Firefighting Foam AFFF Lawsuit (April 2025)

The AFFF multidistrict litigation (MDL) added 338 new lawsuits in February alone, raising the total number of active cases to 8,430. As talk of a potential settlement continues to build, more individuals affected by AFFF exposure are filing claims to ensure their injuries are represented in any future settlement. If you’re thinking about pursuing an AFFF-related lawsuit, this could be the right time to act. The team at Dolman Law Group offers free consultations to help you understand your legal options.

Based on a recent order from the MDL judge, the lawyers for both plaintiffs and defendants have agreed to include three more ulcerative colitis claims in the discovery pool. These cases are being considered for upcoming bellwether trials, which are designed to test key issues in the litigation. The court will select which of these claims move forward to trial after discovery is complete—unless a broader settlement is reached first.

Following the resolution and removal of municipal water reservoir lawsuits from the MDL, the total number of active cases saw a decline. However, January brought a surge in filings, with 459 new cases added, pushing the total to 8,092. This increase has fueled speculation that a comprehensive settlement may be in the works, prompting attorneys to encourage injured plaintiffs to take action now to ensure they are included in potential settlement discussions.

Since most settlements come with a firm deadline for eligible claims, waiting too long to file a lawsuit for AFFF firefighting foam-related injuries could mean missing out. Contact the AFFF team at Dolman Law Group today to find out if you have a valid claim and how to join the ongoing litigation before time runs out.

Groundbreaking research has highlighted a potential connection between PFAS chemicals and neurological and behavioral health issues. This discovery could play a key role in the ongoing AFFF litigation, where plaintiffs’ attorneys aim to establish the dangerous effects of PFAS on firefighters’ well-being.

In Arizona, one firefighter has filed a lawsuit citing repeated bouts of testicular cancer, which he believes stem from years of AFFF exposure beginning in 2002. Similarly, a retired firefighter from New York alleges that prolonged AFFF use during his 30-plus years with the Yonkers Fire Department caused his thyroid disease. In both cases, the men’s spouses have joined the lawsuits, seeking compensation for the strain on their relationships and the impact on their overall quality of life.

Decades of alleged misconduct by DuPont and 3M suggest a strong likelihood that juries may impose punitive damages on these companies to hold them accountable for prioritizing profits over public safety.

Historical evidence highlights troubling actions by these corporations. In the 1960s, DuPont reportedly recognized the dangers of AFFF, advising its workers to exercise extreme caution when handling these substances. By the 1970s, studies had identified contaminated fish in areas surrounding 3M chemical plants. During the 1980s, DuPont removed all female employees from its PFAS production facility after several workers gave birth to children with severe deformities.

Despite mounting evidence of the health and environmental risks associated with these chemicals, both companies continued producing AFFF, contributing to harm over a span of more than 60 years. The potential for significant punitive damage awards should incentivize these corporations to seek pretrial settlements. At the same time, additional firefighter claims are being added to the MDL every month.

If you’ve been exposed to AFFF firefighting foam and diagnosed with a serious medical condition, contact the Dolman Law Group mass tort team today to explore your options.

The first bellwether trial is set for next October, but before trial preparations get into full swing, the court will focus on whether the plaintiffs’ experts will be allowed to testify about the scientific connection between AFFF exposure and cancer. Since settlement is still a possibility anytime before a verdict is rendered, the question is whether the defendants will try to settle these cases before the court rules on the expert testimony or after.

Defendants may pay less if they settle while more issues are pending, but if they wait until after the court rules on the experts’ involvement, there may be fewer cases to resolve. Because the main defendant in this litigation, 3M, has taken an unyielding position, our team at Dolman Law Group is not optimistic that a global settlement will happen before the expert ruling.

Twenty-eight hundred cases were dismissed from the MDL in October. We assume these claims were municipality water contamination lawsuits that were settled last year, not firefighter or military injury claims. If you were diagnosed with a serious medical condition after AFFF exposure, reach out to our product liability team to learn more about your legal options.

As this litigation moves forward, the next important issue is whether the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses can offer scientific testimony at the upcoming bellwether trials. The plaintiffs have provided their expert reports, and the defendants will contest their admissibility under what is known as a Daubert challenge. The court will decide if the experts’ scientific testimony is sufficiently relevant and reliable to allow the experts to testify. If the evidence does not pass Daubert standards, the testimony could be barred completely or restricted.

The AFFF team at Dolman Law Group is confident the scientific evidence will qualify, and the experts will be allowed to testify. Assuming the court rules this way, the defendants will be more likely to settle these cases and not risk going to trial. In the meantime, the court has entered a new order that sets a schedule for all remaining discovery, expert witness issues, and other pretrial preparations. The first bellwether cases are scheduled to begin on October 6, 2025.

Most of the municipal water source contamination cases were settled last October. However, cases involving telomerization were excluded because of the process used to reduce the levels of PFAS in the AFFF that contaminated the water. Now, the first telomer water provider case is set for trial on March 3, 2025. Once these cases are settled or tried, the team at Dolman Law Group expects the personal injury claims brought by firefighters and military members based on direct exposure to AFFF will finally be addressed.

Looking ahead to the Tier Two trials (which are not yet scheduled), the court entered an order allowing both sides to add more witnesses to their trial lists. Within 14 days of receiving the new list, the other side can request depositions of the new witnesses

Another firefighter has filed an AFFF claim in the MDL. The plaintiff alleges he was exposed to AFFF during firefighter training and by consuming contaminated water in Virginia. The named defendants include 3M, DuPont, and Chemours.

August was a slow month, but that is common with mass tort litigation. The next case management conference is set for September 13th, and we expect the court will continue moving these cases to trial and/or encouraging settlement discussions to resolve the MDL in 2025. At Dolman Law Group, our team still expects the defendants will likely settle these claims rather than risk the uncertainties a jury trial can bring. We expect strong settlement discussions in the coming months.

A research team at the University of Arizona studied a town located near a Washington State military base that used AFFF foam. The study revealed that people living near the base showed an abnormally high level of PFAS chemicals in their blood. This evidence showing the dangers of AFFF exposure can strengthen the plaintiffs’ claims in this litigation.

One of the defendants in the AFFF Multidistrict Litigation has reached a settlement with its main insurer. Tyco Fire Products and AIG Insurers have a preliminary settlement agreement that will help Tyco fund the pending $750 million settlement involving municipal water contamination. With these funds, Tyco can also contribute to a global settlement related to individual injury claims.

In the past several weeks, 327 lawsuits have left the MDL, probably because they have been settled out of court. At the same time, Massachusetts has announced a new law banning all PFSA chemicals in firefighting gear by 2027. This state joins several other states that have passed laws to protect firefighters and others exposed to AFFF.

The Dolman Law Group team is carefully watching the events as they unfold in the pending AFFF multidistrict litigation (MDL). Lately, several plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed their pending claims and left the AFFF lawsuit. One reason a plaintiff may dismiss their own case is that they have reached a settlement with the defendant. While we hope plaintiffs are finally receiving financial justice, we can’t be sure these cases are settling since the terms are usually held in confidence.

In an effort to ease the MDL court’s burden, lawyers for injured plaintiffs have suggested limiting the first bellwether trials to plaintiffs in Pennsylvania facing kidney or testicular cancers or victims in Colorado who are suffering from thyroid cancer or ulcerative colitis that is linked to AFFF exposure. The court chose nine of the plaintiffs’ eleven proposed cases as the first round of bellwether trials.

The defendants offered eleven different cases, but the court did not choose any of their suggestions. As we approach these test cases, we expect to see more settlement discussions and, hopefully, fair resolutions.

Active AFFF lawsuits rose significantly, jumping from 8,270 in June to 9,198 as of July 2, 2024. A recently filed lawsuit involves a resident of Kentucky who alleges severe personal injuries, including thyroid disease, due to AFFF exposure.

The plaintiff, a volunteer and contract firefighter since 2015, claims that his thyroid disease, along with the resulting pain, suffering, and emotional distress, was caused by these products.

He was exposed to AFFF while serving at the Greater Naples Fire Rescue, Caneyville Volunteer Fire Department, and Irvington Fire Department.

The complaint highlights the well-established link between PFAS-containing AFFF products and thyroid cancer.

While the court continues to move Tier 1 cases along, both sides are working on a Case Management Order for Tier 2 cases. Tier 1 lawsuits involve plaintiffs who suffer from kidney cancer, testicular cancer, hypothyroidism, thyroid disease, or ulcerative colitis related to AFFF exposure. Tier 2 cases include plaintiffs with less severe cancers and lower AFFF exposure.

The parties requested 15 additional days to submit the order addressing how Tier 2 cases will be sorted and prepared for bellwether trials. This short filing extension should not affect the MDL’s progress or other important milestones.

In April, 323 new AFFF personal injury lawsuits joined this MDL. While new filings dropped from March’s record of nearly 570 new lawsuits, the total number of pending claims is now over 8,000.

There are now 7,738 personal injury lawsuits pending in the AFFF Multidistrict Litigation (MDL). The court is looking for an agreed procedure to choose bellwether trials later this year. However, we don’t expect any trials to begin in 2024. A bellwether trial is a “test trial” that gives both sides a feel for how litigation will turn out and hopefully lead to a global settlement. In the meantime, some insurance companies are trying to dodge responsibility for any wrongdoing on the part of Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. (KFI), another named defendant.

Most of the municipal water treatment cases against AFFF makers 3M, Dupont, and other defendants were resolved by a $10.3 billion settlement in 2023. The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California opted out of that settlement and is now appealing the court’s decision to approve the settlement. The other plaintiffs claim that once the District opted out, it lost the right to appeal. So, although we thought the municipal cases were done, the fighting continues. The outcome of this appeal will not affect the personal injury cases we are handling.

Another AFFF lawsuit was recently added to the Multidistrict Litigation (MDL). The latest case was filed by a state-certified firefighter in Nevada who was exposed to AFFF for five years during the 1990s and developed bladder cancer in 2021. All pending cases are scheduled for a status conference today in front of Judge Gergel. We hope to receive news about settlement opportunities later this year.

AFFF manufacturers Chemguard, 3M, and Tyco Fire Products want to add a new lawsuit to the pending MDL. The case in question was filed by the Connecticut attorney general and seeks to limit PFAS chemical use. It is not a personal injury lawsuit, and it has no place in the MDL. We hope the judge will refuse to admit this case and keep the focus on the individual plaintiffs who deserve compensation for their AFFF-related injuries.

In nine other cases, the plaintiffs and defendant BASF have agreed to toll the filing deadlines to focus on settlement discussions. This means the statutes of limitations are paused and/or extended by agreement. If a settlement is not possible, those plaintiffs can still file their lawsuits, even if the statute has expired.

As we have reported, in December 2023, AFFF manufacturers, including 3M and DuPont, agreed to pay $10.3 billion to settle claims related to PFAS contamination in c sources from AFFF foam. This does not directly impact the AFFF personal injury cases but signifies the defendants’ willingness to resolve major claims.

The federal judge overseeing the case commended 3M in proposing this $10.5 billion settlement. But bankruptcy concerns now arise due to the extensive PFAS claims. These concerns are likely to resurface during settlement talks in the AFFF personal injury and wrongful death firefighting foam lawsuits.

3M has previously used the fear of bankruptcy in negotiations, as seen in the 3m earplug litigation, and may do so again as settlement discussions progress. Despite a decreased value compared to 2018, 3M’s worth of $50 billion suggests it has the financial capacity to settle the AFFF claims.

Washington has recently announced an AFFF collection and remediation campaign to eradicate stockpiles of the hazardous substance in municipal fire stations across the state. The Department of Ecology intends to begin the drive upon the conclusion of a period of public comment and reevaluation. 

Washington’s efforts parallel those of New Hampshire, whose novel contract with Revive Environmental was one of the first major attempts to treat AFFF supplies, which pose chronic risks to the environment and human health. 

As 88 plaintiffs enrolled in the AFFF MDL, the International Agency for Research on Cancer published the results of a seminar it hosted on the carcinogenic potential of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS). The experts who attended the convention revised their original classification of PFOA as a potential human carcinogen to a known human carcinogen. 

The new “Group 1” designation for PFOA was also attended by a “Group 2B” assignment for PFOA, which means the substance may cause cancer in humans. Both PFOA and PFOS are critical components in hazardous AFFF firefighting foams.  

Following the resolution of a discovery dispute later this month, Judge Gergel has ordered the parties to initiate evidentiary collection for a list of court-approved, prospective bellwether trials. The suits are the first AFFF personal injury cases to advance after a contentious series of proceedings over the legitimacy of 3M and DuPont’s settlements with municipal water suppliers. 

It remains to be seen how major defendants will respond. For example, 3M averted a bellwether trial for the City of Stuart, Florida, days before it was scheduled to take place to finalize a settlement. 

At this point, the parties in the personal injury AFFF litigation have been ordered to conclude a dispute over the discovery process by the end of January. Thereafter, the court is poised to facilitate evidentiary collection for potential bellwether trials, which Judge Gergel approved in late December 2023. The defendants in the ongoing AFFF litigation have a track record of avoiding unfavorable bellwether trials, such as 3M’s last-ditch settlement negotiations with the City of Stuart, Florida, on the eve of the municipality’s trial. Whether 3M, DuPont, Corteva, and others will behave similarly for personal injury cases is unclear.

In a mid-December court filing, Hawaii sued prominent AFFF manufacturers for failing to warn the state of the environmental and human health risks of firefighting foam use, spillage, and disposal. The 25 manufacturers named in the litigation include 3M Company and DuPont de Nemours. 

Many defendants also participate in the ongoing AFFF MDL in South Carolina federal court, which is slated to address thousands of personal injury claims in the coming months. Potential settlement payouts from the Hawaii suit are set to compensate the state for past remediation campaigns and bankroll future initiatives.

The presiding Judge in the AFFF injury lawsuits has granted all parties until January 31, 2024, to resolve a pending discovery dispute and motion to compel regarding the initial bellwether trials.

An additional 227 plaintiffs have enrolled in the ongoing multidistrict litigation (MDL), raising the total number of participants to over 6,600. The majority of these new cases involve personal injury claims connected to direct AFFF exposure or indirect PFAS exposure. 

On December 12, the prosecution submitted the Initial Personal Injury Bellwether Discovery Pool Plaintiffs. The 25 plaintiffs who participated in the bellwether process were selected from the court-designated Personal Injury Tier One cases. These plaintiffs suffer from kidney cancer, testicular cancer, hypothyroidism or thyroid disease, and ulcerative colitis. 

To participate, these plaintiffs waived their Lexecon rights, which means they agreed to allow the MDL court to resolve their cases rather than the courts where they originally filed them. The bellwether discovery pool proposal signifies that the court is transitioning from municipal water litigation to personal injury lawsuits. 

On December 14, Judge Gergel is set to hold a fairness hearing to finalize DuPont’s $1.18 billion settlement with municipal water suppliers in the AFFF multidistrict litigation. Earlier this month, the presiding magistrate warned that any campaign to derail the highly controversial settlement could result in a decade of subsequent litigation for otherwise eligible claimants. 

The U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina will hold a fairness hearing for the $10.3 billion 3M settlement payout in early February 2024. The next wave of AFFF lawsuits will resolve the personal injury claims from those who allege that their exposure to the toxic firefighting foam resulted in severe injuries. 

With 351 new cases added to the MDL in the past 30 days, the total number of AFFF claims surpassed 6,400. However, half of these cases involve municipal water contamination cases that were settled by the agreement reached in October. The remaining cases are individual personal injury claims that should be the focus going forward.

Unfortunately, one group of municipal claims, known as the Telomer cases, still did not settle in October. The court is currently focusing on resolving these matters instead of individual personal injury claims. In the meantime, three separate plaintiffs have died while waiting for their cases to be heard. The long delays have robbed these plaintiffs of the justice they deserve, and now their family members must step in on their behalf.

Based on a Case Management Order entered by the AFFF Multi-District Litigation court, the plaintiffs and defendants must submit a list of proposed personal injury cases that will serve as bellwether trials by November 14th. The chosen cases will proceed to fact-specific discovery before a final list of claims is chosen to serve as preliminary test cases.

The National Cancer Institute released a new study that once again connects AFFF exposure to cancer in U.S. Air Force servicemen. This study draws a causal link between the PFAS chemicals found in firefighting foam and a greater incidence of testicular cancer. Another study expected soon from eBioMedicine (a publication affiliated with Lancet) connects high levels of a PFAS called linear perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) to a 56% increase in the likelihood of being diagnosed with thyroid cancer.

In the past month, the number of cases in the AFFF Multi-District Litigation (MDL) surpassed 6,000 with the addition of 111 new cases. Many of the pending cases have been resolved with the global settlement mentioned below, but thousands of personal injury claims are yet to be addressed.

This month, all municipal and local water authority plaintiffs that brought suit against the manufacturers of AFFF for contaminating public water sources will receive justice. In a global settlement, 3M and Dupont, among other defendants, have agreed to pay $10.3 billion to resolve all municipality cases.

In the past few months, the court’s focus has been on resolving the pending municipal cases. Now that a settlement has been reached in those cases, we expect the personal injury cases to move forward toward bellwether trials or settlement discussions.

Over the past two months, the Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) MDL has seen a significant influx of cases, with approximately 1,000 new cases added to the docket. Additionally, a recent study discussed the concerning connection between exposure to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), commonly found in AFFF and testicular cancer. This study, particularly relevant to U.S. Air Force servicemen, underscores the urgent need for addressing the pending AFFF lawsuits.

After Judge Gergel asked for the latest information, the lawyers for the plaintiffs gave him a new report from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) discussing concerns over dangerous PFAS chemicals. This report discusses how PFAS chemicals, which are known as “forever chemicals,” can cause cancer. The report points out that there are no safe levels of these chemicals in drinking water.

At the same time, there’s good news about the big legal agreement happening around the world about AFFF chemicals messing up city water. Our team thinks that if we can sort out these city cases well, it will be a good sign for all the other cases where people got hurt and are still waiting for answers.

Sadly, a plaintiff who brought an AFFF lawsuit in Alabama that was transferred into the MDL has passed away while this litigation is still pending. The plaintiff’s daughter has been substituted into the MDL to act on his behalf. As this litigation lingers, we are reminded that not all injured plaintiffs will live to see and receive the settlements they deserve.

Over the last 30 days, nearly 500 cases were added to the MDL, the most recorded since this lawsuit began.

Of the more than 5,000 pending cases, some may be municipal water contamination cases which will be settled according to the agreement reached earlier this month. The remaining cases should be personal injury matters which will be the focus once the municipal settlements are cleared out.

Instead of holding the first bellwether trial scheduled in June 2023, all municipality-related AFFF lawsuits have been settled. DuPont and its spin-offs Chemours Co. and Corteva Inc reached a $1.18 billion deal to resolve approximately 300 PFAS complaints from drinking water suppliers. While the largest defendant, 3M, finally agreed to pay up to $10.3 billion to resolve municipality drinking water contamination cases, according to a 3M press release. Since the payments will occur over a 12-year timeframe, the actual payout could be closer to $12.5 billion, according to 3M’s SEC filing.

With the municipality claims out of the way, the focus will shift to claims brought by individual firefighters and military members who have suffered personal injuries as a result of AFFF exposure. After agreeing to pay these billion-dollar settlements, we hope the AFFF manufacturers will be willing to pay smaller amounts to resolve the remaining individual lawsuits and clear these matters off their books quickly. As of July 1st, there were 4,793 cases pending in the AFFF MDL.

The first AFFF trial was scheduled to start today, but it has been delayed based on a joint motion filed by both parties claiming they are close to settlement. Unfortunately, this case does not address individual personal injury claims against the manufacturers of AFFF foam. Instead, the first trial was based on a claim brought by the City of Stuart, Florida, alleging its water sources, along with groundwater and local soils, were contaminated by the PFAS chemicals found in AFFF.

Setting a case for trial often leads to last-minute settlement negotiations, and we’ve learned that 3M may be close to paying $10 billion to settle all municipality-based lawsuits. DuPont may also be considering settlement options at this stage, but again, only for municipalities, not individual personal injury claims.

Since our goal is to help the firefighters, military members, and others who were injured by AFFF foam exposure, a trial verdict against the chemical manufacturers might have carried more weight. However, municipal settlements may lead to individual compensation in firefighter and military personal injury lawsuits, so we are following these initial negotiations closely.

Three of the largest defendants in the AFFF Lawsuit MD—DuPont de Nemours, the Chemours Company, and Corteva—have reached an agreement to address claims brought by municipalities whose public water systems were contaminated by PFAS chemicals found in AFFF. The three corporations will create a $1.185 billion settlement fund, and each will contribute funds based on their agreed-upon involvement. The proposed agreement must be approved by the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina.

The EPA has finally issued proposed limits on the amount of PFAS chemicals that are acceptable in drinking water. The recommended limit of only four parts per billion should help juries understand the extreme dangers firefighting foam presents. The defendants in the first AFFF trial scheduled to begin on June 5th have objected to the admission of these limits. They argued the EPA’s recommendation is not final yet and did not indicate the level of knowledge at the time the AFFF products were produced.

Judge Gergal denied the defendant’s motion to bar the evidence because it might explain the toxicity of PFAS and why they should be removed from city water sources.

Should the plaintiff emerge victorious in this initial bellwether trial, it is anticipated that the defendants will challenge the judge’s ruling through an appeal.

Judge Gergel who is overseeing the AFFF lawsuit MDL, has removed Kidde-Fenwal Inc. (KFI) from the lawsuit filed by the City of Stuart, FL, due to KFI filing for bankruptcy protection. This lawsuit accuses KFI, among other companies, of producing AFFF firefighting foams containing PFAS, leading to the contamination of the city’s water sources.

The initial set of bellwether trials is concentrating on the contamination of municipal water sources. In contrast, the second phase will address personal injury claims from military personnel and firefighters who came into contact with AFFF foam during their duties.

These potential plaintiffs are categorized based on the medical conditions they have developed, including kidney cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid disease, or ulcerative colitis.

Furthermore, these individuals must have been exposed to AFFF foam in proximity to specific locations: Colorado Springs Municipal Airport, Peterson Air Force Base, the Naval Air Warfare Center in Warminster, or the Willow Grove Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base.

When a large lawsuit like the AFFF lawsuit is converted into an MDL, a series of test trials are conducted the help assess future cases. The first bellwether trial in the AFFF MDL is 3M, DuPont, and Tyco Fire Products versus the City of Stuart, Florida which claims the city’s water supply and local rivers and lakes were contaminated by PFAS in Aqueous Film Forming Foam manufactured by these companies.

Thes defendants argued the city would not be able to link the water contamination to their products, but the judge disagreed. Federal Judge Gergel denied a joint Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the three defendants. Eventually, the jury will be required to consider complicated scientific evidence to decide whether the defendants should be held responsible for contaminating the water sources. The outcome of this first trial will have a major impact on the future of this litigation and potential AFFF lawsuit settlement amounts.

The first bellwether case (test lawsuit) is set for a jury trial in June. Both sides are preparing their evidence and objecting to the other side’s proposed exhibits. The judge is requiring all lead counsel to argue their objections in person to reduce frivolous arguments.

Recent studies by NIST looked at 20 different materials used in making firefighter gear. The findings show that each material contains at least one, and in some cases, as many as 17 different types of PFAS. Currently, it remains uncertain if these PFAS can penetrate the skin of firefighters while they are wearing their equipment and increase their risk of developing cancer.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is encouraging all firefighters to enroll in the National Firefighter Registry for Cancer to track and analyze the incidence of cancer among firefighters. In general, firefighters report more cancer diagnoses than the general public. Not long ago, the link between AFFF and cancer was considered hypothetical. Now it appears that the risk of cancer from AFFF is becoming an accepted fact.

There are now 4,173 claims filed in the AFFF lawsuit MDL.

The US Air Force has set its sights on being the first military department to stop using fire suppressants that contain PFAS and endanger their service women and men. According to the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act, all Department of Defense locations must phase out AFFF by October 2024 and safety remove the existing foam from the property.

Research and testing are still underway to determine adequate replacements and solutions for aqueous film-forming foam. However, in the meantime, we can expect that many more individuals will be exposed to firefighting foam.

Illinois has also filed a lawsuit against 3M, Dyneon LLC, DuPont, and other distributors and manufacturers of AFFF. The lawsuit seeks compensation and policy changes due to the dangers that firefighting foam poses to Illinois’ drinking water.

Illinois may be trying to prevent the case from being merged into the Multi-District Litigation (MDL) in South Carolina in hopes of avoiding the lengthy battle that is sure to ensue.

Firefighters are 4 times more likely than the general population to be diagnosed with prostate cancer and 3 times more likely to be diagnosed with leukemia, according to new research.

Judge Gergel has appointed retired Judge Layn Phillips to facilitate global settlement talks between plaintiffs and the numerous defendant manufacturers of firefighting foam. There are presently over 3300 pending AFFF lawsuits in the AFFF MDL. Settlement talks will be complicated by the different interests of individual plaintiffs and the municipalities that also serve as individual plaintiffs. Keep in mind the very first firefighting foam bellwether trial was brought by the City of Stuart, Florida.

AFFF MDL Judge Richard Gergel has selected his first bellwether trial, which is the City of Stuart v. 3M Company, et al., scheduled for June 5, 2023. We believe settlement discussions will begin heating up as the first trial grows closer. Keep in mind there are two categories of AFFF cases. One batch is individual claims, and the other lawsuits are brought on behalf of municipalities for damage to property and the water source.

Judge Gergel rejected 3M’s government contractor defense. 3M had sought summary judgment based on manufacturing AFFF firefighting foam under a government contract. However, 3M’S failure to inform the government of known dangers concerning firefighting foam served as their undoing. Judge Gergel stated that 3M withheld information about potential health risks for individuals exposed to AFFF, including an increased risk for testicular cancer, kidney cancer, and prostate cancer. The environmental protection agency considers AFFF foam a very dangerous health risk. 

A large number of AFFF lawsuits would have been barred had Judge Gergel granted 3M’s motion for summary judgment. 3M is the largest defendant in the firefighting foam lawsuit. 3M was well aware of thousands of complaints that AFFF exposure is linked to multiple cancers.

As of September 20, 2021, there are nearly 2,700 AFFF firefighting foam lawsuits pending before Judge Gergel in the United States Federal Court for the District of South Carolina. The official title is The Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Product Liability Litigation, MDL-2873. As AFFF lawyers, we see several common defendants, and we can separate the AFFF firefighting foam lawsuits into several categories. Current AFFF lawsuits are pending against 3M, TYCO Fire Product, Dupont, Buckeye Fire Equipment, and Chemguard Inc., among others.

Judge Gergel issued a case management order last month indicating that the first AFFF firefighting foam bellwether trial would take place in April 2023. The specific AFFF foam lawsuit to be tried will be selected this December.

A multidistrict litigation (MDL) was created for the AFFF firefighting foam lawsuits. The Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) has consolidated all firefighting foam lawsuits that were filed and are pending in Federal Court. A total of just over 80 AFFF lawsuits were consolidated before Judge Richard M. Gergel at this time.

These lawsuits share similar issues of both law and facts surrounding the use of firefighting foam and the toxic chemicals in AFFF. We expect the number of AFFF firefighting foam cancer lawsuits to increase exponentially over the next year. Keep in mind that nearly 20% of firefighters consistently exposed to AFFF firefighting foam are diagnosed with cancer at some point. Kidney and testicular cancer seem to be the most common diagnosis. However, there are a wide variety of medical issues and different types of cancers related to AFFF exposure.

Many attorneys will accept personal injury claims, including those against AFFF companies, on a contingency fee basis. The attorney does not require payment upfront. Instead, they take their fee as a percentage of the settlement you receive. For many victims, this makes the legal process much more affordable, enabling them to get the compensation they need.

Start with a free consultation with an attorney experienced in handling AFFF lawsuits. Ask the attorney how they have dealt with those clients in the past and, if relevant, what past results they have seen. During that free consultation, an attorney can also give you a better idea of how much compensation you should receive for your personal injury claim.

To file an AFFF exposure lawsuit related to a cancer diagnosis, you will need to show evidence of AFFF exposure at some point. If you live near a military base or airport, you might have grounds to show that these chemicals were used regularly around your area. Further research into your local area may reveal when and why you faced AFFF exposure.

In addition, an attorney may help you identify specific instances when firefighters nearby used AFFF to suppress flames. You may also choose to have your local water tested, which could reveal evidence of AFFF contamination. Contact an attorney if you believe that you have grounds for a lawsuit related to AFFF exposure, even if you did not work as a firefighter.

Dolman Law Group is accepting clients for firefighting foam cancer lawsuits in all 50 states (see final statement). If you or a loved one were exposed to toxic PFAS in firefighting foam and subsequently developed cancer or other related health risks, you may be eligible to file an AFFF Lawsuit.

Disability compensation for exposure to AFFF is available only for firefighters who served in the military. However, civilian firefighters can also recover compensation by filing an AFFF lawsuit through Dolman Law Group.

Three of the largest AFFF manufacturing defendants—DuPont de Nemours, the Chemours Company, and Corteva—have reached a settlement with municipalities where the public water systems were contaminated by PFAS chemicals related to AFFF.

Regular or long exposure to PFAS in firefighting foam can increase the risks of various cancers. Thousands of scientific studies have shown the presence of PFAS in blood tests, which is linked to Bladder cancer, Kidney cancer, Pancreatic cancer, Testicular cancer, Liver cancer, Breast cancer, Leukemia, Lymphoma, Ovarian cancer, and Prostate cancer.

States aren’t waiting that long to move to safer and more effective alternatives. Twelve states, including California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, and Washington, have moved to ban all PFAS in firefighting foam, with only limited exceptions.

It can take time before you have the settlement for an AFFF lawsuit in your hands. Resolving a lawsuit usually takes months or years. You should start by contacting an attorney as soon after your diagnosis as possible, especially if you believe that your diagnosis was caused by AFFF exposure. Your lawyer can help walk you through the process and give you a better idea of the timeline related to your specific claim.

In general, these factors can affect the length of your claim.

• The extent of your cancer and treatment protocols. If you’re considering filing a personal injury claim due to a cancer diagnosis, it is important to have an understanding of the costs and time involved in the treatment. Your doctor will be able to provide you with further information on this, although they may not be able to give you a definite idea of the future. Your lawyer may also advise you to wait until you have further information on your prognosis before filing a claim.
• The rounds of negotiation involved. Before you can receive a settlement for your claim—or, if you need to go to court, a jury award—you may need to go through several rounds of negotiation. You may not want to accept the company’s initial offer, and the company will usually not offer you the funds you asked for. The more rounds of negotiation you need to go through, the more it can increase the time needed to settle your claim. You may also need to factor in the time needed for mediation, in which you have a chance to sit down with your attorney, the company and its representatives, and a mediator to help you reach an agreement. If you cannot reach an agreement through mediation, your claim may need to go to court.

If you lost a loved one due to cancer from AFFF exposure, you might be able to file a wrongful death claim, which can provide you with compensation for the loss of your loved one. Contact an experienced attorney who has previously dealt with AFFF claims to get a better idea of what compensation you can expect.

Compensation may include:

• Your loved one’s medical bills before death
• The loss of companionship you face
• Your loved one’s pain and suffering before death
• The loss of your loved one’s income or other contributions to the family

To file a wrongful death claim, you will need to have a direct relationship with the deceased. Most often, the deceased’s spouse has the first right to compensation, followed by the deceased’s children. If the deceased had no spouse or children, their parents could have the right to seek compensation through a wrongful death claim, especially if the deceased supported the parents financially or physically.

No matter what caused your cancer diagnosis, as the party receiving medical services, you have the primary obligation to pay for those services. The contract you sign with your doctors or hospital will indicate that you need to take responsibility for all costs related to those services.

That does not necessarily mean, however, that you must pay all of your medical bills immediately following that type of diagnosis. Some payment options include:

• Your health insurance may help cover many of those expenses. When you receive your initial diagnosis, consult your health insurance company for a better idea of what you can expect for out-of-pocket costs. You may need to ask questions about what coverage your insurance company will offer, including which providers you can use that your insurance company covers in-network for treatments and procedures.
• Your hospital may have programs in place that will help support cancer patients and their families. Many hospitals offer treatment to patients on a nonprofit basis, which can make it easier for you to pay for those treatments. Some other programs also help pay for cancer treatments, transportation, or lodging while patients or their family members go through cancer treatments. Contact your hospital and ask about what programs you can use to help offset some of the costs associated with cancer treatment.
• A personal injury claim can be the best way to be financially compensated for medical costs caused by an injury. Although it won’t change the diagnosis, it can give you the financial means to pay for related treatments. Contact an injury lawyer soon after diagnosis to learn how much you can receive to help with medical expenses.

In some cases, your doctors may discover such advanced cancer that you cannot reasonably expect treatment to prolong your life. In others, you may have a relatively minor cancer that does not require immediate treatment, only observation. In either case, however, you may still face considerable medical bills related to your treatment.

Even if you do not receive treatment for your cancer, you may still have the right to an AFFF lawsuit that can help you seek compensation for the suffering you faced and for your medical expenses. Contact an AFFF attorney to ask more specific questions about your rights following your cancer diagnosis and how your decision not to pursue treatment can affect your claim. Keep in mind that our mass tort attorneys work on a contingency fee basis. In other words, we do not get paid unless our firm obtains a settlement on behalf of the victim, so learning about your rights will cost you nothing.

Not everyone who has AFFF exposure will automatically develop cancer. According to the U.S. Fire Administration, the buildup of PFAS, PFOS, and PFOA can occur in the body over years of exposure. So, the chances of developing cancer from exposure to these chemicals will go up after repeated and lengthy exposure. A short exposure or infrequent exposure may not lead to the formation of cancer in the future.

However, long-term occupational exposure to AFFF creates an increased risk you may develop cancer or another serious medical issue. Some people may develop cancer within a few years after the AFFF exposure. Others may not see cancer appear for several years. Some people will never develop cancer. 

If you believe you were exposed to AFFF, you should alert your general practitioner as soon as possible. Try to be specific about the dates and levels of exposure you had. With this information in your medical records, your doctor can keep a lookout for any related cancers or illnesses, hoping to catch them early. If you eventually need to file a claim because of your AFFF exposure, having this information in your medical records is also helpful.