On September 4, 2026, a federal jury in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona awarded Kimberly Divelbliss $40 million in compensatory damages in a product-liability lawsuit involving a Bard implanted port catheter. The verdict was returned following a three-week bellwether trial in Phoenix and represents the first plaintiff verdict in the federal Bard Implanted Port Catheter Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3081. The case, Kimberly A. Divelbliss v. Becton, Dickinson and Company, et al., Case No. CV-23-01627-PHX-DGC, was the second bellwether trial conducted in the MDL. The jury’s award consisted of compensatory damages; no punitive damages were awarded.

Bard PowerPort Catheter Fracture and Migration

The lawsuit centered on a Bard PowerPort equipped with a Groshong silicone catheter that had been implanted in Divelbliss. According to the evidence described by her trial counsel, approximately two years after implantation, the catheter fractured and a portion of the catheter traveled through her vascular system before becoming lodged in her heart. The fragment had to be surgically removed. Divelbliss’s claims alleged that defects in the device and inadequate warnings contributed to the catheter failure and the resulting injuries. These allegations formed the basis of the design-defect and failure-to-warn claims considered by the jury during the trial.

Serious Cardiac Injuries Alleged in the Lawsuit

The medical consequences associated with the catheter fracture were a significant part of Divelbliss’s case. Trial counsel reported that, after the catheter fragment became lodged in her heart and was removed surgically, she experienced cardiac arrhythmias and heart attacks and required additional cardiac treatment. The reported treatment included further cardiac procedures, medication, and implantation of a pacemaker. These medical complications were presented as part of the plaintiff’s claimed damages arising from the implanted catheter’s alleged failure.

The $40 million award was therefore a compensatory damages verdict arising from the injuries claimed in this individual case. It should not be characterized as a punitive award or as a payment applicable to other patients with Bard PowerPort devices. The verdict applies to Divelbliss’s claims and the evidence presented to the particular jury that heard her case.

Claims Against Becton Dickinson and Bard

Divelbliss originally filed her lawsuit in New Mexico state court in 2022. Her complaint asserted several causes of action concerning the Bard implanted port catheter, including allegations involving design defects, inadequate warnings, manufacturing defects, and fraudulent concealment. The case was subsequently removed to federal court and became part of the Bard Implanted Port Catheter Products Liability Litigation centralized in the District of Arizona. The MDL is overseen by Senior U.S. District Judge David G. Campbell. Federal court records identify the litigation as MDL No. 3081.

During the bellwether trial, the nine-member jury found in favor of Divelbliss on claims involving strict-liability and negligent design defect as well as strict-liability and negligent failure to warn. The jury did not find liability for fraudulent concealment and did not award punitive damages. Reports concerning the verdict also state that the jury rejected the manufacturing-defect theory. Accordingly, the $40 million award resulted from the claims on which the jury found in the plaintiff’s favor rather than from every theory asserted in the lawsuit.

Bard Implanted Port Catheter Multidistrict Litigation

The Divelbliss case is part of a larger federal multidistrict litigation involving claims concerning Bard implanted port catheters. An MDL allows federal cases involving common factual or legal issues to be coordinated before one federal court for pretrial proceedings and selected bellwether trials. The Bard litigation concerns allegations involving implanted port catheter products and claimed complications associated with their use. The federal court maintains a dedicated docket for the litigation, including case-management orders and documents concerning the bellwether proceedings.

The purpose of a bellwether trial is to provide the parties and court with information from representative cases involving issues that may also arise in other cases. However, the outcome of one bellwether case does not automatically establish liability or damages in the remaining MDL cases. Each plaintiff’s claims continue to depend on the particular medical history, device, alleged injury, evidence, and applicable law involved in that individual case.

Second Bellwether Trial in the Bard Litigation

The Divelbliss verdict followed an earlier bellwether proceeding involving another Bard implanted port catheter case. The first bellwether trial involved plaintiff Robert Cook and concluded in 2026 with a defense result on several claims, while the jury did not reach a unanimous determination on the design-defect claim. The Divelbliss case involved a different alleged complication, focusing on catheter fracture and migration rather than the circumstances presented in the earlier case. The two trials therefore involved different individual plaintiffs and evidence.

The contrasting results also demonstrate why individual bellwether verdicts must be reported separately. The $40 million Divelbliss verdict does not mean that every Bard PowerPort claim will result in the same outcome or damages award. Instead, it represents the jury’s determination based on the evidence presented during that particular trial.

Additional Bard PowerPort Bellwether Proceedings

The federal litigation continues following the September 2026 verdict. The District of Arizona’s official MDL docket contains numerous case-management orders governing the litigation and the individual bellwether cases. Additional bellwether trials have been scheduled as the court continues to develop the record concerning the claims involving Bard implanted port catheters. The continuing proceedings will address other plaintiffs and different factual circumstances within the broader MDL.

The Divelbliss verdict is thus one individual result within a larger federal product-liability proceeding. Its September 4, 2026 jury date, $40 million compensatory award, and findings concerning design defect and failure to warn are tied specifically to the evidence presented in Divelbliss’s case. The broader Bard implanted port catheter litigation remains pending, with additional cases continuing through the federal multidistrict process.