Wisner Baum is currently accepting cases for people injured by defective implantable port catheters. To find out whether you may qualify for a port catheter lawsuit, contact us today or call (310) 207-3233 for a free, confidential case evaluation. You pay nothing unless we recover compensation for you.
Port catheter lawsuits currently involve multiple manufacturers:
These three separate litigations assert similar product liability framework:
While the lawsuits against these manufacturers share similarities, they also have some differences outlined below.
| Bard (MDL 3081) | AngioDynamics (MDL 3125) | ICU Medical | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary Legal Theory | Design /material – barium sulfate in polyurethane causes degradation and fracture | Design/material – same barium sulfate theory plus catheter sleeve misfit causing separation | Design/material – barium sulfate in polyurethane causes degradation and fracture plus Manufacturing – port housing separates from reservoir (recall-based) |
| Core Failure Allegations | Catheter fractures, fragments embolize | Catheter fractures + catheter-to-port separation, extravasation | Catheter fractures, fragments embolize + Port housing separation, air embolism, chemo drug leakage |
| FDA recall? | No formal recall regarding litigation allegations | No formal recall regarding litigation allegations | Yes – Class I recall in 2025 |
| MDL established? | Yes | Yes | No |
An implantable port catheter is a small medical device that is surgically placed beneath the skin to provide long-term access to a patient’s central venous system. Millions of central venous catheters are placed every year in the United States, and implantable port catheters are among the most commonly used for long-term treatment.
Often called a port-a-cath, chemo port, or chest port, the device allows healthcare providers to deliver chemotherapy, intravenous antibiotics, fluids, blood products, and parenteral nutrition directly into the bloodstream without repeated needle sticks.
The device consists of two main components: a port body with a self-sealing silicone septum, and a flexible catheter that threads from the port into a large central vein, typically the superior vena cava. The port is accessed through the skin using a specialized Huber needle. Once implanted, the entire device sits beneath the skin and is intended to remain in place for months or years.
Port catheters are most commonly placed in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy, but they are also used for patients with kidney failure, chronic infections, and other conditions requiring ongoing infusion therapy.
Numerous studies have documented a range of complications associated with implantable port catheter systems, which have become the basis for significant regulatory and legal scrutiny.
A peer-reviewed study of 3,160 port catheter implantations documented a late complication rate of approximately 9.4%, with late complications including bloodstream infection, catheter-induced venous thrombosis, and catheter migration.
Catheter fracture occurs when the flexible tubing connecting the port to the central vein breaks or cracks. Fragments can detach and travel through the bloodstream (a condition called catheter embolism).
Migrating fragments may become lodged in the heart, pulmonary arteries, or other vascular structures, potentially requiring emergency retrieval procedures. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) MAUDE (Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience) adverse event database contains multiple reports of port catheter fractures, including instances in which broken catheter segments migrated to the right atrium.
Port-related infections are a documented complication and can range from localized infections at the port pocket site to bloodstream infections (bacteremia) and, in severe cases, sepsis. Patients receiving chemotherapy are particularly vulnerable because their immune systems are often compromised while the port is in use. A 2019 retrospective study of 539 cancer patients found infection rates of 6.9% and venous thromboembolism rates of 7.2% following port implantation.
Blood clots can form around or inside the catheter, obstructing blood flow or breaking free into the circulatory system. Deep vein thrombosis and catheter-related thrombosis are both recognized complications in the peer-reviewed literature. If a clot travels to the lungs, the result can be a pulmonary embolism — a potentially life-threatening emergency. Published research has identified thrombosis as one of the leading reasons for premature port catheter removal in cancer patients.
Migration refers to movement of the catheter or port components from their intended placement. This can compromise the device’s function, prevent proper medication delivery, and cause injury to surrounding vessels or tissue. Clinical literature has identified several patient and procedural factors that may be associated with increased rates of catheter migration.
If an implantable port catheter causes injury, any alleged failure may fall into one of three categories:
Each raises different legal and scientific questions, and ongoing litigation involves allegations across all three.
Attorneys and researchers have examined whether certain design choices and material compositions may make some port catheters more prone to failure than others. One area of scientific evaluation involves the use of barium sulfate as a radiopaque additive in catheter tubing.
Barium sulfate makes the catheter visible under X-ray imaging, which is important for confirming proper placement. However, plaintiffs in active litigation have alleged that when barium sulfate is incorporated directly into certain polymer blends without adequate protective coating, it may compromise the structural integrity of the tubing over time. This has the potential to make the devices more susceptible to fracture, surface degradation, and bacterial colonization. These allegations are actively contested by manufacturers, and the scientific questions remain in dispute.
Other material-related concerns documented in the literature include catheter stiffness and flexibility characteristics that may affect fracture risk, and polymer degradation that may occur over extended implantation periods.
Separately from design-related issues, lawsuits allege some port catheter injuries have been linked to manufacturing defects. These include instances where a device deviated from its own design specifications during production.
In early 2025, the FDA classified the recall of Smiths Medical's ProPort Implantable Ports as a Class I recall (the most serious category) after identifying a manufacturing defect that could cause the port housing to separate from the reservoir. The recalled devices posed significant health risks, including air embolism and leakage of medications, including chemotherapy drugs.
Manufacturing defects are evaluated on a different legal basis than design defects, focusing on whether the specific device that caused injury was properly produced rather than whether the product’s design was adequate.
The FDA’s MAUDE database contains adverse event reports documenting catheter fractures, migrations, and other failures across multiple brands of implantable port systems. While the reports are not conclusive evidence of a defect, they are part of the public record and have been cited by attorneys litigating port catheter lawsuits.
Many patients who experienced complications with a port catheter do not know which manufacturer made their device. This is normal. The surgeon usually chooses the device, and patients often are not told the brand name. However, identifying the specific device is an important step in evaluating whether you qualify for a port catheter lawsuit.
There are several ways to determine which port catheter you received:
If you are unable to identify your device on your own, an experienced port catheter attorney can help you obtain the necessary records. You do not need to know the manufacturer before contacting a lawyer.
The FDA classifies implantable port catheters as Class II medical devices and regulates them under the agency’s 510(k) premarket notification pathway. Under this pathway, a manufacturer does not need to conduct independent clinical trials to demonstrate safety and efficacy. Instead, the manufacturer must demonstrate “substantial equivalence” to a previously cleared device. Safety advocates argue that this process can allow design changes to accumulate over time without adequate new safety evaluation.
The FDA’s 510(k) Premarket Notification Database and MAUDE Adverse Event Database are publicly accessible resources that allow patients and healthcare providers to review cleared devices and reported adverse events. The FDA also publishes medical device recalls through its Medical Device Recalls and Early Alerts database.
If you believe your port catheter device may have been recalled, the FDA recall database is a useful first resource. You can also contact your treating physician, who should be able to identify the specific brand and model of your device from your medical records.
If you or a family member experienced a serious complication following the implantation of a port catheter, including catheter fracture, migration, infection, blood clots, or cardiac injury, there are several steps worth taking.
Seek medical attention first. If you have not already done so, consult a physician. Documenting your medical condition is important both for your health and for any potential legal claim.
Request and preserve your medical records. Ask your treating physician, hospital, and any imaging centers for copies of records related to the port implantation, follow-up care, and any procedures performed to address complications. If the device was explanted (removed), ask whether it was preserved. Physical evidence of a malfunctioning device can be important in litigation.
Identify your device if possible. Your medical records should include the brand, model, and lot number of the port catheter that was implanted. This information helps an attorney evaluate which manufacturer may be responsible and whether your device is part of an active recall or litigation. See our section above on how to identify your device.
Consult a qualified attorney. Product liability cases involving medical devices are complex. Working with an attorney experienced in defective medical device litigation helps ensure that your rights are protected and that you meet any applicable statute of limitations deadlines. These deadlines vary by state and typically run from one to six years from the date of injury or from the date you discovered — or reasonably should have discovered — that the device caused your injury.
You do not need to know the manufacturer. Many patients do not know who made the device that was implanted in them. An experienced attorney can help obtain your medical records and identify the specific device. The most important thing is to get medical help and speak with a lawyer when you are ready.
Patients who received an implantable port catheter and subsequently experienced one or more of the following complications may have grounds to pursue a port catheter lawsuit:
Eligibility depends on the specific facts of your case, including the device manufacturer, when it was implanted, what injuries occurred, and when those injuries were discovered.
The best way to determine whether you have a viable claim is to speak with a qualified attorney.
Wisner Baum is a national plaintiff’s law firm with decades of experience holding medical device manufacturers and pharmaceutical companies accountable when their products cause serious harm. Since 1985, Wisner Baum attorneys have recovered more than $4 billion in verdicts and settlements on behalf of clients.
Our defective medical device attorneys handle cases on a contingency fee basis, which means you pay no attorneys’ fees unless we recover compensation for you. We offer free, confidential case evaluations, and there is no obligation to proceed after your initial consultation.
If you or someone in your family suffered a serious injury from a defective port catheter, we want to hear from you. Give us a call at (310) 207-3233 or fill out our contact form today.
"Wisner Baum gave exceptional attention to all aspects of the case, detailed inquiry, and tenacious overview of all the information submitted. The paralegals are efficient and diligent. I was completely surprised to find an empathic personal message to take care of my own health during the challenging time of being a full-time caretaker.*"
In May of 2019, the jury in the case of Pilliod et al. v, Monsanto Company ordered the agrochemical giant to pay $2.055 billion in damages to the plaintiffs, Alva and Alberta Pilliod, a Bay Area couple in their 70s. R. Brent Wisner served as co-lead trial attorney for the Pilliods, delivering the opening and closing statements and cross-examining several of Monsanto’s experts. Wisner Baum managing shareholder, Michael Baum and attorney Pedram Esfandiary also served on the trial team in the Pilliod case.
The judge later reduced their award to $87M. Monsanto appealed the Pilliod’s verdict which the California Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District denied on August 9, 2021. Monsanto then requested the California Supreme Court review the appeal’s court decision, which the court denied on Nov. 17, 2021. Monsanto (Bayer) then submitted a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court which SCOTUS denied on June 27, 2022, allowing the final judgment of $87M to remain intact.
$289.2 million jury verdict in Monsanto Roundup trial
Wisner Baum co-represented Dewayne “Lee” Johnson in the first Roundup cancer lawsuit to proceed to trial. On Aug. 10, 2018, a San Francisco jury ordered Monsanto to pay $39.25 million in compensatory damages and $250 million in punitive damages to Mr. Johnson, a former groundskeeper who alleged exposure to Monsanto’s herbicides caused him to develop terminal non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
Months after the jury verdict, the judge overseeing the trial reduced the punitive damages to $39.25 million. Mr. Johnson decided to accept the remittitur, bringing the adjusted amount awarded to Mr. Johnson $78.5 million.
Monsanto (Bayer) appealed the verdict and Johnson cross appealed. On July 20, 2020, the First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the verdict against Monsanto but reduced Mr. Johnson’s award to $20.5 million. The company chose not to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, ending the litigation.
In 2016, Wisner Baum attorney Timothy A. Loranger and six other attorneys in the Plaintiffs’ Management Committee were able to secure a $265 million settlement for victims of the 2015 Amtrak 188 derailment in Philadelphia, one of the largest in the U.S. for 2016.
Both are types of central venous access devices, but they are structurally different. A PICC line (peripherally inserted central catheter) is inserted through a vein in the arm and is typically used for shorter-term IV access. A port catheter is surgically implanted beneath the skin and is designed for longer-term, repeated use over months or years. Port catheters are generally preferred for patients undergoing extended chemotherapy or other ongoing treatment programs.
Potentially, yes. A product liability claim does not require that the device have been formally recalled by the FDA. What matters is whether the design, manufacturing, or warnings associated with the device were inadequate and whether that inadequacy caused your injury. Our attorneys evaluate each case on its individual merits. For more information, see our defective medical device overview page.
Your implant records, surgical notes, or hospital discharge paperwork typically identify the brand, model, and lot number of any device implanted. If you do not have these records, an attorney can assist you in obtaining them from your treating facility. See our section on how to identify your port catheter device above for additional guidance.
Yes. Product liability claims are governed by state statutes of limitations, which set deadlines for when a lawsuit must be filed. The clock generally starts running from the date of injury or from the date you knew or reasonably should have known the device caused your harm. These deadlines vary by state and can be as short as one year. It is important to consult with an attorney as soon as possible to avoid losing your right to file.
No. Wisner Baum offers free, confidential case evaluations and handles defective medical device cases on a contingency fee basis. You pay nothing unless we recover compensation for you.
