AFFF Firefighting Foam Lawsuit

Judge Sets New MDL Deadlines

March 28, 2025

The judge has set key deadlines for expert reports for plaintiffs with liver cancer or thyroid cancer, with plaintiffs’ experts due by July 11, 2025, and defendants’ experts due by August 22, 2025. There will also be a Science Day on June 20, 2025, specifically to discuss the science behind these two cancers.

If your case involves kidney cancer, testicular cancer, ulcerative colitis, or thyroid disease, your schedule remains on track under the existing pretrial orders (CMO 26F & 26G).

Three New Ulcerative Colitis Plaintiffs Added to Discovery Pool

March 18, 2025

As required by the MDL judge, lawyers for the plaintiffs and defendants have jointly selected 3 additional plaintiffs to add to the discovery pool for ulcerative colitis cases. These plaintiffs will join a group of other plaintiffs alleging that exposure to AFFF caused them to develop ulcerative colitis and go through a phase of intensive fact discovery. At the end of the discovery phase, some of these cases will be selected for bellwether trials (unless we get a global settlement first).

Growth Continues in MDL

March 8, 2025

Amid rumors of a potential settlement, the AFFF firefighting foam class action MDL saw its highest monthly volume of new cases in almost a year. 338 new AFFF cases were added in February, bringing the total number of pending cases to 8,430.

MDL Sees Surge in New Cases

February 15, 2025

After a brief decline, AFFF firefighting foam lawsuits are again rising. In October and November 2023, the total number of pending cases in the MDL dropped, largely due to water contamination claims reaching settlements and subsequently being dismissed. But that decline was short-lived.

By December, 270 new cases had been added, and in January, the pace of filings accelerated even further, with 459 additional lawsuits bringing the total number of pending cases to 8,092.

So, what’s driving this increase? Settlement rumors. When a global settlement appears to be in the works, attorneys move quickly to get cases on file before any cutoff is established. If a settlement is reached, there is often a deadline for inclusion, and waiting too long could mean missing out on compensation entirely.

For those affected by PFAS exposure, this surge in filings is a strong indication that time may be limited to take legal action. Many attorneys are advising potential claimants to file sooner rather than later to ensure their case is part of any future resolution.

Our law firm receives new AFFF-related inquiries daily, though the pace of new filings will fluctuate. AFFF lawyers often file new claims in batches, which sometimes distorts the numbers.

Expert Discovery

February 13, 2025

Expert discovery must be completed by February 14, 2025.

New York Firefighter Lawsuit

January 23, 2025

This new AFFF firefighter lawsuit was filed last week. The claim arises from the devastating health consequences experienced by a retired firefighter, who served with the Yonkers Fire Department in New York for over three decades.

During his career, he was repeatedly exposed to toxic chemicals known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) through firefighting foam (AFFF) and protective gear embedded with these substances. These exposures occurred during live fire responses, training exercises, and maintenance activities, including significant events such as the Con Edison substation fire in 1996. Despite assurances of safety from manufacturers, PFAS exposure has been linked to severe health risks, including thyroid disease, which the plaintiff was diagnosed with in 2019. His condition has caused him lasting pain, suffering, and economic losses, significantly altering his quality of life.

The plaintiff’s spouse, who has endured the emotional and relational toll of his illness, is also seeking damages for loss of consortium. The PFAS lawsuit contends that numerous companies, including major chemical manufacturers, negligently produced, marketed, and distributed PFAS-containing products, failing to warn users of their inherent dangers despite decades of research linking PFAS to serious health issues. The plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and punitive damages to hold these companies accountable for their alleged disregard for public health and safety.

Fear of Punitive Damages May Drive AFFF Settlement Amounts

January 28, 2025

Punitive damages will be a key driving force in driving up AFFF lawsuit settlement amounts and likely be key to forcing the defendants to settle before the first personal injury trial this year.

Punitive damages are designed to punish defendants for egregious misconduct and deter similar behavior in the future. In AFFF litigation, plaintiffs allege that manufacturers like 3M and DuPont not only failed to warn the public about the dangers of AFFF foam but also actively concealed evidence of its toxicity for decades. This willful and reckless conduct is precisely what punitive damages aim to address. For juries, the idea of holding companies accountable for prioritizing profits over people could lead to significant awards far beyond compensatory damages, creating immense financial exposure for defendants.

The firefighting foam lawsuits are teed up for punitive damages. Internal documents reveal that companies knew about the risks of PFAS chemicals as early as the 1960s, yet failed to warn workers, firefighters, or communities. This high-stakes environment often pushes defendants toward settlement to avoid unpredictable and massive jury verdicts. Plaintiffs involved in these lawsuits—whether for personal injury, property damage, or environmental harm—stand to benefit significantly as settlement negotiations aim to reflect not only their individual damages but also the severity of the manufacturers’ misconduct.

Diseases Most Tied To AFFF

January 21, 2025

As we get (hopefully) closer to the finish line, we want to bring some clarity on which diseases we think are best linked to AFFF. Here are the firefighting foam lawsuits we think the science best supports, along with the strongest cases in terms of exposure:

Of course, it does not have to fit perfectly into this criterion. I’m just trying to give you an idea of what we think are the most compelling facts and patterns in this litigation.

The evidence is incredibly strong in these cases. I would bet on a first-year lawyer with a basic understanding of the rules of evidence at trial over the best lawyer 3M and DuPont have to offer in one of these cases.

Behind these claims are pancreatic cancer, prostate cancer, male breast cancer, bladder cancer, and liver cancer. We are actively taking these cases and think they are strong enough to go to trial, and we think plaintiffs will win these cases in front of a jury. That should induce meaningful settlements in these lawsuits.

We think other types of cancer may also receive AFFF compensation payouts when there is a settlement. Because of the severity of the injury, you may also receive higher compensation in the second tier than the first tier in some cases.

New Lawsuit from Arizona

January 15, 2025

In a new AFFF lawsuit filed in the MDL, a firefighter from Flagstaff, Arizona, and his wife have alleged severe injuries caused by prolonged exposure to firefighting foams containing PFAS chemicals.

The plaintiff began his firefighting career with the Flagstaff Fire Department in 2002 and continues to serve the department. Throughout his career, he regularly used and handled Aqueous Film-Forming Foams during both training exercises and emergency firefighting operations.

The plaintiff recalls first being exposed to these foams during his initial training at the fire academy, where he frequently handled Class A and Class B firefighting foams. This exposure often involved direct skin contact, leaving his body covered in foam from head to toe during drills and clean-up activities. Like just about every firefighter in this litigation, he was not warned of any potential health risks associated with the foams and was led to believe that they were as harmless as concentrated dish soap.

For over two decades, the plaintiff’s responsibilities have included driving, operating, and maintaining fire trucks, which required him to pump AFFFs, clean foam residue from equipment, and replenish foam supplies. He routinely came into direct contact with AFFFs as part of these duties. Despite this repeated exposure, the manufacturers and distributors of these products failed to provide any warnings or instructions to minimize contact or highlight potential health hazards.

The plaintiff’s medical history reveals that he was first diagnosed with testicular cancer at the age of 21, before his firefighting career. Following successful treatment, including an orchiectomy, he fully recovered. However, after more than a decade of handling AFFFs, he was diagnosed with testicular cancer again. This recurrence included a significant tumor that required further medical interventions, including surgery and chemotherapy, which have not surprisingly caused lasting health complications.

Unlike many cancers, a recurrence is very rare. His doctor noted that it is exceedingly rare for an individual to develop testicular cancer twice, especially in cases where there is no history of smoking or other significant risk factors. The plaintiff has never smoked and had been in good health prior to his exposure to AFFFs.

In addition to his personal health challenges, the plaintiff’s wife has been directly impacted by the situation, as she and her husband have endured loss of companionship and the emotional and financial burdens associated with his medical treatments. They have been married since 1997 and reside in Flagstaff, where they have established their life together.

The plaintiff originally filed in Arizona and the defendants are seeking to remove the case to federal court.

New Study

January 7, 2025

A new study offers crucial insights for AFFF litigation by exploring how specific PFAS compounds impact neuronal function. This research is particularly relevant for attorneys representing victims of PFAS exposure because it uncovers molecular evidence linking these chemicals to neurodegenerative and behavioral disorders. The findings provide the mechanisms that may underpin neurological harm, ammunition that can be given to a jury.

The study analyzed the effects of six PFAS compounds (PFOA, PFOS, PFDA, PFDS, 8:2 FTS, and 8:2 FTOH) on human-derived neuronal cells. It identified significant alterations in gene expression, with some compounds downregulating genes critical for synaptic growth and neural function, while others triggered stress responses tied to hypoxia and amino acid metabolism. These shifts could explain how PFAS disrupt brain health and contribute to conditions such as memory impairment or cognitive decline.

Further, the research revealed lipid imbalances caused by PFAS exposure, including changes in fatty acids and key lipid reserves essential for neuronal integrity. This molecular disruption underscores the structural dependence of PFAS toxicity, a critical factor in understanding their specific impacts on human health.

For attorneys, these findings offer an opportunity to integrate cutting-edge scientific evidence into legal strategies. The identification of biomarkers linked to PFAS neurotoxicity may prove instrumental in demonstrating to jurors the direct health impacts on firefighters, while the study’s detailed analysis of molecular disruptions strengthens arguments on how these toxins cause these injuries.

New Lawsuits Continue to Be Filed

December 12, 2024

New firefighting foam lawsuits continue to be filed in an MDL. In one claim filed last week in the MDL, Amanda, Ohio sued the usual cast of characters. The plaintiff, a former U.S. Navy firefighter, blames his thyroid disease diagnosis on prolonged exposure to AFFF during training and firefighting operations. The lawsuit claims the defendants designed, manufactured, and distributed AFFF products containing PFAS, despite knowing their toxic and bioaccumulative properties.

The complaint outlines allegations of negligence, failure to warn, design defects, and fraudulent concealment. It accuses the defendants of knowingly misrepresenting the safety of their products and failing to provide adequate warnings or instructions to users. The plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages for medical expenses, pain and suffering, and other losses, as well as injunctive relief to address the ongoing risks associated with PFAS exposure.

Insurance Disputes Intensify in AFFF Litigation

November 24, 2024

The growing complexity of insurance disputes is becoming a key subplot in the AFFF MDL. A recent ruling in South Carolina highlights the ongoing battle between corporate defendants like BASF and their insurers over coverage for legal defense and settlement costs. The MDL judge dismissed one BASF case and remanded another to New York. As defendants face mounting litigation costs, securing insurance coverage remains critical, but insurers aggressively resist claims. Will this delay AFFF settlements? Probably not, but the more certainty when settling from the defense perspective, the better.

October 2025 Trial Date

November 14, 2024

We now have a trial date for the Tier 2 Group A bellwether trials, which is set to begin on October 6, 2025. So, what’s next?

The immediate focus will be on whether the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses will be allowed to testify, a decision that hinges on overcoming Daubert challenges raised by the defense. In a Daubert challenge, the court assesses the plaintiffs’ experts to ensure their testimony is relevant to the case and based on scientifically reliable methods.

The overarching question is when do the defendants want to settle this case? Before or after Daubert? For defendants, the upside of waiting until after Daubert is knocking out cases. But it is really unlikely that defendants win. If they pursue a global AFFF settlement before Daubert, the upside is that the experts have not yet been approved.

The latter strategy is probably the smarter play, but 3M is the ringleader of this defense. It skews toward believing the false hope generated by its lawyers and going for broke.

Progress Towards First Trial (October 6, 2025) Being Made

November 1, 2024

The court has issued a new case management order for the personal injury bellwether trial pool cases, laying out the timeline for discovery, expert witness disclosures, and trial preparations. This gives us a clearer picture of the path ahead to push these cases closer to trial and, hopefully, a global AFFF settlement before that first trial.

For Tier 2 Group A cases, the parties will continue fact-finding efforts until December 16, 2024, with strict limits on additional discovery requests. They will also coordinate non-party depositions during this period. After the discovery phase, plaintiffs and defendants will exchange expert witness reports, with expert depositions set to conclude by May 14, 2025. The first Group A cases trial is scheduled for October 6, 2025.

Meanwhile, the parties will negotiate which Group A cases should proceed to trial, with decisions on trial designations and motions due by April 2025. Any summary judgment or Daubert motions must be filed by June 6, 2025, with responses and replies due by July. (We explain Daubert motions in the September 1 update below.)

For Group B cases, fact discovery will extend through March 17, 2025, and the parties will submit expert exchange schedules for thyroid and ulcerative colitis claims by December 2024.

New Navy Firefighting Foam Lawsuit

October 23, 2024

In a new lawsuit filed yesterday, a plaintiff from Boerne, Texas, is seeking damages in the MDL, alleging injury from exposure to PFAS-containing firefighting foam (AFFF) products manufactured by multiple companies, including 3M, Chemours, and DuPont. The plaintiff claims that repeated exposure to AFFF during a U.S. Navy career led to a diagnosis of thyroid cancer and other serious health issues due to the deadly bioaccumulative and carcinogenic properties of PFAS compounds within the foam.

Expert Deadline

October 5, 2024

Key deadlines are approaching in the PFAS litigation. Plaintiffs’ attorneys will outline their experts’ opinions on the link between PFAS chemicals and cancer, providing detailed scientific evidence to support their claims. These initial reports, due on Tuesday, will be crucial in shaping the direction of the case.

Once submitted, these expert reports will face what is known as a Daubert challenge, where the defense will argue that the plaintiffs’ scientific testimony does not meet the required standards of reliability and relevance. If the judge finds the plaintiffs’ scientific evidence credible and sound, it can be admitted in court. In the unlikely even the defense successfully argues that the methodology is flawed or not widely accepted in the scientific community, the judge could limit or exclude the experts’ testimony altogether.

If the judge rules, as we expect, that the science supporting these claims is sound, it will significantly increase settlement pressure on the defense. We believe that the defendants will wisely avoid a trial and make a real settlement offer to resolve the majority of these claims before letting that happen.

New Firefighting Foam Lawsuit

September 19, 2024

A North Carolina man has filed a new lawsuit in the MDL yesterday against the usual cast of characters alleging that their AFFF products, which contain PFAS, such as PFOA and PFOS, caused him to develop kidney cancer.

The plaintiff, a resident of Elizabethtown, North Carolina, claims that he was exposed to these toxic chemicals while working as a firefighter during training exercises in Virginia. Additionally, he alleges that the defendants’ fluorochemical products contaminated the water supply in Virginia, where he consumed water for years.

The lawsuit names several manufacturers and distributors of AFFF, including 3M, DuPont, Chemours, and others, accusing them of negligence, strict liability, and fraudulent concealment of the risks associated with PFAS. The plaintiff asserts that the defendants knew or should have known about the health risks posed by these chemicals, which are bio-persistent and linked to cancer, yet failed to provide adequate warnings. He seeks compensatory and punitive damages for his injuries, medical expenses, and other related losses.

Daubert

September 1, 2024

Daubert challenges will be key in the AFFF firefighting foam litigation, and we should win them easily. These motions focus on whether the scientific evidence presented by plaintiffs is admissible. These motions determine if expert testimony linking PFAS chemicals in AFFF to specific health conditions, such as cancer, meets the required standards of scientific reliability. Defendants will argue that the plaintiffs’ expert opinions are speculative or based on insufficient data, seeking to exclude these testimonies to weaken the plaintiffs’ case. Those Tier 1 and Tier 2 cases will be a tough argument for defendants and they might look foolish in front a jury if they push it too far.

One significant Daubert issue involves proving causation—specifically, whether exposure to PFAS chemicals in AFFF directly caused diseases like kidney, testicular, or prostate cancer. For example, in some earlier motions, defendants sought to dismiss expert testimony that connected PFAS exposure to contaminated water sources. However, courts have denied several such motions, allowing the plaintiffs’ causation experts to proceed. This likely foreshadows the rulings to come.

New Firefighting Foam Lawsuit

August 6, 2024

In a new AFFF lawsuit, Zub v. 3M Company et al., the plaintiff brings a wrongful death and survival action. Her husband, who worked as a firefighter and hazardous materials technician for Union County, New Jersey, was regularly exposed to aqueous film-forming foams during his career.

As a firefighter, he utilized AFFF in both training and emergency situations, unaware of the dangers posed by PFAS. The plaintiff alleges that prolonged exposure to these toxic substances led to her husband’s development of kidney cancer, ultimately resulting in his tragic death at the age of 35.

The plaintiff contends that the defendants knowingly designed, manufactured, and distributed AFFF products containing PFAS, while failing to provide adequate warnings or instructions regarding their safe use. The suit asserts that the defendants were aware of the hazardous nature of PFAS but concealed this information, preventing the decedent and others from recognizing the risks. This fraudulent concealment and negligence in product design and safety measures are central to the allegations.

Nine Bellwethers Picked

July 22, 2024

Judge Gergel selected nine out of eleven cases proposed by the plaintiffs for the list of cases to go to trial first. These cases involve Pennsylvania residents with kidney or testicular cancer and Colorado residents with thyroid cancer or ulcerative colitis, all allegedly linked to exposure to aqueous film-forming foam.

So in a big win for plaintiffs, the court mostly followed the path plaintiffs proposed in the July 17 update below.

The defendants had proposed a different set of eleven cases, emphasizing what they incorrectly claimed was a more representative pool in terms of gender, age, and exposure period.

New Strategy Aims To Reduce Burden On Court

July 17, 2024

Lawyers for victims have made a great proposal to push the AFFF lawsuits along. They suggest selecting kidney and testicular cancer cases from Pennsylvania and thyroid disease and ulcerative colitis cases from Colorado. This strategy aims to reduce the burden on the court and parties by focusing on specific sites and minimizing the number of required depositions, expert reports, and evidence.

To settle these lawsuits, we need as many trial dates as possible. The defendants will oppose this, but it will be transparent that they just want to stall moving forward with trials.

Former Georgia Firefighter Files AFFF Lawsuit

July 11, 2024

A new AFFF lawsuit was filed yesterday on behalf of a Georgia man who was diagnosed with kidney cancer. He was a firefighter who served in the United States Navy at Memphis Naval Station in Memphis, Tennessee, from 1989 through 2023.

During his service, the plaintiff routinely used Class B foam and wore firefighting gear (turnouts) that contained PFAS-containing materials. As a result of prolonged exposure to PFAS, the plaintiff has been diagnosed with kidney cancer and is currently receiving treatment for this condition. The lawsuit alleges that the use of PFAS-containing materials in firefighting activities led to his kidney cancer.

New Study Provides New Tool For AFFF Lawsuits

June 27, 2024

A new study helps us better understand how PFAS interact with human skin. The researchers utilized in vitro 3D human skin equivalent models to analyze the absorption of 17 different PFAS when applied to the skin. They found that shorter-chain PFAS had higher absorption rates and that absorption decreased with increasing carbon chain length of the compounds.

Notably, while longer-chain PFAS were not absorbed directly into the skin, a substantial portion of these chemicals was retained within the skin tissue, which could potentially be released into the body over time. The study also highlighted the influence of physicochemical properties on the dermal permeation of PFAS, showing a clear inverse correlation between the lipophilicity of the substances and their absorption through the skin.

For plaintiffs’ experts in AFFF firefighting foam lawsuits, this study provides a potent new tool. The detailed analysis of PFAS absorption through the skin confirms that dermal exposure to these chemicals can contribute significantly to the body burden of PFAS.

This is particularly relevant in cases where plaintiffs have been exposed to firefighting foams containing PFAS. It provides a scientifically supported pathway of exposure that can link PFAS-containing products directly to all of the problems these firefighters are having. This evidence strengthens claims that manufacturers like 3M should have known about and warned against the risks associated with dermal exposure to PFAS.

AFFF Lawyers Drill Down On Six Specific Conditions

May 16, 2024

Our AFFF lawyers are now drilling down on six specific conditions: kidney cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid disease/hypothyroidism, ulcerative colitis, liver cancer, and thyroid cancer.

Rough Outline Set Forth For Schedules And Procedures

May 7, 2024

CMO 26C directed the parties to devise a process for selecting plaintiffs for initial personal injury and wrongful death bellwether trials and preparing for those trials. Last night, the parties set forth a rough outline of the procedures and schedules for selecting and managing two groups of plaintiffs from a pool of 25 alleging four types of injuries:

1. kidney cancer
2. testicular cancer
3. thyroid disease
4. ulcerative colitis.

It sets forth a staggered schedule for discovery, expert testimony, motion practice, and trial preparations for these groups, aiming to efficiently handle the complex issues and extensive negotiations involved in the litigation.

New CMO Outlines Path To Science Day

March 21, 2024

New CMO #28 sets a schedule for both parties to identify and share scientific studies related to AFFF diseases other than those in the contaminated water lawsuits and a path to a Science Day.

What would an AFFF Science Day look like? A “Science Day” in the context of firefighting foam cancer lawsuits is an educational briefing for the MDL judge. This non-trial, non-hearing event is designed to elucidate the scientific and medical principles relevant to the litigation, which consolidates numerous lawsuits alleging that exposure to certain chemicals in firefighting foam caused cancer among firefighters and others.

During Science Day, experts from both parties are heard on topics such as the foam’s chemical composition, its potential carcinogenic effects, epidemiological studies, and other scientific evidence related to the case.

The purpose is to equip the judge with a solid understanding of the complex scientific matters that underpin the litigation, aiding in informed decision-making regarding expert testimony and other science-related legal issues.

So first, the plaintiffs must list the diseases they assert are linked to exposure. Following this, a series of deadlines have been established for both parties to exchange peer-reviewed articles supporting or disputing the associations between these diseases and the substance. The process culminates in a science day.

The CMO also discusses the selection of bellwether cases, setting a deadline of 60 days post-Science Day to propose how these representative cases will be chosen, guided by previous court directives.

The take-home message of all of this? We are not getting AFFF lawsuit trial dates in 2024.

Court Focuses More On Turnout Gear Claims

March 6, 2024

We have not talked much about the turnout gear PFAS claims. As the court becomes more focused on these claims, let’s take a closer look.

The case against the manufacturers of turnout gear involves allegations that exposure to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), which are chemicals used in the manufacturing of the protective clothing worn by firefighters, has led to various health issues, including cancer and other illnesses.

Firefighter turnout gear, also known as protective gear, is designed to shield firefighters from heat, flames, and chemical exposure during firefighting operations. So plaintiffs contend that the turnout gear, which contains PFAS, has exposed them to harmful chemicals, leading to adverse health effects such as cancer, liver damage, thyroid disease, and other injuries.

A new court order, Case Management Order No. 5F, establishes procedures for the creation, submission, and management of Plaintiff Fact Sheets specific to cases involving claims related to firefighter turnout gear.

The order mandates the creation of a specific Plaintiff Fact Sheet (PFS) tailored for cases involving claims against manufacturers of firefighter turnout gear. This is a new requirement for plaintiffs who are making these claims to fill out this fact sheet.

New Research Links Elevated PFAS Levels To Diets

February 25, 2024

New research indicates that diets high in processed meats, butter, and other foods could contribute to elevated levels of PFAS, known as “forever chemicals,” in the bloodstream over time. The study highlights a variety of food items, including teas, pork, candy, sports drinks, chips, and bottled water, as potential contributors to increased PFAS levels. Additionally, it was observed that individuals consuming more takeout or restaurant-prepared food tend to have higher PFAS blood levels.

Plaintiff’s Lawyers and BASF Enter Into Tolling Agreement

February 16, 2024

Plaintiffs’ lawyers and BASF entered into a tolling agreement this week in nine AFFF cases.

What is a tolling agreement? A tolling agreement is a legal arrangement where parties agree to suspend or extend the statute of limitations on a claim, essentially pausing the countdown that limits the time to bring a lawsuit. In the context of an MDL, tolling agreements are often used to streamline pretrial proceedings by allowing parties to focus on negotiations or settlement discussions without the pressure of impending deadlines, ensuring that claims are not dismissed due to the expiration of statutory time limits while the MDL process is ongoing.

New Study Finds Link Between PFOS And Thyroid Cancer

October 24, 2023

Individuals with elevated concentrations of a particular PFAS, called linear perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), have a heightened likelihood of being diagnosed with thyroid cancer, as indicated by a study soon to be released in eBioMedicine, a publication of The Lancet. This research found a 56% increased risk of thyroid cancer among those with higher levels of linear PFOS.

New Study Provides Strong Link Between AFFF And Testicular Cancer

October 5, 2023

This study is the strongest proof yet of the link between testicular cancer and AFFF. We had plenty of evidence already, though. This is like shooting a person who has already been shot five times.

Recent Study Links AFFF To Testicular Cancer

August 20, 2023

A recent study confirms what AFFF lawyers getting calls from victims have long understood: AFFF may elevate the risk of testicular cancer.

Former Air Force Firefighter Joins AFFF MDL

August 18, 2023

A new AFFF lawsuit, Jones v. 3M, et al., was directly filed last week in the AFFF MDL in South Carolina against the usual cast of characters.

The plaintiff, a 73-year-old Texas man, was exposed to fluorochemical products during his service as a firefighter with the Air Force. He alleges that he was diagnosed with prostate cancer from AFFF exposure, which has caused him to undergo a prostatectomy. His lawsuit seeks compensation for his pain, suffering, and other damages.

Most of our military AFFF lawsuits are from the Navy, but we also see cases from the Army and Air Force.

Judge Grants Unopposed Motion To Substitute Plaintiff

August 1, 2023

Judge Gergel granted an unopposed motion to substitute plaintiffs after an Alabama plaintiff died. The man’s daughter is now the plaintiff in a wrongful death lawsuit. It is a stark reminder that many plaintiffs in this litigation may never see their settlements.

Three Leading Companies To Create Billion Dollar Settlement Fund

June 2, 2023

Three leading companies, The Chemours Company, DuPont de Nemours, and Corteva, have reached a preliminary agreement to address PFAS-related drinking water claims involving public water systems. Together, they will create a $1.185 billion settlement fund, which will be divided based on their agreed contributions. The settlement is pending the final approval of the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. The deal excludes specific water systems.

Former Marine Files AFFF Lawsuit

March 7, 2023

A new AFFF firefighter lawsuit was filed this month. In Kent v. 3M, the plaintiff is a 62-year-old Deer Park, Texas, man. He was exposed to fluorochemical products while serving as a firefighter in the United States Marine Corps. This exposure led to his diagnosis of prostate cancer and subsequent prostatectomy. His firefighting foam lawsuit alleges he suffered personal injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress as the result of his exposure to fluorochemical products.

Plaintiff attorneys filed this complaint in accordance with Case Management Order No. 3, issued by Judge Richard M. Gergel. Judge Gergel is the AFFF class action lawsuit judge in South Carolina, which houses all federal AFFF suits. Under this order, the plaintiff designated the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas as the “home venue” for the case. His AFFF lawsuit asks that the case be transferred to the Southern District of Texas because the events or omissions leading to the claim occurred in Texas.

Information on Statute Of Limitations

February 3, 2023

Many victims do not contact us because they believe the statute of limitations deadline to file a lawsuit bars their claim. They correctly assume that the statute of limitations for filing an AFFF (Aqueous Film-Forming Foam) lawsuit is typically 2-3 years from the date of injury in most states.

But most states have a discovery rule critical to extending the deadline to file an AFFF lawsuit. What is the discovery rule? It is an exception to the statute of limitations that delays its running until the plaintiff knows, or through the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have known, of both the injury and its cause. In other words, the time limit for filing a personal injury lawsuit does not start until the plaintiff becomes aware of the injury and its connection to the defendant’s negligence.

The statute of limitations and discovery rule are complicated, with scores of exceptions. But many victims looking to file an AFFF lawsuit call us, believing they likely do not have a claim in 2024 when they absolutely do.

Occupational Medicine Reports Firefighters 60% More Likely To Die Of Cancer

January 12, 2023

A new study in the journal Occupational Medicine reports that firefighters are 60% more likely to die of cancer than the general population. The death rate for prostate cancer was four times higher, leukemia was three times higher, and kidney cancer was double the rate in the overall population. The researchers made the obvious point that carcinogenic chemicals in AFFF may be a primary contributing factor.

Retired Judge Layn Phillips Appointed Settlement Mediator

November 1, 2022

With the first bellwether trial set for 2024, a court-appointed settlement mediator has now been assigned to “facilitate and encourage” global settlement discussions between both sides. The mediator, retired judge Layn Phillips, will face a complex task given that the AFFF litigation involves cancer claims by individual firefighters and claims by local municipalities for contamination of the water supply.

An AFFF settlement will be a Herculean task because of the different types of claims—some are individual, and some are entire communities. Additional defendants will also have different views of what an appropriate AFFF settlement should look like. But there is the possibility of some AFFF settlements from this effort, which