Paraquat Lawsuit Settlement Amounts

Our lawyers handle Paraquat lawsuits in all 50 states. This page provides the latest news and updates on Paraquat lawsuits in both state and federal courts. We also give our perspective on where this litigation is heading and provide projected settlement payouts for a viable Paraquat lawsuit.

People who have developed Parkinson’s disease from Paraquat want to better understand the range of settlement amounts they can expect in their Paraquat lawsuit.

The expected Paraquat settlement amounts will fluctuate as the litigation progresses. Our lawyers will continue to update this page with revised payout projections.

If you have a potential claim, you want to have that claim prepared before any Paraquat settlement.  Call our law firm today at 800-553-8082 or get a free online consultation.

Paraquat Lawsuit Updates 2025

Settlement Pause in Paraquat MDL

May 13, 2025

The MDL judge was notified that lead counsel for both plaintiffs and the defendants had agreed to a settlement in the MDL. The judge issued a 30-day stay on all case-specific discovery deadlines to allow time to finalize the deal. The parties must update the court no later than June 11, 2025.

Again, the battle in state court continues. There is hope that a settlement is imminent, but the MDL deal will have to be finalized first.

Update Case Counts in MDL

May 1, 2025

The Paraquat MDL in the Southern District of Illinois, under Chief Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel, had 6,036 active cases as of May 1, 2025. As we discussed in our previous update, this litigation is nearing a settlement in federal court. However, the battle continues in state courts, such as those in California, Illinois, and Pennsylvania. Our lawyers are still—for now—taking new cases. 

Heading Toward Settlement in the MDL

April 15, 2025

On April 14, 2025, the lawyers filed a joint motion requesting that the Seventh Circuit hold their appeal in abeyance. The parties informed the Court that they had entered into a signed settlement framework that could resolve this case and many others in the MDL.

Because this potential resolution could eliminate the need for appellate review, the parties believe a stay would promote judicial economy.   Judge Rosenstengel has no objection to the request.

They propose filing a joint status report 60 days after the Court issues its stay order. Depending on the progress, they will later either dismiss the appeal or resume proceedings.

Plaintiff Wants Back in the Litigation

April 2, 2025:  An objection was filed in the Paraquat multidistrict litigation (MDL) in response to a Special Master’s recommendation to dismiss certain cases for failure to submit a required Plaintiff Assessment Questionnaire (PAQ). One of the cases listed had not submitted the PAQ by the deadline, but the plaintiff’s attorneys argue they made multiple attempts to contact their client without success. After finally reestablishing contact, they promptly completed and filed the necessary PAQ. They now ask the court to allow the case to continue rather than dismiss it.

In this MDL, timely submission of a PAQ is essential to keep a claim active.   The judge is not tolerating nonsense. But in this situation, the delay appears to stem more from a communication breakdown than from bad faith or neglect. Now that the filing has been completed, and in light of the attorney’s diligence and the fact that dismissal would only delay the inevitable refiling of the case, this is one of those instances where fairness supports letting the plaintiff off the mat. Keeping the case alive avoids unnecessary burden on the court and advances justice, resolving claims on their merits.

MDL Holds at 5,859 Cases Despite Upcoming Dismissals

April 1, 2025: The Paraquat MDL (MDL No. 3004) currently sits at 5,859 pending cases in the Southern District of Illinois. While 21 new filings were added in February, over 100 dismissals are expected due to noncompliance with Plaintiff Assessment Questionnaire (PAQ) deadlines. These case dismissals come after multiple warnings and reflect a continued push to eliminate weak or inactive claims.  As we have been saying, this is a good development for plaintiffs with strong cases.

A June 2025 trial in Philadelphia looms, adding pressure on defendants Syngenta and Chevron to consider a settlement, which many expect we will see in 2025.

Paraquat Settlement Rumors

March 29,  2025: We are hearing rumors about a deal being close. We are also hearing from lawyers “who you would think would know” that do not have any information. So we are still trying to figure it out. If you have a potential claim, you want to call a lawyer yesterday. Stay tuned.

Why Weeding Out Weak Paraquat Lawsuits Benefits You

February 15, 2025: Lately, there’s been a lot of buzz—both in the legal media and within the litigation—about the sheer number of poorly vetted Paraquat lawsuits making their way into the MDL. Some see this as a knock on some of the lawyers filing these cases. Maybe. But it has nothing to do with the legitimacy of the Paraquat claims themselves. The reality? The system is working exactly as it should. The judge overseeing the MDL is actively filtering out cases that never should have been filed in the first place. And that’s actually good news if you have a strong Paraquat case. The last thing you want is for weaker claims to dilute the litigation. A more refined docket—one with fewer, high-quality cases—makes it easier to secure meaningful settlements and move the litigation forward to benefit legitimate plaintiffs.

As we dig deeper into 2025, there is a palpable sense of anticipation in the air surrounding the Paraquat litigation. After years of legal battles, expert testimonies, and mounting evidence linking this herbicide to Parkinson’s disease, we are now on the cusp of a defining moment. The very first Paraquat trial is scheduled for June in Philadelphia, and the stakes could not be higher.

Chevron and Syngenta, the corporate giants at the heart of this controversy, face an intense and growing wave of pressure. With a jury trial looming, the risks are monumental. Juries tend to favor individuals over corporations in cases like these, particularly when the evidence paints a disturbing picture of corporate negligence and public harm. The unpredictability of a courtroom battle—where a single verdict could set a precedent and spark a flood of additional claims—is a nightmare scenario for these companies.

The billion-dollar question now is whether Chevron and Syngenta will attempt to contain the damage by settling just this one case or will take a broader approach and negotiate a global settlement that resolves the bulk of these lawsuits in one fell swoop. Our firm expectation—and sincere hope—is the latter. These companies have every reason to want to put this litigation behind them, and quickly.

Adding even more urgency to the situation is the shifting political landscape. With Robert F. Kennedy Jr. set to take over HHA, the conversation around toxic chemicals and corporate accountability is set to reach new heights. RFK Jr. has built his career on environmental advocacy, and his presence in the White House ensures that Paraquat—and the broader issue of pesticide safety—will be under an even more powerful microscope (we think, anyway). If this case proceeds to trial and results in a massive verdict against Chevron and Syngenta, it could ignite real change in how pesticides are regulated in this country.

Below are frequently asked questions about the Paraquat litigation:

Paraquat Lawsuit

Hundreds of farmworkers and people who worked near oil tanks and railroads have filed lawsuits alleging that occupational exposure to the industrial herbicide paraquat (grameoxone) caused or contributed to the plaintiff’s development of Parkinson’s disease.

There are now nearly 6,000 Paraquat lawsuits in the MDL, and many more are being filed in state court (see the June 13, 2024 update above).  A Parkinson’s disease class action MDL has already been established to accommodate them. In this post, we will look at how much a Paraquat lawsuit might end up being worth by comparing it to settlements in prior mass product cases involving similar claims and in prior tort lawsuits in which the plaintiff developed Parkinson’s.

About the Paraquat Lawsuits

Paraquat is an industrial-strength herbicide that has been around since the 1960s. It is used to control weeds and grasses in agricultural areas. It is also used as a defoliant, removing leaves from trees and plants.  Some farmers will use Paraquat as a desiccant, too, to keep the crops dry and stable.  Chevron started selling Paraquat in the U.S. in 1964.

This chemical is highly toxic.  A teaspoon will kill you. This has led most European countries to ban it outright. In the United States, however, Paraquat is not banned and is widely utilized by large commercial farmers.

Evidence has emerged that prolonged Paraquat exposure can lead to early-onset Parkinson’s disease. Studies have found that agricultural workers who are exposed to Paraquat over long periods have a significantly higher rate of developing Parkinson’s disease. People who live near farms where Paraquat is applied also showed increased rates of Parkinson’s disease.

Paraquat is manufactured by Syngenta, a Swiss agrochemical company. There is evidence indicating that Syngenta was aware of the causal link between paraquat and Parkinson’s for years but deliberately concealed it. Now farm workers exposed to Paraquat and subsequently diagnosed with Parkinson’s are filing product liability lawsuits against Syngenta and its U.S. distributors.

Thousands of Paraquat Parkinson’s lawsuits have been filed, and a Paraquat MDL (Paraquat Prod. Liab. Lit., MDL 3004) was created in the Southern District of Illinois for consolidated handling of the Paraquat claims. New calls to ban Paraquat in the UK over Parkinson’s disease risk

Paraquat Litigation Should Result in a “Global Settlement”

At this early phase of the Paraquat Parkinson’s disease litigation, it is impossible to know how much Paraquat lawsuit settlements might be worth. Because an MDL has already been created for the Paraquat claims, our Paraquat lawyers expect this litigation to follow a familiar course in other class action lawsuits we have seen.

The Parkinson’s Disease Paraquat exposure MDL oversees a consolidated fact discovery process. This will focus on the scientific evidence for both sides. During this phase, newly filed paraquat cases will be added to the MDL.

At the end of the consolidated civil discovery phase, the MDL judge will work with lawyers for both sides to select a handful of representative cases for jury trials.

These are known as “bellwether trials” and the results of these trials are generally used to facilitate global settlement negotiations with the defendants.

If the bellwether trials result in major victories for the plaintiffs, Syngenta may be forced to agree to pay large settlement amounts for the remaining Paraquat claims. In consolidated mass torts, this is called a “global settlement.”

Key Variables for a Paraquat Lawsuit Settlement

The battlefield in the Paraquat Parkinson’s disease lawsuits is over how much the settlement compensation payouts should be.  Syngenta, Chevron, and other co-defendants are fighting to pay the smallest settlement amounts possible.

The individual Paraquat settlement amounts will depend on several things, including:

1. how many Paraquat claims get filed and consolidated into the MDL,
2. how strong the scientific causation evidence is for the plaintiffs between Paraquat exposure and Parkinson’s disease, and
3. the results of the initial bellwether trials.

Estimated Paraquat Lawsuit Settlement Payout Amount

Despite all these variables that will impact the eventual payout value on Paraquat cases, our lawyers can estimate – or at least try to estimate –  reasonable individual Parkinson’s disease settlement payouts. Our lawyers do this by looking at settlement payouts in prior mass torts and an assessment of the likelihood a jury would find the Paraquat defendants responsible.  Our attorneys also look at the settlement compensation for Parkinson’s disease in tort cases generally.

Based on these points of comparison, our Paraquat lawyers think that the likely settlement payout on Paraquat claims will be as follows:

Remember, we are talking about expected Paraquat settlement amounts, not trial value.  The average successful verdict in an individual Paraquat lawsuit would likely be more than $10 million, with the possibility of much more in punitive damages.   Does that sound too high?

Remember, the average successful verdict in the Roundup lawsuits was well over $500 million.  In the 3M earplug lawsuit, where the claim is a hearing-related injury, the average individual jury payout is well over $10 million.   Parkinson’s disease is a far more serious injury.  So, an average jury compensation payout estimated at $10 million might be on the low side.

What do we expect the average Paraquat settlement will be?  We think the average settlement will be in the $600,000 to $900,000 range.  Where our attorneys think it will fall within that range depends in large measure on what the floor cutoff is in terms of viability.  The defendants might want a settlement that covers all plaintiffs, or they might just want to settle the strongest cases.  Our best guess is that it will be the latter, which will decrease the average payout.

Looking back at this in 2025…we think victims will see more significant Paraquat settlements than we predict here.  There should be many cases that break the million-dollar settlement barrier.

Settlement Amounts in Mass Torts Similar to Paraquat

Our first point of comparison for the estimated settlement values above is the settlement payouts in prior consolidated mass torts that have similarities to the Paraquat litigation. Our most recent example to draw from is the Roundup settlement.

In the Roundup litigation, Bayer is paying around $10 billion to settle about 100,000 cases and setting aside another $6 billion for future Roundup claims. Individual Roundup plaintiffs are getting payouts of around $100,000 to $150,000. But lawsuits in the highest tier are getting much larger settlement amounts than the average.

The Roundup litigation is similar to Paraquat because both involve herbicide products. The alleged injuries are different because Roundup involves cancer claims, whereas Paraquat plaintiffs are alleging Parkinson’s.

Between the two, cancer is a higher-value injury. Despite this difference, Roundup is probably the best comp for the Paraquat litigation, although our lawyers predict higher settlement amounts for Paraquat because we believe the case’s merits are even stronger in the Paraquat class action. (And, frankly, the smaller number of plaintiffs and multiple defendants grease the wheels of a larger settlement.

Settlement Amounts in Lawsuits Involving Parkinson’s Disease

Our other comparative point for valuing the paraquat cases is the settlement value of other tort cases in which Parkinson’s disease was the plaintiff’s primary injury.

Parkinson’s is difficult to value because it is not a common injury in personal injury claims.  Camp Lejeune Parkinson’s disease lawsuits are now also being filed But there are only two settlement amounts (average settlement: $$325,000) so far in that litigation.

So, the next question is, is there a stand-in injury for Parkinson’s disease, because it is an uncommon injury in tort cases that we can use as a settlement marker?  Tardive dyskinesia is similar enough that settlement amounts in those lawsuits might give us a lens to Parkinson’s disease settlement amounts.  Our lawyers have had some experience in those cases.  So let’s look at settlement amounts and jury payouts for tardive dyskinesia because it is a similar injury to Parkinson’s disease.

• Watters v Qin (Arizona 2024) $335,669 Verdict: The defendant allegedly was stalking the plaintiff (a justice of the peace). The defendant slashed the plaintiff’s tires, drove by her house and shouted threats 2 or 3 times per day, trespassed on her property, and engaged in other types of harassment. The plaintiff alleged that the stress of this harassment exacerbated her pre-existing Parkinson’s disease. This gives us an idea of how a jury values “Parkinson’s symptoms aggravation.”
• Axe v Spring Meadows (Pennsylvania 2018) $215,000 Settlement: The plaintiff was 73 years old and alleged that he developed tardive dyskinesia from medications given to him by a nursing home. Why was the settlement payout so low? I don’t know.
• Plaintiff v Defendant (New York 2017) $1,400,000 Settlement: Plaintiff (mid-30s) develops tardive dyskinesia from antipsychotic medication used to treat her bipolar disorder and sues the doctor who prescribed it.
• Soref v Agresti (Florida 2017) $569,000 Verdict: A female in her mid-20s with a history of drug abuse claims bipolar drugs cause her to develop tardive dyskinesia.
• Tamaraz v Lincoln Electric (Ohio 2007) $20,500,000 Verdict: This is a rare jury payout involving a Parkinson’s disease case. The plaintiff filed a welding rod product liability lawsuit alleging he developed Parkinson’s disease from exposure to manganese in welding rods. A jury awarded $17.5 million to him and another $3 million to his wife.  This verdict underscores the high potential compensation payouts a jury might give in a Parkinson’s disease case.

These cases (particularly the welding rod case) are suggestive of the type of verdict we might expect to see in Paraquat bellwether trials. These compensation awards support the settlement payout valuation estimates above.

Paraquat Lawsuits Can be Filed Decades After the Plaintiff’s Exposure

If you were recently diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease that may be related to Paraquat,  you can still file a paraquat lawsuit today, even if your exposure to Paraquat occurred years or even decades ago. All states have a statute of limitations that imposes a deadline for filing a civil tort action for things such as product liability. The applicable statute of limitations period for a tort claim ranges from 1 to 7 years, depending on the state.

The applicable SOL period does not begin to run, however, until the plaintiff either knew or had reason to know that they had a claim. For a paraquat lawsuit, this means that the SOL period would not begin to run until the plaintiff knew or “should have known” that they had Parkinson’s disease and that it might have been caused by exposure to paraquat.

The connection between paraquat exposure and Parkinson’s disease is something that a reasonable person would not be expected to know. This is particularly true because the companies that made and sold paraquat deliberately failed to warn about the link between paraquat and Parkinson’s. Most of the plaintiffs in the Paraquat and Parkinson’s disease litigation are bringing their claims based on exposure that occurred a very long time ago.

Link Between Paraquat and Parkinson’s Disease

Parkinson’s disease is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder of the brain that affects primarily the motor system, the part of the central nervous system that controls movement.

The characteristic symptoms of Parkinson’s disease are its “primary” motor symptoms: resting tremor; bradykinesia (slowness in voluntary movement and reflexes); rigidity; and postural instability. There is currently no cure for Parkinson’s disease. Existing treatments do not slow or stop their progression; such treatments are capable only of temporarily and partially relieving the motor symptoms. These treatments also have unwelcome side effects the longer they are used.

Paraquat is a toxic chemical that is a highly effective plant killer. Unfortunately, the same properties that make paraquat toxic to plant cells also make it highly damaging to human nerve cells and create a substantial risk to anyone who uses it.

Oxidative stress is a major factor in—if not the precipitating cause of—the degeneration and death of dopaminergic neurons, which is the primary pathophysiological cause of Parkinson’s disease. Paraquat is designed to injure and kill plants by creating oxidative stress, which causes or contributes to the degeneration and death of plant cells. Similarly, Paraquat injures and kills animals by creating oxidative stress, which causes the degeneration and death of animal cells.

The causal link between Paraquat and Parkinson’s disease is well established.  Hundreds of animal studies involving various routes of exposure have found that paraquat creates oxidative stress that results in pathophysiology consistent with that seen in human Parkinson’s disease.

Many epidemiological studies have also found an association between Paraquat exposure and Parkinson’s disease, including multiple studies finding a two-to-five-fold or greater increase in the risk of Parkinson’s disease in populations with occupational exposure to paraquat compared to populations without such exposure.

You do not have to work on a farm to have a viable Paraquat lawsuit. Researchers in an article in the American Journal of Epidemiology found that exposure to Paraquat or Maneb within 1600 feet of your home causes a 75% increase in the risk of getting Parkinson’s disease.

Here are the key articles on Paraquat exposure and Parkinson’s disease with a summary of the findings:

• Berry, C., La Vecchia, C., & Nicotera, P. (2010). Paraquat and Parkinson’s disease. Cell Death & Differentiation, 17(7), 1115-1125. This study looked at the’ role of pesticides in causing Parkinson’s disease. The researchers report that acute chemical exposure was “sufficient” to cause Parkinson’s.
• Costello, S., et al. (2009). Parkinson’s disease and residential exposure to maneb and paraquat from agricultural applications in the central valley of California. American journal of epidemiology, 169(8), 919-926.  This study examined whether living near pesticide-using farms was associated with Parkinson’s. The researchers found that living within 500 feet of farms that used paraquat and maneb increased one’s Parkinson’s risk by 75 percent. They also found that people younger than 60 were at significantly higher risk. The researchers concluded that their findings show that exposure to paraquat and maneb, whether alone or combined, significantly increased the Parkinson’s.
• Di Monte, D.A. (2003). The environment and Parkinson’s disease: is the nigrostriatal system preferentially targeted by neurotoxins? The Lancet Neurology, 2(9), 531-538. This report concluded that a multidisciplinary approach to Parkinson’s etiology would help determine whether environmental exposure may cause the disease.
• Firestone, J. A., et al. (2005). Pesticides and Risk of Parkinson’s Disease: a population-based case-control study. Archives of Neurology, 62(1), 91-95.  This study looked at whether pesticides were associated with Parkinson’s. The researchers interviewed 250 Parkinson’s patients and 388 non-Parkinson’s patients. They assessed their self-reported pesticide exposures. The researchers also categorized the patients by occupation. They found that pesticide workers were more likely to develop Parkinson’s compared to crop, animal, and dairy farmers. The researchers concluded their findings were consistent with other studies that found an association between pesticides and Parkinson’s.
• Mandel, J. S., Adami, H. O., & Cole, P. (2012). Paraquat and Parkinson’s disease: an overview of the epidemiology and a review of two recent studies. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 62(2), 385-392. The report evaluated two studies that evaluated the association of pesticide exposure with Parkinson’s. The researchers found that the studies created inadequate designs that examined very few exposed patients. They also reported that their results were inconsistent. The researchers concluded that these two studies fail to prove an association between pesticides and Parkinson’s. They also concluded that more rigorous studies were needed for confirmation.
• McCormack, A. L., et al. (2002). Environmental risk factors and Parkinson’s disease: selective degeneration of nigral dopaminergic neurons caused by the herbicide paraquat. Neurobiology of Disease, 10(2), 119-127.  This study looked at whether Paraquat exposure caused Parkinson’s disease symptoms in mice. The researchers injected mice with the herbicide. They found that this caused dopaminergic neuron death, a Parkinson’s disease symptom. The researchers concluded that the findings show that Paraquat neurotoxicity caused a prominent physiological response to Parkinson’s.
• Stephenson, J. (2000). Exposure to home pesticides linked to Parkinson’s disease. JAMA, 283(23), 3055-3056. This article reported on the association between home or garden exposures to pesticides and Parkinson’s.
• Stykel, M.G., et al. (2018). Nitration of microtubules blocks axonal mitochondrial transport in a human pluripotent stem cell model of Parkinson’s disease. The FASEB Journal, 32(10), 5350-5364. This study looked at mechanisms showing that pesticide exposure disrupted cells in a manner that mimicked Parkinson ’s-associated mutations. The researchers concluded that their results were the first to demonstrate a gene that triggered mitochondrial transport deficits during pesticide exposure.  Here is the money quote from one of the authors: “People exposed to these chemicals are at about a 250-percent higher risk of developing Parkinson’s disease than the rest of the population.”  So most people who have Parkinson’s disease from Paraquat would not have had Parkinson’s disease without Paraquat exposure.
• Tanner, C. M., et al. (2011). Rotenone, Paraquat, and Parkinson’s disease. Environmental health perspectives, 119(6), 866-872. This study examined whether pesticides that caused oxidative stress or mitochondrial dysfunction were associated with Parkinson’s in humans. The researchers found that paraquat and rotenone were associated with Parkinson’s.
• Uversky, V.N., et al. (2002). Synergistic effects of pesticides and metals on the fibrillation of α-synuclein: implications for Parkinson’s disease. Neurotoxicology, 23(4-5), 527-536. This study looked at a novel model that determined environmental factors and genetic susceptibility that formed the underlying molecular basis of idiopathic Parkinson’s. The researchers found that some pesticides and metals caused conformational alpha-synuclein changes and accelerated the alpha-synuclein fibrils rate.
• Vaccari, C., et al. (2019). Paraquat and Parkinson’s disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part B, 22(5-6), 172-202. This systematic review looked at literature and meta-analysis involving paraquat’s exposure to Parkinson’s. The researchers found that the current data suggest a positive association between Paraquat exposure and Parkinson’s. However, they concluded that the evidence was insufficient to indicate a causal association. The researchers reported that better-designed studies were needed.

Paraquat Defense Lawyers Lost an Arrow in Their Quiver

Paraquat exposure to Parkinson’s disease lawsuits is considered by mass tort lawyers to be strong cases.  Victims’ attorneys believe proving the defendant’s responsibility will be as easy as any major class action lawsuit in 2025.  That is why Paraquat lawyers are spending a fortune online trying to market for Paraquat lawsuits.

The last time a Paraquat lawsuit was set for trial, the defendants quickly settled those lawsuits.  The speculation is that the settlement compensation payouts in those claims were very high.  That fueled many Paraquat lawyers to jump into the Parkinson’s disease pesticide exposure cases.  So I expect that the defendants will settle any solid Paraquat lawsuit heading towards trial.

The defendants’ only hope, in my mind, of getting out of this litigation without paying huge jury payouts or settlement compensation, is that these lawsuits never see a jury.  The path to that outcome was for Bayer to win its appeal in the Roundup litigation.

Bayer argued Roundup lawsuits should be preempted by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.  Bayer lost.  This verdict makes the Paraquat class action lawsuit that much stronger.

Getting a Paraquat Lawyer

If you have a potential Paraquat Parkinson’s disease lawsuit, let’s talk about your claim and your options.  Call our toxic exposure lawyers at 800-553-8082 or get a free online consultation.