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:

• March:
• In a lawsuit filed in Massachusetts state court, the International Association of Fire Fighters accused the National Fire Protection Association of imposing a testing standard requiring the use of PFAS in firefighter turnout gear despite the chemicals' health risks.
• A 62-year-old Texas man was exposed to PFAS during his service as a firefighter in the U.S. Marine Corps. The exposure led to his diagnosis of prostate cancer and subsequent prostatectomy. His lawsuit alleges he experienced personal injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress as a result of his exposure to fluorochemical products.
• 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:

• April:
• In a product liability lawsuit filed against chemical and safety equipment manufacturers, a worker in the hydraulic fracturing industry alleged that exposure to chemicals in AFFF caused him to develop prostate cancer.
• In a complaint brought in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina against more than a dozen different companies, a volunteer firefighter alleged that his prostate cancer diagnosis resulted from exposure to the PFAS in AFFF that was regularly used during training and response exercises.
• March:
• In a case filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, a man indicated that he was diagnosed with testicular cancer from AFFF used throughout his career, including during training exercises and when fighting actual fires.
• A firefighter from Georgia filed a product liability lawsuit against numerous chemical and safety equipment manufacturing companies, alleging his exposure to AFFFs - both during training and actual firefighting events - led to cancer development.
• After a lifetime of service for the Scottsdale Fire Department, an Arizona man indicated he was diagnosed with prostate cancer caused by exposure to AFFF, which was repeatedly used during training and response exercises.
• In a lawsuit filed by a former Virginia firefighter, the Plaintiff alleged that years of exposure to PFAS in AFFF resulted in the development of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
• 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.
• In a complaint filed in South Carolina, a former firefighter indicated he was diagnosed with prostate cancer following years of exposure to PFAS in AFFFs, during his military career at Airforce bases and working at a civilian fire department.
• Tyco Fire Products is set to pay $17.5 million after an agreement was reached with a federal Judge for a firefighting foam class-action lawsuit, resolving claims over water contamination in a Wisconsin community. The Plaintiffs filed a class-action lawsuit against the company and Chemguard, Inc. and Chemdesign, Inc., showing that local water wells in Marinette County, Wisconsin, were contaminated with PFAS entered private wells from a nearby testing and research site.
• January:
• A complaint was brought by a man and his wife in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, indicating he developed cancer after he was regularly exposed to toxic chemicals in AFFF, known as PFAS. The man worked as a firefighter at a Louisiana International Airport from 1995 to 2002, where AFFFs were routinely used during training exercises and in response to some fuel-based fires.
• A mother and daughter filed a product liability lawsuit against several manufacturers of PFAS. The complaint was filed in New Jersey, accusing that exposure to PFAS from nearby factories caused the child to suffer physical and developmental problems.
• 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.
• A Texas firefighter filed a product liability lawsuit that alleged toxic chemicals in fire foam caused him to develop testicular cancer following years of exposure throughout his career.
• A former career firefighter indicated he developed colon cancer following exposure to AFFF over nearly four decades of fighting certain fuel-based fires and during training exercises. In a product liability complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, the firefighter indicated that numerous safety equipment and chemical manufacturers, including 3M Company, Tyco Fire Products, should be held liable for his colon cancer diagnosis.

2020:

• December:
• A retired fireman filed a product liability lawsuit over prostate cancer, which was allegedly caused by exposure to PFAS in AFFFs that were commonly used during training exercises and in response to some fuel-based fires during his career. The complaint was filed in South Carolina. The man alleged that various manufacturers sold the unreasonably dangerous AFFF and failed to warn about the risk that PFAS may build up in the firefighters' bodies, increasing the risk of cancer and other health problems.
• In a complaint filed in South Carolina, a former Florida firefighter indicated he was diagnosed with kidney cancer after years of exposure to AFFF, which contained PFAS. The man stated that he was directly exposed to firefighting foam that he regularly used to help fight fires. However, he was never informed the AFFF was toxic and was not told he would need any protective gear when handling the foam.
• October:
• According to a product liability claim, toxic chemicals in AFFF caused a Texas firefighter to develop skin cancer. The firefighter filed the complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, indicating he was directly exposed to PFAS in the AFFF during training exercises and while fighting actual fires.
• A California man filed a product liability lawsuit over a bladder cancer diagnosis he indicated resulted from exposure to AFFFs used during his work as a firefighter. The complaint was filed by the man in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, alleging that various firefighting foam manufacturers failed to warn firefighters about the side effects and sold unreasonably dangerous products.
• September:
• A Florida firefighter filed a lawsuit over breast cancer she indicated was caused by exposure to toxic chemicals in AFFFs, commonly used during training exercises and in response to some fuel-based fires. The complaint was brought in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, joining many similar cases being pursued against various chemical and fire safety equipment manufacturers responsible for the anti-fire foam.
• A former firefighter filed a lawsuit against dozens of manufacturers and distributors of AFFF, alleging that he developed colon cancer from exposure to PFAS in the products. The complaint was filed in South Carolina, indicating that dozens of manufacturers failed to warn firefighters and trainees about the potential risks adequately.
• A former volunteer fireman filed a lawsuit alleging a cancer diagnosis was caused by frequent exposures to AFFF during his career. The complaint was filed in South Carolina, presenting claims against various manufacturers of equipment and chemicals used in AFFF, alleging that the firemen were not warned about the risk of exposure to PFAS contained in the products.
• According to a complaint filed by a man and his wife in South Carolina, years of exposure to fluorochemicals found in AFFF resulted in a kidney cancer diagnosis for the New Jersey firefighter. The lawsuit named dozens of manufacturers and distributors of PFAS and AFFF as Defendants, including 3M Company, DuPont, and Kidde.
• A Wisconsin firefighter and his wife filed a lawsuit alleging that years of exposure to anti-fire foam, known as AFFF, resulted in the development of cancer, which ultimately led to the need for a liver transplant. The complaint was filed in South Carolina, presenting claims against several chemical and fire safety equipment manufacturers as Defendants.
• According to a firefighter's lawsuit, chemicals in the firefighting foam used in response to some fires and during training exercises resulted in a diagnosis of kidney cancer and colon cancer. The man filed the complaint in South Carolina, presenting claims for himself and his wife against various chemicals and fire safety equipment manufacturers.
• August:
• Following years of exposure to toxic AFFF used during training exercises and in response to certain fuel-based fires, a Mississipi man indicated he developed prostate cancer. In a product liability lawsuit filed in South Carolina, he is pursuing damages from many companies involved in the manufacturing or sale of AFFF, which contained PFAS, known cancer-causing chemicals.
• After years of exposure to PFAS during training exercises and firefighting activities, an Alabama man developed prostate cancer. According to a product liability claim filed in South Carolina, pursuing compensatory and punitive damages from companies involved in the sale and manufacture of AFFF, used for decades to fight fuel-based fires.
• July:
• A North Carolina man indicated in a lawsuit that toxic chemicals in AFFF used during training and response exercises caused him to face two separate battles with cancer following a 25-year career as a firefighter. The complaint was filed in South Carolina, the man presenting claims against several chemical manufacturers and fire safety equipment companies.
• The parents of a baby born with significant health problems indicated in a lawsuit that exposure to PFAS released from a nearby chemical plant left their child with brain damage and developmental issues. The complaint was filed in New Jersey, naming as Defendants PFAS and AFFF manufacturers.
• The wife of a former firefighter filed a wrongful death lawsuit, alleging that AFFF used to fight fuel-based fires over a nearly 40-year career caused him to develop acute myeloid leukemia, ultimately resulting in his death. The woman filed the complaint in Southern Carolina against a slew of chemical and safety equipment manufacturers.
• June:
• In a product liability lawsuit, a retired Nevada fireman claims exposure to AFFF led to the development of prostate cancer due to toxic chemicals in the foam. The former firefighter and his wife filed the complaint in South Carolina, indicating his years of using fire foam as a Clark County firefighter led to his cancer diagnosis.
• May:
• Several manufacturers face a class-action lawsuit over AFFF, which contained dangerous chemicals that contaminated drinking water supplies in a West Virginia community, exposing residents to a risk of cancer and other injuries. The complaint was filed in West Virginia. The Plaintiffs indicated that PFAS contaminated drinking water in the City of Martinsburg from years of spraying AFFF to fight fires at the nearby West Virginia Air National Guard base.
• A complaint was filed in South Carolina, indicating that residents who lived near the military bases where AFFF was used have been exposed to PFAS that leached into the water supply, causing severe health consequences, such as the risk of developing cancer.
• Dozens of fire safety equipment and chemical companies face a class-action lawsuit filed by firefighters who allege they were exposed to PFAS in AFFF used to fight fires, which may increase the risk of cancer. The complaint was filed in New York, calling for manufacturers and distributors of the AFFF foam to pay for medical monitoring of firefighters.
• April:
• One complaint was filed in South Carolina by a firefighter who indicated that he was diagnosed with kidney cancer after repeated exposure to the PFAS in AFFF.