MDL 2873 · United States District Court for the District of South Carolina
If you used AFFF foam and later got cancer, ask a lawyer to check a possible claim. Water-system deals do not set injury payments.
Updated 15 sources
See If You Qualify
Free · No obligation · About 2 minutes
Updated 15 sources
This may apply to you if
The process
You answer a few questions
About two minutes. Nothing is sent until you agree on the last step and press submit.
A lawyer looks at it
A lawyer at the firm reads your answers and checks them against the current case criteria.
The firm decides and gets in touch
If the firm takes your case, you get the terms in writing to read before you sign. You can always say no.
At a glance
Who qualifies
These are cited sources. Their inclusion does not imply that they endorse People’s Justice or reviewed this page.
Richard M. Gergel · United States District Court for the District of South Carolina · United States District Judge
Finding: The August 31, 2026 order sets expert-motion dates for thyroid and liver cancer. It does not set an individual payment.
District of South Carolina: CMO33F (opens in a new tab) · Aug 31, 2026 · Checked Oct 3, 2026
International Agency for Research on Cancer · World Health Organization · Publisher of the cancer hazard assessment
Finding: PFOA is classed as able to cause cancer; PFOS as possibly able to cause cancer. The classifications do not measure individual risk at a given dose.
IARC: PFOA/PFOS evaluation Q&A (opens in a new tab) · Dec 1, 2023 · Checked Oct 3, 2026
International Agency for Research on Cancer · 2023
Read the source: PFOA and PFOS cancer hazard evaluation (opens in a new tab) · Checked Oct 3, 2026
The August 31, 2026 order sets expert briefing dates for thyroid and liver cancer. It does not decide a new person’s claim.
Not covered by this case
Check the fee percentage, expense deductions and costs owed if you do not win.
Source: ABA Model Rule1.5: Fees · as of Oct 3, 2026
Tell the firm your work, home and health history; mark what you do not know.
Source: ATSDR: PFAS Information for Clinicians · as of Oct 3, 2026
Ask about records and the law that sets your filing time limit.
Source: SDNY: How long do I have to file? · as of Oct 3, 2026
Read the fee terms and tell the firm about any lawyer who already represents you.
Source: ABA Model Rule1.5: Fees · as of Oct 3, 2026
Relative risk of 1.74 for kidney cancer among individuals with high PFAS exposure compared to low-exposure controls
PFAS manufacturers knew about the persistence and toxicity of their products as early as 1970 — more than 50 years before widespread public awareness
Determined "probable link" between PFOA exposure and six diseases: kidney cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid disease, ulcerative colitis, high cholesterol, and pregnancy-induced hypertension
If you worked with AFFF foam and later got cancer, ask a lawyer to check your facts. AFFF means aqueous film-forming foam, a type of fire foam. A work history and a diagnosis are starting points for a check, not a promise that a firm will take your case.
The federal worker health agency says firefighters may have more PFAS exposure than the public. PFAS are a group of chemicals used in some fire foams. Your job title alone does not describe what you handled. Note the foam name, tasks, workplace and years, if you know them. Tell the lawyer what is known and what you still need to find.
Drinking water is another possible route of exposure. ATSDR, a federal health agency, says PFAS can move through soil, water and air. They also occur in products other than fire foam. Living near a fire site does not show which chemical entered your body. Explain both your work and home history, rather than assuming all exposure came from one source.
An August 31, 2026 court order sets further dates for expert arguments about thyroid and liver cancer. It concerns which expert evidence the court may use. It does not set an award or decide whether a new person has a claim. The court canceled the October 20, 2025 injury test-trial date in an August 15, 2025 order. That order did not end every injury claim.
These proceedings are in MDL 2873 in the District of South Carolina. MDL means multidistrict litigation: related federal cases share court proceedings. Judge Richard M. Gergel signed the order. Responses to these expert motions are due November 20, 2026, with replies due January 22, 2027. Those dates belong to this expert schedule, not a new claim registration window. In August 2026, gear-only federal cases were grouped separately in Minnesota as MDL 3191. Cases that allege harm from both foam and gear stay in the foam MDL.
The public court site warns that its orders page is not a full list of decisions. The official record is on the court filing system, called ECF/PACER. Ask the lawyer for the latest order that affects your own claim. A dated order is more useful than a broad claim that every case is about to settle.
The 3M water-system settlement is for a defined class of water suppliers. It does not set a personal injury award for you. Ask which claim and which settlement a quoted figure actually covers.
The court approved that water-system class settlement on March 29, 2024. The systems brought claims about PFAS in drinking water. Money paid to those systems is not a grid of payments for residents with cancer. A household user is not the same claimant as a water supplier. Do not use the headline total to budget for a personal payment.
The settlement notice also excludes a private well that supplies only its owner or tenant household from that class. This describes that water-system program. It does not answer whether a well user has a different claim. Ask for a check of your own facts instead of treating a utility claim form as a personal injury application.
Ask for the fee and expense terms in writing before you hire a firm. A fee based on winning is called a contingent fee. It is not the same as a promise that you will never owe costs.
The ABA model rule says a signed contingent-fee agreement should state the percentage and how expenses are deducted. It should explain costs owed even if the case does not win. Ask whether expenses come out before or after the fee is worked out. Also ask about any charge for the first review. These are questions for the firm, not a price quote for your claim.
Get a check of your own filing deadline as soon as you can. A court schedule for lawyers arguing about experts is not a deadline for everyone with a possible claim. Do not use it to decide that you have plenty of time.
The federal court in New York explains that time limits depend on the law and the claims raised. Its general guidance points to state law in some cases when federal law has no stated time limit. It does not supply one deadline for all AFFF claims. Ask which law applies to you and what event starts the clock. Bring dates you know and mark dates you do not know.
The November 2026 and January 2027 dates above cover responses and replies on expert evidence for thyroid and liver cancer. They are not personal claim sign-up dates. If you have already filed, ask your lawyer about any order that applies to your case. If you have not filed, ask for a separate check of your time limit.
Write down your work, home and health history, and ask for copies of key records. Speak with your healthcare provider about health concerns and the limits of PFAS testing. If a firm already represents you, tell any new firm before signing more papers.
Start with the diagnosis and treatment dates you know. Under federal health privacy rules, people generally have a right to copies of their medical and billing records from covered providers, with exceptions. Ask the provider how to make a request. A reasonable copying or mailing fee may apply, but the guidance bars search or retrieval fees. An unpaid treatment bill alone cannot justify denying a copy.
If you think a record has an error, you can ask the provider to correct it. If it disagrees, the federal guidance describes a right to add a statement of disagreement. Keep the original record and explain the concern. Ask which records are needed before requesting a whole set. This keeps the legal check focused on your actual health history.
For drinking-water concerns, ask the water provider for its PFAS test results. For a private well, ask your state health or environment agency about certified labs and testing. EPA says it does not regulate private wells. A result above the federal drinking-water standard does not mean that illness will occur. Bring the water report to your clinician and ask what it means for you.
A home filter may reduce PFAS, but not all filters address these chemicals. Check that the filter is certified for PFAS reduction and follow its maintenance instructions. EPA warns that the cited certification standards do not by themselves show that the filter reaches federal drinking-water limits. Do not treat a filter label as a diagnosis or as proof of where past exposure came from.
Use the first discussion to ask what the firm needs to review your facts. Then ask about the filing deadline, fee agreement and any prior representation. A court procedure does not promise that a firm will accept a person or reply within a set time.
First, explain the exposure and diagnosis without guessing at missing dates. Second, ask what records and legal questions need a check. Third, read the proposed fee terms and clarify who will represent you before you sign. Ask for the name of the firm and how to reach the person handling your questions. Keep a copy of any agreement you sign.
The AFFF court has addressed people with multiple personal injury filings and different firms. Its June 3, 2026 order calls for one case per person and a process to resolve duplicate filings. A dismissal under that process does not decide the merits of the remaining claim. The order also leaves room for outgoing counsel to claim proper fees or costs. If this applies to you, ask your current lawyer to explain the process.
Agency reviews support concern about some PFAS and health effects. They do not prove that one foam caused one person’s cancer. The chemical, exposure history and diagnosis still need their own check.
IARC, the World Health Organization cancer research agency, classed PFOA as a chemical that can cause cancer. It classed PFOS as possibly able to cause cancer. The PFOA decision combined animal and mechanistic evidence, with limited human evidence for kidney and testicular cancer. This is a hazard assessment, not a measure of your own risk at a given dose.
ATSDR says PFAS blood tests measure certain chemicals in the blood. They cannot tell whether you have a related illness, predict future illness or choose treatment. Discuss the risks, benefits and limits with your clinician before buying a test. A high reading alone is not a diagnosis. A blood report also does not replace a legal check of your claim.
The agency’s clinician guidance calls for a history of how much exposure may have occurred, how long it lasted and how it happened. It advises usual standards of care for health concerns. Extra screening can have downsides, including false positives and further tests that are not needed. Ask your clinician what care makes sense for your health, rather than choosing tests to meet a lawsuit ad.
The answers below focus on personal AFFF concerns. Ask about the scope of each court order, health test or water-system program before applying it to your own facts.
The links below lead to the court orders and agency guidance used here. Check the original source for its date and scope, and ask a lawyer or clinician about how it applies to you.
Aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) contains per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) — synthetic "forever chemicals" that do not break down in the environment or the human body. When AFFF is used in fire suppression or training exercises, PFAS compounds are released into soil and groundwater, where they contaminate drinking water supplies and bioaccumulate in human tissue over years and decades. The resulting chronic exposure has been linked to kidney cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid disease, ulcerative colitis, liver damage, and other serious health conditions.
PFAS compounds are called "forever chemicals" because the carbon-fluorine bond — one of the strongest in chemistry — makes them virtually indestructible in the environment and the human body. PFOA has a half-life of approximately 3.5 years in human blood; PFOS has a half-life of approximately 5 years. This means chronic exposure through contaminated drinking water results in steadily increasing body burdens over time. 3M discovered in the 1970s that PFAS levels in workers' blood were 1,000 times higher than normal — and concealed this finding for decades.
PFAS are potent endocrine disruptors that interfere with thyroid hormone synthesis and metabolism. They compete with thyroid hormones for binding sites on transport proteins, disrupt the hypothalamic-pituitary-thyroid axis, and alter circulating levels of T3 and T4. This mechanism explains the C8 Science Panel's determination of a "probable link" between PFOA exposure and thyroid disease, and the elevated rates of thyroid dysfunction observed in exposed communities.
PFAS promote cancer through several biological mechanisms. They activate peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor alpha (PPARa), promoting hepatocellular proliferation and contributing to liver and kidney tumors. They generate oxidative stress that damages DNA, interfere with DNA repair mechanisms, and cause epigenetic modifications that alter gene expression. IARC classified PFOA as a Group 1 carcinogen in 2023 based on sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in humans, with the strongest evidence for kidney and testicular cancer.
PFAS suppress immune function by interfering with antibody production and T-cell activation. Studies have shown that PFAS-exposed individuals produce fewer antibodies in response to vaccination and have increased susceptibility to infections. This immunotoxicity is particularly relevant for firefighters and military personnel whose occupational PFAS exposure may have compromised their immune system's ability to detect and destroy precancerous cells, contributing to elevated cancer rates.
The manufacturers of AFFF — primarily 3M, DuPont, and Chemours — knew about the toxicity and persistence of PFAS for decades and chose to conceal this information from users, regulators, and the public. Internal documents show that 3M found PFAS in workers' blood at 1,000 times normal levels in the 1970s, concluded the chemicals "should be regarded as toxic," and hired academics to produce company-friendly research. DuPont concealed evidence of birth defects in exposed workers and animal tumor data. This pattern of corporate concealment, combined with the established causation science, forms the basis of negligence, strict liability, and punitive damages claims in MDL 2873.
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) exposure has been linked to multiple cancers and diseases through extensive epidemiological research. The C8 Science Panel established "probable links" between PFOA exposure and six conditions: kidney cancer (renal cell carcinoma), testicular cancer (testicular germ cell tumors), thyroid disease (including hypothyroidism, hyperthyroidism, and thyroid cancer), ulcerative colitis, high cholesterol (hyperlipidemia), and pregnancy-induced hypertension (preeclampsia). The International Agency for Research on Cancer classified PFOA as a Group 1 carcinogen in 2023, with the strongest evidence for kidney and testicular cancer. Additional conditions with emerging evidence include liver damage (hepatotoxicity), non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and immune system suppression.
The strongest PFAS-cancer association. IARC Group 1 for PFOA. Meta-analysis RR=1.74 for high exposure. Symptoms include blood in urine, flank pain, unexplained weight loss, fatigue, and fever. Often diagnosed at advanced stages because early kidney cancer is frequently asymptomatic.
C8 Science Panel "probable link." Meta-analysis RR=2.22 for high PFAS exposure — the strongest relative risk of any PFAS-linked cancer. Symptoms include a painless lump or swelling in a testicle, heaviness in the scrotum, dull ache in the lower abdomen or groin. Most common in men ages 15-35.
C8 Science Panel "probable link." PFAS interfere with thyroid hormone synthesis and metabolism. Conditions include hypothyroidism (fatigue, weight gain, cold intolerance, depression), hyperthyroidism (weight loss, rapid heartbeat, anxiety, heat intolerance), and thyroid cancer. Thyroid disease is often the earliest clinical manifestation of PFAS exposure.
C8 Science Panel "probable link" with OR=1.60. A chronic inflammatory bowel disease causing inflammation and ulceration of the colon and rectum. Symptoms include bloody diarrhea, abdominal pain, urgency, weight loss, and fatigue. Requires lifelong management and may necessitate surgical colectomy in severe cases.
Consistent evidence from both rodent and human studies. PFAS activate PPARa receptors in the liver, promoting hepatocellular proliferation and potentially contributing to liver fibrosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. Elevated liver enzymes (ALT, AST) are commonly observed in PFAS-exposed populations.
Emerging evidence links PFAS exposure to non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a cancer of the lymphatic system. PFAS immunotoxicity — suppression of antibody production and T-cell function — may compromise immune surveillance against malignant lymphocytes. Symptoms include painless enlarged lymph nodes, fatigue, fever, night sweats, and unexplained weight loss.
Prognosis for PFAS-linked conditions varies significantly by the specific disease and the stage at diagnosis. Testicular cancer has one of the highest cure rates of any cancer, with greater than 95% five-year survival even when detected at advanced stages. Kidney cancer prognosis depends heavily on stage — localized disease has excellent outcomes (93% five-year survival) while metastatic disease has significantly lower survival rates. Thyroid cancer prognosis is generally excellent, with 98%+ five-year survival for common papillary and follicular subtypes. Ulcerative colitis is a chronic condition requiring lifelong management but is not typically life-threatening with appropriate treatment. The critical factor across all conditions is early detection, which underscores the importance of PFAS exposure screening and medical monitoring for at-risk populations.
AFFF/PFAS exposure affects a broad population ranging from firefighters who directly handled the foam to communities miles from contamination sources whose drinking water has been silently contaminated for decades. The strength of a legal claim depends on the type, duration, and intensity of exposure, combined with a diagnosis of a PFAS-linked health condition.
Direct Occupational Contact
Base Contamination / Occupational
Residential Water Contamination
Groundwater Contamination / Municipal Water
Exposure profiles are general guidelines and do not determine legal eligibility. Many factors affect the strength of an individual claim, including the specific contaminants involved, the duration and intensity of exposure, the availability of documentation, and the applicable state law. A free attorney consultation will evaluate your specific circumstances.
The AFFF/PFAS litigation has imposed massive financial, regulatory, and reputational consequences on the manufacturers of AFFF and its chemical components. Multi-billion-dollar settlements, CERCLA hazardous substance designations, and the first-ever federal drinking water standards for PFAS are fundamentally reshaping the economics of the fluorochemical industry.
AFFF manufacturers face a converging wave of regulatory action, litigation liability, and market transformation that is fundamentally altering the fluorochemical industry.
The court is weighing expert evidence on thyroid and liver cancer under an August 31, 2026 order, and no personal injury settlement has been announced. The combination of multi-billion-dollar settlements, IARC carcinogen classification, EPA drinking water standards, CERCLA hazardous substance designation, and state-level AFFF bans represents a comprehensive accountability framework that is transforming the fluorochemical industry. 3M's decision to exit PFAS manufacturing entirely reflects the magnitude of the legal and regulatory exposure.
Regulatory action on PFAS has accelerated dramatically since 2016, with international scientific bodies, federal agencies, and state legislatures taking increasingly aggressive positions on PFAS contamination, drinking water standards, and the phase-out of PFAS-containing firefighting foam.
The regulatory landscape for PFAS has transformed dramatically since 2016, with the EPA's enforceable drinking water standards (4 ppt MCL), CERCLA hazardous substance designation, IARC Group 1 carcinogen classification, and state-level AFFF bans collectively establishing that PFAS contamination from AFFF poses unacceptable risks to human health and the environment. Each regulatory action strengthens the litigation by validating the science, creating compliance obligations, and establishing legal frameworks for accountability.
Every state has a statute of limitations — a legal deadline — for filing an AFFF/PFAS personal injury lawsuit. Whether that time has passed depends on your facts, so don't rule yourself out. A lawyer can tell you. Because PFAS-related diseases can take years or decades to develop after exposure, the discovery rule plays a critical role in determining when your filing deadline begins.
PFAS-related cancers and diseases typically develop years or decades after exposure begins, and many people are unaware they were exposed to contaminated water until testing reveals PFAS at their local water system or military base. Most states apply a "discovery rule" that starts the statute of limitations when you discovered — or reasonably should have discovered — that your exposure to PFAS caused your illness. For many AFFF plaintiffs, this date is tied to a cancer diagnosis, a public disclosure of contamination at a military base, or media coverage of PFAS health risks. The discovery rule is particularly important in AFFF cases because manufacturers concealed the health risks of PFAS for decades, preventing exposed individuals from learning about the connection between their exposure and their disease.
In most states, the statute of limitations starts in 2024 when the cancer was diagnosed — not when the exposure occurred decades earlier. The diagnosis is the event that triggers the discovery rule because it is the point at which the connection between AFFF exposure and the disease becomes apparent.
If a family member has been diagnosed with a PFAS-linked condition, the discovery of water contamination may trigger the statute of limitations by establishing the exposure pathway. Even if the diagnosis came earlier, the contamination disclosure may restart the clock by revealing the cause of the illness.
Blood PFAS testing provides concrete evidence of exposure and may serve as a discovery date, particularly when combined with a medical diagnosis. This evidence connects the individual to the contamination source and establishes the factual basis for a claim.
If you were exposed to AFFF or PFAS-contaminated water and have been diagnosed with a linked condition, a lawyer can check your filing deadline. The court is weighing expert evidence on thyroid and liver cancer under an August 31, 2026 order, and no personal injury settlement has been announced. Whether that time has passed depends on your facts, so don't rule yourself out. A lawyer can tell you.
This table provides general guidance. Actual deadlines depend on your specific circumstances, including when you discovered the connection between your PFAS exposure and your health condition. An attorney can determine your exact deadline based on the facts of your case and the applicable state law.
Your state
Deadlines vary by state and by case. A lawyer can confirm yours.
Ask your covered provider for diagnosis and treatment records. Federal guidance generally gives a right to copies, with exceptions and possible copying fees.
Source: HHS: Your Medical Records · as of Oct 7, 2026
No. The court approved a settlement for a class of water systems. That order does not set an award for your personal injury.
Source: 3M Public Water Systems Final Approval Order · as of Oct 7, 2026
No. Those dates apply to expert arguments on thyroid and liver cancer. Ask which law and time limit apply to your own claim.
Source: D.S.C. AFFF MDL Case Management Order 33F, August 31, 2026 · as of Oct 7, 2026
Ask for written terms covering fees and expenses. Check what you could owe if you do not win and how expenses affect any recovery.
Source: ABA Model Rule 1.5: Fees · as of Oct 7, 2026
It depends. The court describes filing rules for cases subject to transfer to the MDL. A web form is not proof that your case meets those rules; ask for an individual check.
Source: D.S.C. AFFF MDL Case Management Order 35 · as of Oct 7, 2026
No. ATSDR says the test measures certain PFAS in your blood. It does not diagnose a related illness or predict future health problems.
Source: ATSDR: Testing for PFAS · as of Oct 7, 2026
No. The August 31, 2026 order schedules expert-motion arguments for thyroid and liver cancer. It does not set your trial or payment date.
Source: D.S.C. AFFF MDL Case Management Order 33F, August 31, 2026 · as of Oct 7, 2026
Work with AFFF foam and a later cancer diagnosis are reasons to ask for an individual check. Your history does not guarantee that a firm will take the case.
Checked against 13 primary sources by People's Justice editors · Updated
How we make moneyThe review is free and private. Asking for it doesn’t commit you to anything.
Register your interest