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 as soon as possible so the applicable filing deadlines and settlement requirements can be evaluated. Call our law firm today at 800-553-8082 or get a free online consultation.

Paraquat Lawsuit Updates 2026

MDL Judge Pressures Settlement Holdouts

October 16, 2026

Judge Rosenstengel is increasing pressure on approximately 700 plaintiffs represented by one firm who have opted out of the global MDL Paraquat settlement. The parties announced a framework in April 2025, and the court identifies September 3, 2025, as the date the master settlement agreement was signed. The judge ordered that each plaintiff who opted out be given an opportunity to appear by video at upcoming court conferences. She wants to ensure these individuals understand the settlement offer, their options, and what happens next if they continue pursuing their lawsuits.

MDL judges want to get their cases settled, so this is not unusual. The judge will not order anyone to accept the settlement. But she is making clear that those who choose to continue litigating will have some hills to climb and must be prepared to move forward with more pretrial discovery and comply with some pretty onerous court deadlines.

Why an Average Settlement Is So Misleading

October 6, 2026

A settlement average sounds useful until you ask what went into it, and the answer is that no one really knows except the lawyers who negotiated the settlement. Because it depends on what cases are in the entire pool. We suspect that some cases our law firm quickly rejected because the exposure to Paraquat was so limited or questionable are included in this settlement. There is a mountain of difference between plaintiffs who personally sprayed Paraquat for twenty years and those who lived near a farm where Paraquat usage was suspected.

Federal Paraquat Litigation Still Has More Than 6,600 Pending Lawsuits

October 1, 2026

The October federal MDL statistics show 6,602 pending Paraquat cases. Many others are pending in state court, including over 2,000 in Philadelphia. Those cases are on a separate state court docket; whether a particular claim is covered by a settlement depends on the agreement and the plaintiff’s participation.

MDL Settlement Resistance Extends Across Several Law Firms

September 29, 2026

Swissinfo reports that at least three firms have client settlement rejection rates of 80% or higher. Using the court’s discovery selections and disclosed refusal figures, the publication estimates that more than 900 plaintiffs have declined offers.

Philadelphia State Court Case Dismissed

September 10, 2026

A Philadelphia state court judge dismissed a Paraquat lawsuit after finding that the plaintiff could not prove he was actually exposed to Paraquat.

The plaintiff had worked as a contractor at a New Jersey farm, but he was not an agricultural worker, did not work in the fields or with crops, and there was no testimony placing him near Paraquat when it was being applied. The court found that evidence showing Paraquat was used somewhere on the farm was not enough to establish exposure.

The ruling is not especially surprising. We have long understood that Paraquat cases become very difficult when the exposure evidence is vague or indirect. Few lawyers are taking the “drifter” cases everyone was pouncing on in the early days of the litigation. Here, the court rejected theories based on possible spray drift, crop dusting, and generalized testimony about Paraquat use in the area because those facts did not connect this plaintiff to a specific exposure.

Our law firm has focused on Paraquat cases with clearer evidence of exposure, including plaintiffs who personally mixed, sprayed, handled, or regularly worked around Paraquat. This should not meaningfully affect the litigation, although we do not know how many cases in the docket are like this.

More Pressure to Settle from Judge Rosenstengel

August 28, 2026

Judge Nancy Rosenstengel raised “serious concerns” about unusually high settlement opt-out rates in the Paraquat litigation, questioning whether some plaintiffs had been properly informed about the proposed settlement and whether their claims had been adequately vetted for confirmed Paraquat exposure and Parkinson’s disease.

During the hearing, the MDL judge pointed to cases involving missing plaintiff fact sheets, uncertain product exposure, and questions over whether some claimants actually had Parkinson’s disease. She also cited testimony suggesting that at least one plaintiff had never been informed about the settlement. Rosenstengel said the apparent deficiencies were unacceptable and ordered further review of the affected cases, with an in-person hearing expected next month.

The crazy thing is that we do not even know what the settlement amounts will be. People say the average confidential settlement will be between $100,000 and $110,000, but you really do not know what that means. No one knows what the average claim looks like, although the article reports estimated payments of roughly $100,000 per claimant. If they are paying on a lot of cases where there are missing fact sheets and uncertainty over whether they actually had Parkinson’s, as the judge suggests, you would hope the average would be a lot higher for cases with strong exposure and injury.

Who May Qualify for a Paraquat Lawsuit

Our law firm has focused on Paraquat cases with clear evidence of exposure. The strongest claims generally involve people who personally mixed, sprayed, handled, or regularly worked around Paraquat and were later diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease.

Exposure evidence matters. Employment records, application records, coworkers, purchase records, and other evidence tying a particular person to Paraquat can make a major difference. As the September 10, 2026 update above shows, cases become much harder when the exposure theory is vague or indirect.

You do not need every document before calling a lawyer. Useful evidence can include:

• Product identification: Gramoxone or another Paraquat product name, labels, photographs, purchase records, or application logs.
• Work history: Employers, job locations, dates, duties, and whether you mixed, loaded, sprayed, or cleaned equipment used for Paraquat.
• Witnesses: Coworkers, supervisors, or others who can identify the product and describe your work around it.
• Medical records: The Parkinson’s diagnosis, treating neurologist, symptom history, and treatment records.

Working on a farm is not a requirement. Direct exposure can occur in other vegetation control work, including along railroads. Living near agricultural spraying presents a different proof problem: we need evidence connecting you to Paraquat, not simply evidence that farming occurred nearby.

How the Paraquat Lawsuit Works

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

Thousands of Paraquat lawsuits have been filed in the federal MDL, with additional cases proceeding in state court. The federal cases are consolidated in MDL No. 3004 in the Southern District of Illinois. Below, we 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 also use Paraquat as a desiccant to keep crops dry and stable. Chevron started selling Paraquat in the U.S. in 1964.

This chemical is highly toxic. Swallowing even a small amount can be fatal. This has led most European countries to ban it outright. Paraquat is not federally banned in the United States. EPA continues to regulate it as a Restricted Use Pesticide that may be used only by trained certified applicators.

Evidence has emerged that prolonged Paraquat exposure may increase the risk of 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.

Syngenta, a Swiss-based agrochemical company, has been a major Paraquat manufacturer. In March 2026, it announced plans to end global production by the end of June. Other companies also manufacture Paraquat. 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 to consolidate the Paraquat claims. New calls to ban Paraquat in the UK over Parkinson’s disease risk

Projected Paraquat Settlement Amounts

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. the quality of the evidence identifying Paraquat and documenting the duration and frequency of exposure,
2. the strength of the medical and causation evidence, the severity of Parkinson’s disease, and its effect on the person’s life, and
3. the claims available under the governing law, expert rulings, and the practical risks of continuing toward trial.

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 rough case-level settlement ranges for viable claims may look like this. These are not estimates of the average MDL payment, and the current MDL average may be substantially lower. These are our lawyers’ valuation categories, not the confidential MDL settlement program’s official tiers or award schedule:

Remember, we are talking about expected Paraquat settlement amounts, not trial value. Our lawyers believe a strong Paraquat case could produce a jury award exceeding $10 million, with the possibility of more if punitive damages are available and supported by the evidence. That is our judgment, not an observed average of Paraquat verdicts.

Roundup and 3M earplug juries have returned substantial awards. Those original awards tell us something about how jurors respond to serious injuries and corporate conduct, even when a judge later reduces an award or an appellate court reverses it. But those cases involve different products, evidence, and legal issues. They inform our assessment; they do not provide a formula for a Paraquat recovery.

What do we expect the average Paraquat settlement will be? Based on what we know in 2026, our earlier projections were too high for the MDL as a whole. The settlement terms remain frustratingly confidential, but the rumors we are hearing suggest an average payment of roughly $100,000 to $110,000. We do not know what the average claim in that pool looks like, which is the key variable. So that number should not be treated as the value of a strong, well-documented case.

Strong direct-exposure cases may be worth materially more, especially outside the MDL. But until the settlement terms and tier criteria are public, we think the lower estimate is the more responsible number to use for the average MDL recovery.

So these projections are more for state court cases than the MDL. Our expectation is that state court cases, especially in Pennsylvania, will have higher average per-person settlement amounts than Paraquat lawsuits filed in the MDL. Maybe by a lot. That is our assessment of the cases and litigation, not a disclosed settlement schedule. It depends on which claims survive and the evidence available in those cases; state court itself offers no exemption from federal preemption.

Should You Accept a Paraquat Settlement Offer or Continue Your Case?

A settlement average cannot answer that question. Neither can the biggest verdict on this page. Your lawyer needs to explain why your particular offer makes sense, or why continuing the case may make more sense.

Start with the exposure evidence. A witness who can identify the product and describe years of spraying is different from a general recollection that someone used weed killer. Then look at the medical proof, the effect Parkinson’s has had on your life, and the legal obstacles your case still faces. Ask how the Supreme Court’s warning ruling changes the claims your lawyer expects to pursue.

Ask for the expected net payment after fees, expenses, and any liens, not just the gross offer. Ask what additional work and costs declining the offer would involve, what deadlines apply, and whether another offer is assured. Your health and the time you can tolerate waiting matter too. A serious recommendation should explain those tradeoffs with reference to your records and your offer. It should not rest on pressure to follow everyone else.

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 provide another comparison, but payments under a separate statutory settlement program do not establish the value of a Paraquat claim.

So, is there a stand-in injury for Parkinson’s disease that we can use as a settlement marker in tort cases, since it is an uncommon injury? 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 us look at settlement amounts and jury payouts for Parkinson’s and 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 do not 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.
• Cooley v. Lincoln Electric (Ohio 2009) $6,250,000 Jury Award Before Fault Reduction: A longtime welder alleged that manganese in welding fumes caused a disabling movement disorder. The jury awarded $1.25 million in compensatory damages and $5 million in punitive damages. It also assigned 37% of the fault to the plaintiff, reducing compensatory damages to $787,500 and leaving a combined award of $5,787,500. In a 2011 post-trial ruling, the district court rejected the defendants’ challenges to the punitive damages award. The case involved manganese-induced parkinsonism, a related movement disorder.
• Jowers v. Lincoln Electric (Mississippi 2008) $2,900,000 Jury Award Before Fault Reduction: A shipyard welder alleged that welding fumes caused manganese-induced parkinsonism. The jury awarded $1.2 million in compensatory damages and $1.7 million in punitive damages. After assigning him 40% of the fault, the compensatory award became $720,000. The Fifth Circuit upheld liability in 2010 but vacated the damages awards and ordered a new damages trial because the jury should have been allowed to consider the employer’s share of fault. The original verdict remains an example of how jurors evaluated the injury and warning evidence.
• Tamraz v. Lincoln Electric (Ohio 2007) $20,500,000 Verdict, Later Reversed: The plaintiff filed a welding rod product liability lawsuit alleging he developed Parkinson’s disease from exposure to manganese in welding fumes. A jury awarded $17.5 million to him and another $3 million to his wife. The Sixth Circuit reversed the verdict in 2010 because the trial court should not have admitted the causation opinion offered by one of his doctors. For the valuation question we are examining, the jury’s response still matters: jurors heard the evidence admitted at trial and placed a substantial value on the claimed injuries. That helps explain the potential trial exposure defendants consider, even though the award did not survive appeal.

These cases give us a lens on how juries value serious movement disorders and evidence that manufacturers failed to warn. The welding cases involved a different exposure, and parkinsonism is not interchangeable with Parkinson’s disease. Their jury awards inform our judgment about potential damages; they do not establish Paraquat causation or predict what any particular plaintiff will recover.

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 may still be able to file a Paraquat lawsuit even if your exposure occurred years or decades ago. All states have a statute of limitations that imposes a deadline for filing a civil tort action, such as a product liability claim. The deadline depends on the applicable state law and the facts of the claim.

Discovery rules may delay the start of a limitations period until the plaintiff knew or reasonably should have known of the injury and its possible connection to the exposure. The rule varies by state, and statutes of repose or other restrictions may also matter. Do not assume a recent diagnosis or recent knowledge of Paraquat litigation automatically makes a claim timely.

When a person reasonably should have connected Parkinson’s disease to Paraquat is a case-specific question. Plaintiffs allege that manufacturers failed to disclose the risk, but courts may also consider what information was available and when the person learned of a possible connection. 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.

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; they can only temporarily and partially relieve 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 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.

Our lawyers believe the scientific evidence supports these claims. Whether that evidence establishes causation, and whether the experts explaining it may testify, remain central disputes in the litigation. 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.

Residential exposure is also being studied, although proving an individual claim requires more than living near a farm. Researchers in an article in the American Journal of Epidemiology found that estimated residential exposure to both Paraquat and Maneb applied within 500 meters, approximately 1,640 feet, of the home was associated with a 75% increase in Parkinson’s disease risk.

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

• See, W.Z.C., Naidu, R., & Tang, K.S. (2022). Cellular and molecular events leading to paraquat-induced apoptosis: Mechanistic insights into Parkinson’s disease pathophysiology. Molecular Neurobiology, 59(6), 3353–3369. This review examined the biological mechanisms by which Paraquat triggers the death of dopaminergic neurons in a manner consistent with Parkinson’s disease pathology. The researchers identified multiple intracellular pathways involved in Paraquat-induced apoptosis, including oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction, endoplasmic reticulum stress, and disruption of neurotrophic factor levels. The review described how laboratory models using Paraquat reproduce key features of Parkinson’s disease at the cellular level and concluded that the selective neurotoxicity induced by Paraquat has materially advanced scientific understanding of how the disease develops.
• Pezzoli, G., & Cereda, E. (2013). Exposure to pesticides or solvents and risk of Parkinson’s disease. Neurology, 80(22), 2035–2041. This study examined environmental exposures and Parkinson’s disease risk, including pesticides such as Paraquat. The meta-analysis found an association between pesticide exposure and Parkinson’s disease, with results varying by exposure category and study design.
• Berry, C., La Vecchia, C., & Nicotera, P. (2010). Paraquat and Parkinson’s disease. Cell Death & Differentiation, 17(7), 1115-1125. This review examined the evidence linking Paraquat to Parkinson’s disease and the limitations of chemical models. Its statement that acute exposure can cause human parkinsonism referred to MPTP, a different chemical. The authors described the human epidemiological evidence for Paraquat available in 2010 as limited.
• 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 a 75 percent increase in Parkinson’s risk associated with estimated exposure to both Paraquat and maneb applied within 500 meters of the home. Results varied by age and exposure period, with stronger associations in some younger groups. The findings concern estimated pesticide exposure and an association with disease, rather than a finding that either pesticide alone caused a particular person’s 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 examined whether pesticides were associated with Parkinson’s disease. 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 had inadequate designs and 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 findings support a biological mechanism for Paraquat neurotoxicity, although a mouse experiment does not establish the cause of an individual person’s disease.
• 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.” These findings support investigating Paraquat exposure, but a population risk estimate does not by itself establish the cause of an individual patient’s disease.
• 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 rate of alpha-synuclein fibril formation.
• 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 Parkinson’s Disease Lawsuit FAQs

Below are frequently asked questions about the Paraquat litigation.

Sources and References

Selected sources used on this page include:

• U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, Paraquat Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3004
• Case Management Order No. 24, April 8, 2026, settlement information and Special Master access
• June 2, 2026 order selecting settlement opt-out cases for limited discovery
• U.S. EPA, Paraquat Dichloride registration and use restrictions
• See et al. (2022), Paraquat-induced apoptosis and Parkinson’s disease pathophysiology
• Costello et al. (2009), Parkinson’s disease and residential exposure to maneb and paraquat
• Tanner et al. (2011), Rotenone, Paraquat, and Parkinson’s disease
• Vaccari et al. (2019), systematic review and meta-analysis of Paraquat and Parkinson’s disease
• 2024 study on agricultural Paraquat use and Parkinson’s disease
• Sixth Circuit judgment reversing the Tamraz verdict, September 8, 2010
• Cooley v. Lincoln Electric, March 7, 2011 post-trial ruling
• Jowers v. Lincoln Electric, Fifth Circuit opinion, August 26, 2010
• Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, Supreme Court opinion, June 25, 2026
• April 17, 2024 order addressing plaintiffs’ general causation expert
• Syngenta announcement concerning the end of Paraquat production, March 3, 2026

Getting a Paraquat Lawyer

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