AngioFlow Vortex Port Lawsuit | 2026 Latest Updates

Patients implanted with AngioDynamics port catheters allege that the catheters can fracture, cause infections and form blood clots. Plaintiffs say excessive barium sulfate makes the catheter degrade, pit or crack. Cases over these port catheters are centralized in MDL No. 3125 in the Southern District of California before Judge Jinsook Ohta. The court’s order does not name the AngioFlow Vortex Port. No settlement or verdict has been announced. If you have a Vortex port, keep your port card and implant records. They can show which device you had, when it was implanted and what happened afterward.

Latest AngioFlow Vortex Port Lawsuit Updates

October 11, 2024: Transfer Order Entered on Court Docket

The Southern District of California entered the centralization order for AngioDynamics port catheter cases on the court docket for MDL 3125 on October 11, 2024 [1]. Judge Jinsook Ohta and Magistrate Judge Valerie E. Torres were assigned. The first member case, Coleman v. Angiodynamics, Inc. et al., case 24cv00825, was opened in the MDL. The litigation is in pretrial proceedings before Judge Ohta.

October 3, 2024: Panel Centralizes the Port Catheter Cases

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation centralized the AngioDynamics port catheter cases in that district on October 3, 2024 [2]. At that time, 56 actions were pending in 28 districts. The Panel made no finding on the merits.

What Is the AngioFlow Vortex Port?

According to AngioDynamics, its Vortex port family is designed for extended life [3]. The company describes its LifePort dual lumen implantable port as a device designed to permit repeated access to the venous system. AngioDynamics states that LifePort and Vortex are trademarks of AngioDynamics, Inc. The company names the Vortex port family as one of its implantable port lines.

Who May Be Affected?

People implanted with an AngioDynamics or Navilyst Medical port device may be affected if the catheter allegedly cracked, fractured or collected blood products. The same may apply if perforation, infection or blood clots followed. The Vortex port family is an AngioDynamics port line. Defendants say the actions involve different port product lines, so the brand, model and implant date of your device matter. Your port card or implant record usually shows the brand and model. Only an individual legal review can say whether your facts fit a claim.

Reported Injuries or Damages

Plaintiffs contend the catheters are prone to fracture and to collect fibrinous blood products. They say this causes perforation, infections and blood clots, among other injuries. These claims are allegations only. The actions share questions about allegations that defendants make the catheter component with too much barium sulfate. Plaintiffs say this makes the material degrade and the catheter surface pit or crack. The FDA 510(k) record shows clearance K081472 on September 23, 2008, as substantially equivalent [4]. The device name reads SMARTPORT CT VORTEX, among other ports, and the applicant is AngioDynamics, Inc.

Evidence to Preserve

Keep any records that show your port model, the implant date and any later treatment. The most useful items are:

• Your port card, with the model and lot numbers and the implant date.
• Operative reports from the implant and from any removal of the port.
• Imaging and catheter records, such as scans taken to check the port.
• Medical records of any infection, blood clot or revision surgery.
• Bills and receipts for treatment related to the port.
• Photographs of the port site or of any removed device.
• Messages and letters with the hospital or the manufacturer about the port.

Filing Deadlines

The deadline for filing a port injury claim comes from state law and varies with where you live and when the injury happened. If you miss it, your claim can end even when the facts are strong. Speak with a lawyer promptly to learn which deadline applies to your situation and how much time is left for you to act. Related Articles:

• Smiths Medical ProPort Implantable Port Recall

Frequently Asked Questions

Why Were the Port Catheter Cases Sent to Southern California?

The port catheter cases went to Southern California for pretrial proceedings because five involved actions were already pending in that district. The Panel also noted that defendant PFM Medical is headquartered there.

How Many Port Catheter Cases Were Pending Before the Panel Decided?

Before the Panel decided the motion, 23 port catheter actions were pending in sixteen districts. The Panel also counted 33 potential tag-along actions in nineteen districts, according to its October 3, 2024 order.

Has the Vortex Port Been Recalled?

The FDA’s clearance record for the Vortex port shows no recall, so it gives patients no recall notice or remedy to follow. A recall is separate from the court cases over port catheters.

What Does the Research Say About the Vortex Port?

The research on the Vortex port is limited to its FDA clearance record, which is a regulatory decision and not a published study. The court’s order sets out plaintiffs’ allegations about the catheter material, not study results.

References

1. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69255166/in-re-angiodynamics-inc-and-navilyst-medical-inc-port-catheter/
2. https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3125-Transfer_Order-9-24.pdf
3. https://www.angiodynamics.com/product/vortex-ports/
4. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfpmn/pmn.cfm?ID=K081472