August 22, 2024:
- Study Links AFFF Use at Military Base to PFAS Water Contamination: A new study conducted in Airway Heights, Washington, has revealed widespread PFAS contamination in local water supplies due to the prolonged use of AFFF firefighting foam by the military. The research, led by a team from the University of Arizona, found that individuals residing near the military base exhibited abnormally high PFAS levels in their blood. This study further strengthens the link between AFFF use and PFAS contamination, raising concerns about the potential health impacts on communities near military installations.
August 19, 2024:
- AFFF MDL Activity Slows: The AFFF MDL docket has been relatively quiet this month, likely due to the typical August slowdown in litigation. However, there's hope for increased activity in September as the focus shifts towards trial preparation or potential settlement discussions. A status conference scheduled for September 13th is expected to shed light on the future direction of the litigation.
August 13, 2024:
- Massachusetts Considers Ban on PFAS in Firefighting Gear: The Massachusetts state legislature is close to enacting a new law that would prohibit the use of PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances), also known as "forever chemicals," in firefighting protective clothing and equipment. One branch of the legislature has already passed the ban, and it awaits approval from the state house of representatives. If enacted, the law would phase out all PFAS-containing firefighting gear in the state by 2027.
August 12, 2024:
- New AFFF Lawsuit Filed: A former Air Force firefighter has initiated a lawsuit against AFFF manufacturers, alleging that prolonged exposure to the product during his military service at Lackland Air Force Base, Sheppard Air Force Base, Cannon Air Force Base, and Seymour Johnson Air Force Base caused him to develop prostate cancer. The lawsuit contends that the defendants were aware of the health risks associated with AFFF but concealed this information from users.
The plaintiff, Tracy Mitchem, was diagnosed with prostate cancer in 2009 but did not connect his illness to AFFF exposure until 2021 due to the lack of warnings from manufacturers. The complaint names numerous AFFF manufacturers, including 3M, AGC Chemicals Americas, Arkema, BASF, Buckeye Fire Equipment, Carrier Global Corporation, Chemdesign Products, Chemgard, Clarian Corporation, Corteva, DuPont, National Foam, Tyco Fire Products, and UTC Fire and Security Americas Corporation, as defendants. The lawsuit seeks damages for medical expenses, pain and suffering, and lost wages.
August 6, 2024:
- New Firefighting Foam Lawsuit Filed in New Jersey: A new AFFF lawsuit, Zub v. 3M Company et al., has been filed in New Jersey. The plaintiff, a widow, brings a wrongful death and survival action lawsuit, alleging that her husband, a firefighter and hazardous materials technician, developed kidney cancer and tragically passed away at 35 due to prolonged exposure to PFAS in aqueous film-forming foams used during his career.
August 5, 2024:
- AFFF Case Count Decreases Slightly: The number of active lawsuits in the Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation decreased from 9,525 in July to 9,198 in August 2024.
August 1, 2024:
- Tyco Reaches Preliminary Settlement with Insurers: Tyco Fire Products has reached a preliminary settlement with its major insurers, including AIG Insurers, regarding insurance coverage for liabilities related to PFAS contamination from firefighting foam. This agreement will be finalized in a formal written agreement, and upon completion, Tyco will dismiss AIG from the litigation. This settlement benefits victims of PFAS contamination as it enhances Tyco's financial capacity to fulfill its obligations in a $750 million settlement with drinking water systems, potentially enabling a more substantial contribution to a future global AFFF settlement.
August 1, 2024:
- Increase in Voluntary Dismissals Suggests Settlements: The AFFF class action MDL sees an increase in voluntary dismissal notices, likely indicating confidential settlements in those cases.
July 22, 2024:
- Nine Bellwether Cases Selected in AFFF MDL: Judge Gergel selects nine out of eleven cases proposed by the plaintiffs for the first round of bellwether trials. These cases involve Pennsylvania residents with kidney or testicular cancer and Colorado residents with thyroid cancer or ulcerative colitis, all allegedly caused by exposure to aqueous film forming foam (AFFF). The judge's decision largely aligns with the plaintiffs' proposed strategy to streamline litigation.
July 17, 2024:
- Plaintiffs Propose Streamlined Approach for AFFF Lawsuits: Plaintiffs' lawyers suggest expediting AFFF lawsuits by selecting bellwether cases focused on specific diseases and geographic locations. This strategy aims to reduce the burden on the court and parties by minimizing the number of depositions, expert reports, and evidence required.
July 12, 2024:
- Ohio Man Sues Over PFAS-Contaminated Drinking Water: An Ohio man files a lawsuit alleging that his testicular cancer diagnosis resulted from drinking water contaminated with fluorochemical products, specifically AFFF. The lawsuit claims the defendants knew about the harmful effects but continued selling the products without proper warnings, contributing to water contamination.
July 11, 2024:
- Georgia Firefighter and Navy Serviceman Sues Over AFFF Kidney Cancer: A lawsuit is filed on behalf of a former Georgia firefighter and Navy serviceman diagnosed with kidney cancer. The lawsuit attributes his cancer to prolonged PFAS exposure from using Class B foam and wearing firefighting gear containing PFAS during his service at the Memphis Naval Station from 1989 to 2023.
July 9, 2024:
- Air Force Replaces AFFF with PFAS-Free Formulation: The Department of the Air Force initiates a transition to replace its AFFF stocks with a new fluorine-free formulation (F3) to eliminate PFAS use in firefighting activities. The $8.55 million initiative began with overseas installations and is now expanding to U.S. bases.
July 1, 2024:
- AFFF Lawsuits Surge: The number of active lawsuits in the AFFF MDL increases significantly, from 8,270 in June to 9,198 in July. Two notable additions include:
- An Arkansas firefighter diagnosed with kidney cancer in 2014, who attributes his illness to PFAS exposure from firefighting foam used throughout his career (1996-2024).
- A Kentucky resident and firefighter, who filed a lawsuit alleging thyroid disease and related injuries due to AFFF exposure during his service at various fire departments in Florida and Kentucky since 2015.
June 26, 2024:
- Connecticut Firefighters File Class Action Lawsuit: Connecticut firefighters file a proposed class action lawsuit against 3M, DuPont, and 17 other companies, alleging exposure to harmful levels of PFAS in their protective gear. The lawsuit claims that firefighters absorbed, ingested, and inhaled these toxic chemicals, leading to significant health risks. The suit seeks compensatory and punitive damages, demands an end to the production of PFAS-containing gear, and calls for the establishment of a medical monitoring program.
June 5, 2024:
- AFFF MDL Judge Outlines New Dismissal Process: The U.S. District Judge overseeing the AFFF lawsuit MDL establishes a new process allowing plaintiffs with injuries other than testicular cancer, kidney cancer, liver cancer, thyroid cancer, thyroid disease, and ulcerative colitis to dismiss their lawsuits without prejudice. This allows them up to four years to refile their claims in the future under a tolling agreement.
June 2024:
- AFFF MDL Reaches 8,270 Cases: The Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) multidistrict litigation (MDL) now includes 8,270 pending cases, with no separate MDL established for firefighter turnout gear lawsuits yet. Some turnout gear lawsuits might be incorporated into the existing AFFF MDL.
May 31, 2024:
- AFFF MDL Grows: Over 250 new cases are added to the AFFF MDL during May, further increasing the caseload.
May 14, 2024:
- New Cases Transferred to MDL: Six new "tag-along" cases are transferred into the AFFF MDL, with half involving water contamination claims and the other half personal injury claims.
May 2024:
- Attorneys Seek Extension: Attorneys involved in the AFFF MDL request an extension on proposals for a case management order, which will guide scheduling and proceedings for AFFF lawsuits.
April 2024:
- AFFF MDL Continues to Expand: The AFFF MDL experiences a surge in new cases, with over 500 victims joining the litigation in April alone. The total number of pending lawsuits reaches 7,738, highlighting the extensive impact of PFAS chemicals in firefighting foam.
March 2024:
- Department of Defense Challenges Claims: The Department of Defense (DOD) seeks to be removed from AFFF lawsuits, arguing that it should be protected under federal immunity for its use of PFAS-containing firefighting foam on military bases.
February 23, 2024:
- Chemical Companies Seek Federal Court: 3M, Chemguard, and Tyco Fire Products move to transfer a lawsuit filed by the Connecticut attorney general to federal court. The lawsuit aims to restrict PFAS chemicals, but the companies argue that their AFFF production adhered to strict military specifications requiring PFAS compounds.
February 15, 2024:
- DuPont Settles for $1.18 Billion: DuPont reaches a $1.18 billion settlement to resolve fire-fighting foam PFAS contamination claims. However, some plaintiffs express dissatisfaction with the amount, believing a trial could have resulted in higher damages.
February 2024:
- Judge Orders Fact Sheets: Judge Richard Mark Gergel, overseeing the AFFF MDL, orders turnout gear-specific Plaintiff Fact Sheets for relevant cases within the MDL.
February 2024:
- First AFFF Trial Set for August: The initial trial for 28 AFFF lawsuits is scheduled for August, marking the first claims brought by injured individuals, rather than municipalities seeking compensation for contaminated water systems.
Click Here for a FREE Claim Review
AFFF Lawsuits: Were You Exposed to Toxic Firefighting Foam?
Learn about the health risks of AFFF firefighting foam and how to file a lawsuit if you were exposed during military service or other high-risk occupations.
If you served in the military, worked as a firefighter, or spent significant time on a military base, there's a strong possibility you were exposed to harmful PFAS chemicals. These substances, often found in firefighting foam (AFFF), have contaminated numerous military bases and other sites across the country.
The long-term health consequences of PFAS exposure through AFFF can be severe, and legal actions are emerging to seek justice for those affected.
Fill out the form on this page now for more information.
Understanding AFFF and PFAS
- AFFF (Aqueous Film-Forming Foam) is a firefighting foam that heavily relies on PFAS. While effective in extinguishing fuel-based fires, AFFF has contaminated water supplies on a massive scale due to its widespread use by the military, airports, and industrial facilities.
- PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) are a group of man-made chemicals renowned for their heat resistance, water repellency, and oil resistance. These properties have made them ubiquitous in countless products, from non-stick cookware to stain-resistant fabrics. Unfortunately, PFAS are also highly persistent in the environment and human body, earning them the moniker "forever chemicals."
Click Here for a FREE Claim Review from an AFFF Attorney.
High-Risk Zones for PFAS Contamination from AFFF Firefighting Foam
The pervasive use of aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) in firefighting has created numerous hotspots for PFAS contamination, posing significant risks to both the environment and human health.
- Military Bases: These bases are notorious for PFAS contamination due to the routine use of AFFF in training exercises and fire response. The extensive use of this foam has led to widespread pollution of soil and water sources, impacting service members, their families, and surrounding communities.
- Oil Refineries and Firefighting Areas: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recognizes oil refineries and other sites where PFAS-containing firefighting agents are used as major sources of contamination. These areas often exhibit high concentrations of PFAS, which can readily migrate into nearby water supplies, posing a threat to both local ecosystems and human populations.
- Aviation Personnel: Individuals working at airports, particularly those involved in firefighting and ground operations, also face elevated risks of PFAS exposure due to the historical use of AFFF in aviation firefighting.
Health Risks Linked to AFFF Exposure
Exposure to PFAS through AFFF firefighting foam has been linked to a wide range of serious health issues, including:
- Cancer: Multiple types of cancer, such as kidney, testicular, ovarian, prostate, pancreatic, liver, breast, and blood cancers, have been associated with PFAS exposure through AFFF.
- Thyroid Disease: Disruptions in thyroid function have been linked to PFAS contamination.
- Immune System Impairment: PFAS can weaken the body's natural defenses, making individuals more susceptible to infections and illnesses.
- Reproductive and Developmental Issues: Studies have indicated that PFAS can harm reproductive health and impact fetal development.
Taking Action: Legal Recourse for AFFF-Related Illnesses
If you or a loved one served in the military, worked as a firefighter, at an airport, or in an oil refinery and have been diagnosed with a health condition linked to PFAS exposure through AFFF, you may be entitled to compensation. Legal actions are emerging to hold responsible parties accountable for the widespread contamination and its devastating health consequences.
Key steps to consider:
- Consult with an attorney: Seek legal advice from an attorney specializing in PFAS litigation to understand your rights and options.
- Document your exposure: Gather as much information as possible about your military service, including base locations, job duties, and any known exposure to AFFF.
- Seek medical evaluation: If you have concerns about your health, consult with a healthcare provider to assess your potential exposure and any related health issues.
By taking these steps, you can protect your rights and seek justice for the harm caused by AFFF exposure.
Learn more about filing an AFFF lawsuit HERE.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Mass torts vs. class actions at a glance
When we're talking about mass tort and class action lawsuits, we're discussing two distinct legal approaches used to handle claims where many individuals are harmed by the same entity or event.
Mass tort lawsuits are a way to handle legal cases where many individuals have been harmed, but each person's situation is distinct. Think of it like a neighborhood where every house has different damage after a storm. In a mass tort, each homeowner would file their own lawsuit, but because the storm is the common factor, the court groups the lawsuits together to manage them more efficiently. The key here is that each person retains their own case and has a say in how it's settled, which reflects their unique damages.
In contrast, class action lawsuits and class action settlements bring people together under a single legal action. It's as if the whole neighborhood decided to sue the storm together, with one or a few neighbors representing everyone's interests. Here, individual control is limited. The representative, known as the lead plaintiff, along with their legal team, makes decisions that affect the entire group. When it comes to the payout, it's typically split evenly, or based on a formula that applies to all members.
What's best for you?
Let's quickly sum up the main points to help you decide which legal route could work better for your situation:
- Control: More personal control in mass torts; limited control in class actions.
- Compensation: Individualized in mass torts; uniform in class actions.
- Applicability: Mass torts fit for varied individual damages; class actions for uniform damages across the group.
- Efficiency: Class actions can be quicker and use fewer resources by combining claims.
So, if you're part of a group that's been wronged and you're thinking about legal action, consider these points. Do you need to maintain control over your case, or are you okay with a representative taking the lead? Do your damages require individual attention, or are they similar enough to others to share in a collective claim? Your answers will help determine whether a mass tort or a class action is the best route for your situation.
