The Bard PowerPort MDL has reached a pivotal inflection point in 2026, with two bellwether trials now complete and a verdict that changes everything. While the first bellwether in Cook v. Becton Dickinson ended in a split verdict in May 2026, the second bellwether — Divelbliss v. Becton Dickinson — returned a landmark $40 million plaintiff verdict on September 4, 2026, finding both design defect and failure to warn. With more than 4,140 cases pending as of October 2026, a third bellwether set for trial on October 13, 2026, and no global settlement reached, the In re Bard Implanted Port Catheter Products Liability Litigation (MDL 3081) has entered its most consequential phase yet.
What the Cook v. Becton Dickinson Verdict Actually Means
The first Cook bellwether trial began on April 21, 2026, when plaintiff Robert Cook alleged that a Bard PowerPort implanted port catheter caused him a serious infection. Opening statements were delivered April 21, 2026, with plaintiff’s counsel telling jurors that Bard knew for decades its devices were dangerously prone to infection yet shelved safer technologies — including antimicrobial coatings and non-fouling surfaces developed as early as 2005. Plaintiff Robert Cook, a Minnesota colorectal-cancer patient, was hospitalized six days and had chemotherapy delayed two weeks after his PowerPort became infected. After weeks of testimony, the jury returned a verdict that legal analysts called a “split decision with a loaded footnote.” The jury found that Bard and Becton Dickinson were not liable on the failure-to-warn and failure-to-instruct claims. The jury also rejected the consumer fraud claim. So on those claims, the defense won. Those were meaningful wins for the defense — failure-to-warn is often the backbone of pharmaceutical and medical device litigation.
However, the jury hung entirely on the most consequential question: whether the PowerPort was defectively designed. A key internal Bard document admitted at trial was an internal presentation covering infection rates and the feasibility of antimicrobial coatings, which Judge Campbell ruled would be admitted into evidence with partial redactions, over Bard’s Rule 403 objection. Perhaps more telling than the hung verdict itself is what jurors reportedly communicated afterward — that they would have answered yes if asked whether the PowerPort could have been made safer. That is not a defense win on design defect. That is a design-defect claim that survived its first courtroom encounter and lived to fight another day. For anyone using a medical malpractice calculator to estimate potential damages in a defective device case, the distinction between a verdict and a hung jury matters enormously — a hung jury resets the clock rather than closing the door.
Robert Cook, the plaintiff in the first PowerPort bellwether trial, subsequently filed a motion for a mistrial. The motion argues: “After a three-week trial on four complex claims and two affirmative defenses, the jury deliberated for only eleven hours before the Court permitted a partial verdict, leading the jury to promptly abandon its efforts to reach unanimity on all claims.” Becton Dickinson stated that it found no new safety risks associated with the PowerPort and that it had clearly communicated the device’s risks and benefits to medical professionals. Bard filed its formal opposition to the Cook plaintiff’s motion for a new trial, arguing the jury instructions were proper and that the partial verdict should stand. The Cook new-trial motion remained pending even as the litigation moved forward to its second bellwether — with dramatically different results.
What the $40 Million Divelbliss Verdict Signals for 4,100+ Plaintiffs
If the Cook split verdict left both sides searching for spin, the second bellwether left no ambiguity. On September 4, 2026, a jury in the Divelbliss v. Becton Dickinson trial returned a $40 million plaintiff verdict, finding that the Bard PowerPort was both defectively designed and that Bard failed to adequately warn patients and physicians of the device’s risks. The verdict was a comprehensive plaintiff win on the very claims that the Cook jury had either split on or rejected — and its significance for the broader MDL cannot be overstated.
Where the Cook jury hung on design defect, the Divelbliss jury answered the question squarely and sided with the plaintiff. Where the Cook jury rejected failure-to-warn, the Divelbliss jury found it proven. This pattern — two juries looking at substantially similar evidence and reaching opposing conclusions on some claims — is precisely the kind of inconsistency that tends to push defendants toward settlement negotiations. A single plaintiff verdict can be dismissed as an outlier. A $40 million verdict following a hung jury on the central design-defect issue is a different matter entirely. It validates the theory that plaintiffs’ counsel have been developing across years of discovery, and it puts a concrete damages anchor into evidence that future juries will never formally hear but that defense counsel cannot ignore when advising Becton Dickinson on litigation risk.
For the more than 4,100 plaintiffs currently waiting in MDL 3081, the Divelbliss verdict does something critically important: it establishes that a properly presented PowerPort design-defect case can win at trial. That changes the calculus for both sides. Plaintiffs who might have accepted lower settlement offers have reason to wait for a stronger number. Becton Dickinson, facing a pipeline of trials scheduled through February 2027, must now weigh whether continuing to try individual cases is a viable long-term strategy or whether a global resolution becomes economically necessary. For anyone using a medical malpractice calculator to estimate potential damages in a defective device case, a $40 million bellwether verdict provides a meaningful — if not directly transferable — data point about what juries are willing to award when they find liability.
The October Bellwether and the Road Through February 2027
The litigation is not pausing to absorb the Divelbliss verdict. The third bellwether, Lattanzio v. Becton Dickinson, is scheduled to begin trial on October 13, 2026. With one defendant win on some claims, one hung jury on design defect, and now a $40 million plaintiff verdict in hand, the Lattanzio trial takes on outsized importance. A second consecutive plaintiff win would intensify pressure on Becton Dickinson enormously. A defense verdict, on the other hand, would allow the company to argue that trial outcomes remain inconsistent and that any individual case carries genuine uncertainty — a posture that tends to suppress settlement values.
Beyond Lattanzio, the court has mapped out a bellwether schedule that runs through early 2027. The Hicks trial is scheduled for December 1, 2026, and the Sorensen trial is set for February 2, 2027. In total, five bellwether trials are expected through February 2027. This compressed schedule reflects the court’s intent to generate enough trial data to give both sides a realistic picture of litigation risk — the standard MDL mechanism for nudging the parties toward a global resolution. As of September 2026, no global settlement has been reached. The pace at which new cases are being filed — approximately 190 per month, with the docket standing at 4,140 cases as of October 2026 — means that every month without a settlement agreement adds roughly 190 more plaintiffs to the queue, increasing Becton Dickinson’s aggregate exposure and complicating any eventual settlement administration.
The new-trial motion from the Cook plaintiff also remains a live procedural issue. Becton Dickinson has maintained that the jury instructions were proper and that the partial verdict in Cook should stand. A ruling granting a new trial in Cook could effectively put a fourth case into the bellwether pipeline, adding still more complexity to an already crowded trial calendar. Defense counsel must now manage simultaneous trial preparation across multiple active cases while also contending with the reputational and financial weight of the Divelbliss verdict.
Settlement Valuation and What Plaintiffs Should Realistically Expect
No global Bard PowerPort settlement has been announced as of October 2026, and the litigation dynamics as of that date do not suggest one is imminent — though the Divelbliss verdict meaningfully shifts the environment. Settlement negotiations in mass tort MDLs typically do not begin in earnest until defendants have absorbed enough bellwether trial outcomes to model their overall exposure with some confidence. With three trials complete or underway and two more scheduled before February 2027, the court and the parties are still in the data-gathering phase, even if the $40 million Divelbliss verdict has already begun to reshape expectations on both sides.
What the Divelbliss verdict does establish is a ceiling data point. MDL settlements are rarely structured around bellwether verdicts directly — individual plaintiff recoveries depend on the severity of injury, the strength of causation evidence in each specific case, the jurisdiction, and a host of case-specific factors. But bellwether verdicts calibrate the negotiating range. Before Divelbliss, plaintiffs’ counsel were working largely from the Cook hung jury, which provided useful information about design-defect viability but no damages anchor. A $40 million verdict on design defect and failure to warn provides exactly that anchor. It tells both sides what a sympathetic jury is willing to award when it finds the defendant fully liable.
Plaintiffs with the strongest cases — those involving serious infection, catheter fracture, migration, or other significant documented injuries with clear causal links to their PowerPort — are best positioned to benefit from the evolving bellwether record. Plaintiffs with less severe injuries or more complex causation questions may find that their individual settlement values move less dramatically in response to the Divelbliss verdict. In all cases, the practical advice remains consistent: work with experienced mass tort counsel who are tracking the bellwether schedule and can evaluate how your specific facts compare to the cases that have gone to trial.
What Comes Next: Key Milestones Through 2027 and Beyond
The Bard PowerPort MDL will remain an active and high-stakes litigation through at least the first quarter of 2027. The immediate milestones are clear. The Lattanzio v. Becton Dickinson third bellwether trial began October 13, 2026. The Hicks trial follows on December 1, 2026. The Sorensen trial is scheduled for February 2, 2027. Each of those trials will add to the evidentiary record that both sides are using to model settlement. The aggregate trajectory of five bellwether verdicts — whatever mix of plaintiff wins, defense wins, and hung juries emerges — will almost certainly determine whether a global settlement framework becomes feasible in 2027 or whether the litigation continues into an extended trial phase.
The docket itself continues to grow. At approximately 190 new filings per month and 4,140 cases pending as of October 2026, MDL 3081 is on pace to exceed 5,000 cases before the last scheduled bellwether trial concludes. That volume creates its own pressure on the resolution timeline. Courts managing dockets of that size have limited appetite for individual trials, and defendants facing thousands of pending cases must eventually weigh the cost and risk of continued litigation against the cost and certainty of a negotiated resolution. The Divelbliss verdict has made that calculus significantly more favorable to plaintiffs.
For individuals who were injured by a Bard PowerPort catheter and have not yet filed a claim, the window remains open but is not unlimited. Statutes of limitations vary by state, and the accrual rules in medical device cases — which often tie the limitations period to when a plaintiff knew or should have known of the connection between their device and their injury — can be complex. Anyone who experienced a PowerPort-related infection, catheter fracture, migration, or other significant complication should consult with a mass tort attorney promptly to evaluate whether a timely claim remains viable and to understand how their case facts compare to the bellwether cases now shaping settlement expectations.
Frequently Asked Questions About the Bard PowerPort Lawsuit
What did the first and second Bard PowerPort bellwether trial verdicts actually decide?
The first bellwether trial, Cook v. Becton Dickinson, concluded in May 2026 with a split verdict. The jury found for Bard on failure-to-warn and consumer fraud claims but hung entirely on the design-defect claim — meaning no decision was reached on the question of whether the PowerPort was defectively designed. The second bellwether trial, Divelbliss v. Becton Dickinson, concluded on September 4, 2026, with a $40 million plaintiff verdict. The Divelbliss jury found both design defect and failure to warn proven, delivering a comprehensive plaintiff win on the central claims in the litigation. Neither verdict is binding on other cases in the MDL, but together they provide critical data points about how juries evaluate the core liability theories in PowerPort cases.
How many cases are currently pending in the Bard PowerPort MDL?
As of October 2026, approximately 4,140 cases are pending in MDL 3081 in the District of Arizona. The docket is growing at approximately 190 new filings per month, meaning the total is on pace to exceed 5,000 cases before the scheduled bellwether trials conclude in early 2027. No global settlement has been reached as of October 2026.
What is the expected Bard PowerPort settlement amount?
No global settlement has been announced as of October 2026, and individual settlement amounts have not been publicly disclosed. The $40 million Divelbliss verdict provides a significant damages anchor for settlement negotiations, but individual plaintiff recoveries in any eventual settlement will depend on injury severity, documented causation, jurisdiction, and case-specific factors. Plaintiffs with serious injuries — infections requiring hospitalization, catheter fracture, migration, or delayed cancer treatment — are generally better positioned than those with less severe documented harm. Consulting with experienced mass tort counsel is the most reliable way to evaluate the potential value of any individual claim given the current state of the litigation.
What happens at the October 2026 third bellwether trial?
The third bellwether trial, Lattanzio v. Becton Dickinson, is scheduled to begin October 13, 2026. Like the Cook and Divelbliss trials before it, Lattanzio will involve a single plaintiff’s PowerPort injury claims tried to a jury, with the outcome adding to the cumulative bellwether record. Given that Divelbliss produced a $40 million plaintiff verdict on design defect and failure to warn, the Lattanzio outcome will be closely watched to determine whether that result reflects a durable liability theory or a case-specific result. A second consecutive plaintiff win would substantially increase pressure on Becton Dickinson to pursue a global resolution.
Should I still file a Bard PowerPort lawsuit in 2026 if I was injured?
Yes, if you were injured by a Bard PowerPort catheter and have not yet filed a claim, you should consult with a mass tort attorney as soon as possible. Statutes of limitations vary by state and can be affected by discovery rules that tie the filing deadline to when you knew or should have known about the connection between your device and your injury. The MDL docket remains open and actively growing, and the Divelbliss verdict has strengthened the overall litigation posture for plaintiffs. Waiting to file risks missing applicable deadlines and could limit or eliminate your ability to participate in any eventual settlement or trial recovery.
Victoria Chambers is a mass tort and class action research analyst with extensive knowledge of multi-district litigation (MDL), defective product cases, dangerous drug lawsuits, and toxic exposure claims across the United States. Victoria is not an attorney and the information provided is for educational purposes only.