C.R. Bard Sought New Trial in Catheter Case

The medical device manufacturer requested a retrial following a $40 million jury verdict in a Phoenix court.

Updated on Oct. 13, 2026 in Healthcare

C.R. Bard Sought New Trial in Catheter Case

Live Poll

Are multimillion-dollar jury awards in civil product liability cases typically fair?

C.R. Bard has filed a motion for a new trial in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona regarding a bellwether PowerPort catheter lawsuit. The request follows a jury verdict that awarded plaintiff Kimberly Divelbliss $40 million in damages.

Why it matters

The company argues that the multimillion-dollar verdict is manifestly excessive and claims the plaintiff improperly influenced the jury outcome through the presentation of expert compensation. This legal challenge represents a significant effort by the firm to mitigate liability in ongoing litigation concerning its implanted port devices.

The jury awarded Kimberly Divelbliss a $40 million verdict in the bellwether action. This figure sits at the bottom of the $40 million to $60 million range originally requested by plaintiff counsel.

The players

C.R. Bard

This is a medical device manufacturer known for producing a wide array of products including vascular and urological catheters.

Kimberly Divelbliss

She is the plaintiff who secured a $40 million jury verdict in the bellwether PowerPort litigation.

U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona

This federal court serves as the primary jurisdiction for the legal proceedings concerning these implanted port devices.

The details

C.R. Bard filed the motion on October 8, 2026, citing concerns over how the jury reached its financial conclusion. The defense contends that expert testimony and the associated compensation provided were weaponized to unfairly sway the jury against the manufacturer.

C.R. Bard filed the motion for a new trial on October 8, 2026.

Market Landscape

This motion represents a direct procedural escalation in the ongoing PowerPort catheter litigation. The challenge highlights the intense legal pressures facing manufacturers of long-term implantable devices as they face high-stakes liability claims in federal court.

This litigation remains a complex legal matter that may influence the future availability or manufacturing standards of medical devices in the Phoenix area. Average patients and medical providers should continue to consult with healthcare professionals regarding the use of specific implanted port catheters.

The takeaway

Legal battles over medical devices often center on the valuation of damages rather than just the underlying liability. Companies typically challenge verdicts they view as excessive to establish a lower financial baseline for future settlement negotiations.