C.R. Bard Sought New Trial in $40 Million Verdict

The medical device manufacturer is challenging a significant liability ruling in its ongoing PowerPort litigation.

Updated on Oct. 13, 2026 in Healthcare

C.R. Bard Sought New Trial in $40 Million Verdict

Live Poll

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

C.R. Bard filed a motion for a new trial in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona following a $40 million jury verdict for a plaintiff. The filing marks a critical juncture in bellwether litigation concerning the company's PowerPort implanted port catheters.

Why it matters

The company contends the verdict awarded to plaintiff Kimberly Divelbliss is manifestly excessive and influenced by biased expert testimony. This development signals continued legal and financial uncertainty for manufacturers navigating long-term liability claims.

A jury awarded $40 million to the plaintiff, falling at the bottom of the $40 million to $60 million range requested by counsel. The company is now seeking to overturn this figure in court.

The players

C.R. Bard

A medical technology company that develops and manufactures implanted port catheters and other clinical devices.

Kimberly Divelbliss

The plaintiff who secured a $40 million verdict in a bellwether action against C.R. Bard.

The details

C.R. Bard argues that the plaintiff weaponized expert compensation to sway the jury during the bellwether trial. By challenging the award as excessive, the firm is attempting to reset the financial damages phase of the litigation in the District of Arizona.

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

Market Landscape

The filing marks a key stage in the ongoing PowerPort implanted port catheter litigation by testing whether jury awards in similar product liability cases are subject to downward revision. It follows a established pattern of rigorous post-verdict challenges in medical device liability cases.

Operators should monitor the outcome of this motion as it provides a signal on the enforceability of high-value damage awards in device litigation. Business leaders should review their risk management and expert witness compensation policies to ensure they align with emerging standards for trial testimony.

The takeaway

The motion illustrates the legal intensity surrounding product liability claims for implanted medical devices. Business operators should track the court's response to this motion as a bellwether for how judges evaluate claims of excessive damages in future high-stakes litigation.