PFAS Contracts

Our Eligibility & Screening Criteria in PFAS Cases

At Atraxia Media, we have established a dependable process for assisting your firm find and sign potential Plaintiffs. We know that client intake is an entire process of attracting and hiring new clients, from their first interaction with our firm to the moment they sign an engagement letter. The marketing approach that helps us effectively onboard clients injured by PFAS exposure can be divided into several stages:

• Pre-screening. Intake specialists know it is essential to properly pre-screen potential clients, based on your criteria, to avoid the headaches that can come with clients who are not a good fit for your firm.
• Screening each case. We have established a dependable process for screening clients according to your criteria to make sure they are the right fit for you.
• Following up with people qualified by our intake department. We make it easy for potential claimants to share their information with us. Following up is key for moving them towards becoming a client.
• Delivering signed contracts to your firm. Atraxia Media gets involved from screening to getting those signed contracts over to you.
• Helping your law firm get more clients. We can help your law firm increase the number of PFAS cases according to your focus and budget.
• Running in-house marketing strategies that generate cases. Atraxia Media's involvement ensures that no prospects are overlooked.
• Signing PFAS potential Plaintiffs entirely exclusive to your law firm.

Firefighters, military member, airport workers, and others may be eligible to file a firefighting foam lawsuit if they:

• Used AFFF or suffered consistent exposure to these foams
• Subsequently developed:

• Kidney cancer
• Testicular cancer
• Thyroid disease
• Ulcerative colitis
• Bladder cancer
• Leukemia
• Multiple myeloma
• Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma
• Hodgkin's lymphoma
• Male breast cancer
• Liver cancer
• Pancreatic cancer
• Prostate cancer
• Thyroid cancer

Atraxia Media's marketing process is more than just getting potential new clients to fill out an intake form: It's an entire process of attracting and signing new clients customized as per your needs. From their first interaction to the moment they sign an engagement letter, we handle everything in-house: ad development, social media buying, screening. Our in-house team just needs to know the number of cases you need.

PFAS Facts & History

Approximately 1,122 high-stakes PFAS cases have been combined and transferred together in multidistrict litigation in Charleston, South Carolina. The multidistrict litigation involves military and civilian airbases. The court is prepared for more cases to be filed in the coming months. The already widening circle of PFAS litigation and Plaintiffs' successful settlements in several high-profile cases send clear signals that more litigation can be expected.

All these cases involve various causes of action and claims relating to per- or poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) used in firefighting foam applied at training sites and to extinguish fires across the country.

Now that they know about PFAS contamination and how it can cause so much harm, many affected parties are also involved in proposed class-action lawsuits against those responsible for this disaster. These lawsuits aim to represent a broader group of people who have experienced the same alleged harm.

For example, a class-action in federal court in Ohio claims to represent all the U.S. residents who have detectable levels of PFAS in their blood and names nine Defendant companies, seeking the establishment of a PFAS science panel.

AQUEOUS FILM-FORMING FOAMS (AFFF) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL NO. 2873

Location:

• District of South Carolina

Presiding Judge:

• Judge Richard M. Gergel

Plaintiffs:

• Parties affected by PFAS in AFFF either on or adjacent to airports, firefighting training centers, and military bases where the chemicals were often used.

Defendants:

• 3M Company
• Buckeye Fire Equipment
• Kidde
• WillFire HC LLC (Williams Fire & Hazard Control)
• E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company
• The Chemours Company F.C., LLC
• Chemguard Inc
• Tyco Fire Products LP
• National Foam Inc
• BASF Corporation
• Dynax Corporation
• Chemicals Incorporated
• Sentinel Emergency Solutions, LLC
• Carrier Global Corporation
• Raytheon Technologies Corporation
• Amerex Corporation
• Clariant Corporation
• AGC Chemicals Americas Inc.
• PBI Performance Products, Inc.
• Arkema Inc.
• Archroma U.S., Inc.

Products:

Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), two types of PFAS present in AFFF, fire foam used extensively at municipal airports and military bases to combat jet fuel spills.

Plaintiff Allegations:

Plaintiffs generally allege that for years, the aqueous film-forming foams have been sold with PFAS, which can build up in the body and increase the risk of cancer and other health problems. 3M Company, Du Pont, BASF Corp., and dozens of different PFAS and AFFF manufacturers failed to warn users about the risk that they may develop cancer.

History:

2023:

• January:

• Since January 15, approximately 317 new AFFF lawsuits have been added to the MDL, bringing the total number of pending cases to 3,704. The monthly average of new cases for the MDL in 2022 was 175, so this month was nearly double that.
• A group of 3 defendants - Tyco, BASF, and Chemguard Inc. - filed Summary Judgment motions, looking to get themselves out of the first bellwether AFFF trial before it goes to trial in May 2023.

2022:

• December:

• Another 100 new cases were added to the AFFF firefighting foam class action MDL between November 15, 2022, and December 15, 2022. This brings the number of pending AFFF cases in the class action lawsuit to 3,399. During 2022, the AFFF class action has added 1,300 new cases, a growth rate of almost 50%.

• September:

• 3M's government contractor defense in the AFFF lawsuits was rejected by the MDL judge. The company had sought summary judgment because it manufactured AFFF under a government contract and should therefore be immune from liability. The court disagreed and established that the government contractor defense could not apply since 3M withheld information from the government about the health risks of AFFF exposure.

2021:

• March:

• A Texas man who was never a firefighter indicated in a lawsuit filed in South Carolina that he developed cancer from chemicals in firefighting foam, which contaminated his drinking water following years of usage at a nearby airport.

• February:

• In a complaint filed in South Carolina, a Florida man showed he developed kidney cancer caused by firefighting foam used regularly while working on an aircraft carrier and submarine. He presented claims against PFAS and AFFF manufacturers as the Defendants.
• Following years of exposure to AFFFs working on an aircraft carrier and submarine, a former U.S. Navy engineer showed he was diagnosed with kidney cancer. He filed a product liability complaint against the manufacturers of AFFF and PFAS, alleging that they showed reckless disregard for the health and safety of those exposed to their products.

• January:

• A Texas man filed a class-action lawsuit over toxic AFFF chemicals. The military's use of these chemicals during fire training exercises polluted private wells near and around military bases. The man seeks class-action status. This status will help him and other private landowners pursue damages because their wells were contaminated with PFAS.