AFFF Kidney Cancer Lawsuit

People's Justice Research TeamUpdated February 20, 2026Fact-checked

Verified against court and regulatory records · No upfront fees · Your information is never sold

Free Case Review

Check your eligibility — free

Answer 2-3 quick questions to review your potential case.

Free · Confidential · About 2 minutes · A case specialist responds within 1 business day

Your answers are never sold or shared without your consent.

PFAS and Kidney Cancer: The Scientific Evidence

Kidney cancer — specifically renal cell carcinoma, which accounts for approximately 90% of kidney cancers — has the most extensively documented association with PFAS exposure of any malignancy. When the International Agency for Research on Cancer evaluated the carcinogenicity of PFOA in November 2023, the agency's working group classified PFOA as a Group 1 carcinogen — the highest classification — based primarily on the strength of evidence linking it to kidney cancer in humans.

The C8 Science Panel determined a "probable link" between PFOA exposure and kidney cancer after analyzing health data from 69,000 residents in the Mid-Ohio Valley. The panel found that individuals with higher PFOA blood levels had significantly elevated rates of kidney cancer diagnosis. Subsequent meta-analyses have quantified this risk, with Mastrantonio et al. (2023) finding a relative risk of 1.74 for kidney cancer among individuals with high PFAS exposure — meaning they are 74% more likely to develop kidney cancer than unexposed individuals.

The biological mechanism linking PFAS to kidney cancer involves several pathways. PFAS activate peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor alpha (PPARa), promoting cellular proliferation in the kidney. They generate oxidative stress that damages renal cell DNA and interfere with DNA repair mechanisms. PFAS also disrupt signaling pathways involved in cell growth regulation, including the VHL tumor suppressor pathway that is commonly mutated in renal cell carcinoma. These mechanisms are consistent with the epidemiological evidence and provide a biologically plausible explanation for the observed association.

Kidney Cancer Claims in the AFFF Litigation

Kidney cancer claims represent some of the highest-valued cases in MDL 2873 due to the strength of the causation science. Plaintiffs with kidney cancer who can document PFAS exposure — through firefighting employment records, military service records at contaminated bases, or residential history in contaminated communities — have a clear scientific basis for their claims supported by IARC Group 1 classification and C8 Science Panel "probable link" determination.

The C8 bellwether trials established the viability of kidney cancer claims against PFAS manufacturers. Carla Bartlett received a $1.6 million jury verdict in 2015 for kidney cancer caused by PFOA exposure from DuPont's Washington Works facility. This verdict — and the subsequent global settlement of approximately 3,550 C8 claims for $670.7 million — demonstrated that juries will hold manufacturers accountable for PFAS-linked kidney cancer.

Kidney cancer is often diagnosed at advanced stages because early-stage disease is frequently asymptomatic. For AFFF-exposed individuals, awareness of the PFAS-kidney cancer link is critical for early detection. Anyone with significant AFFF exposure should discuss enhanced kidney screening (including periodic CT scans or ultrasounds) with their healthcare provider, even in the absence of symptoms.

Research & evidence

Scientific Evidence

meta-analysis

Meta-Analysis of PFAS Exposure and Cancer Risk: Kidney and Testicular Cancer

Mastrantonio M, Bai E, Uccelli R, Cordiano V, Screpanti A, Corigliano P. (2023). La Medicina del Lavoro

Key findings

Relative risk of 1.74 for kidney cancer among individuals with high PFAS exposure compared to low-exposure controls
Relative risk of 2.22 for testicular cancer among individuals with high PFAS exposure — the strongest relative risk of any PFAS-cancer association
Dose-response relationship demonstrated: higher PFAS blood levels correlated with progressively higher cancer risk
Results consistent across multiple study designs and populations, strengthening the causal inference

retrospective

"The Devil They Knew": Industry Knowledge of PFAS Dangers Since 1970

Brennan NM, Evans AT, Fritz MK, Peak SA, von Holst HE. (2023). Annals of Global Health

Key findings

PFAS manufacturers knew about the persistence and toxicity of their products as early as 1970 — more than 50 years before widespread public awareness
3M conducted internal studies showing PFAS bioaccumulation in worker blood at 1,000 times normal levels and animal studies showing tumor formation, then classified results as confidential
Manufacturers used trade secret protections and proprietary research agreements to prevent damaging findings from reaching regulators or the public
The pattern of corporate concealment parallels the tobacco and asbestos industries and supports punitive damages claims based on willful and malicious conduct

cohort

C8 Science Panel: Probable Link Evaluations for PFOA-Associated Diseases

Fletcher T, Savitz D, Steenland K. (2012). Environmental Health Perspectives

Key findings

Determined "probable link" between PFOA exposure and six diseases: kidney cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid disease, ulcerative colitis, high cholesterol, and pregnancy-induced hypertension
Study population of 69,000 residents made it one of the largest PFAS health studies ever conducted, providing exceptional statistical power
Findings have been cited in virtually every subsequent PFAS lawsuit and regulatory action worldwide
The "probable link" standard — requiring more than just association but less than definitive proof — was a negotiated scientific threshold that has become the benchmark for PFAS causation evidence

FAQ

Frequently Asked Questions

36 QUESTIONS

The primary categories of eligible plaintiffs include: firefighters (municipal, airport, military, or industrial) who handled AFFF during training or fire suppression; military personnel stationed at bases where AFFF was used or stored (the DoD has identified 455+ contaminated installations); military families who lived on or near contaminated bases; community residents whose drinking water was contaminated by PFAS from nearby military bases, airports, or fire training facilities; and industrial workers at PFAS manufacturing plants. Linked conditions include kidney cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid disease, ulcerative colitis, liver damage, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and high cholesterol. Attorneys handle these cases on contingency — fee terms vary by attorney.

3M is the largest defendant because it was the primary manufacturer of PFOS-based AFFF from the 1960s through 2000, making it the single largest source of PFAS environmental contamination from firefighting foam. 3M developed AFFF in partnership with the U.S. Navy, supplied it to military installations, airports, and fire departments nationwide for nearly four decades, and has the most extensive documented history of internal knowledge about PFAS toxicity. 3M's own 1970s studies showed workers' PFAS blood levels at 1,000 times normal. The company has already paid $10.3 billion in water utility settlements and $850 million to Minnesota, but personal injury claims from 15,216+ individuals remain pending in MDL 2873.

Firefighters have the most direct and intense exposure to AFFF of any occupational group. During training exercises — which occurred multiple times per month at many departments — firefighters waded through pools of AFFF, sprayed it from hoses at close range, and cleaned up foam residue by hand. PFAS were absorbed through the skin, inhaled as foam mist, and inadvertently ingested. This occurred for years or decades without chemical-resistant PPE, because AFFF was not labeled or treated as a toxic substance. Studies show firefighters' PFAS blood levels are 2 to 10 times higher than the general population. Career firefighters with the most years of AFFF training have the highest levels.

The link between PFAS and kidney cancer is among the strongest of any PFAS-disease association. IARC classified PFOA as a Group 1 carcinogen in 2023 based primarily on kidney cancer evidence — the highest classification, shared with asbestos and tobacco smoke. The C8 Science Panel determined a "probable link" between PFOA and kidney cancer from 69,000 residents studied. Meta-analyses show a relative risk of 1.74 at high exposure levels — meaning 74% higher cancer risk. The biological mechanism is well understood: PFAS activate PPARa, generate oxidative stress, damage DNA repair, and disrupt the VHL tumor suppressor pathway commonly mutated in renal cell carcinoma. This body of evidence provides exceptionally strong causation support for kidney cancer claims.

The Department of Defense has identified PFAS contamination at more than 455 military installations across the United States. Air Force bases, Naval air stations, and Marine Corps installations are the most heavily affected due to the routine use of AFFF in aircraft crash crew training. Contamination levels at some installations exceed 2 million parts per trillion — more than 500,000 times the EPA drinking water standard. The most contaminated installations include NAS China Lake (CA), Patrick SFB (FL), Myrtle Beach AFB (SC), Fort Moore (GA), and Peterson SFB (CO). A complete list of contaminated installations is available through the DoD PFAS Task Force.

The most relevant precedent for individual AFFF settlement amounts comes from the C8 litigation, where approximately 3,550 personal injury claims were settled for a combined $670.7 million — an average of approximately $189,000 per claim. However, individual values varied significantly based on diagnosis and exposure. Projected settlement ranges for MDL 2873 personal injury claims are: Tier I (moderate — medical monitoring, early-stage diagnosis): $25,000-$100,000; Tier II (significant — cancer diagnosis, firefighter with documented AFFF use): $100,000-$500,000; Tier III (severe — advanced cancer, death, decades of exposure): $500,000-$2,000,000+. Bellwether trials in MDL 2873 will establish specific valuation benchmarks for the current litigation.

Testicular cancer has a relative risk of 2.22 at high PFAS exposure — more than double the risk of unexposed individuals and the highest RR of any PFAS-linked cancer. Researchers believe this is because the testes are highly sensitive to endocrine-disrupting chemicals like PFAS, which interfere with hormonal signaling critical to reproductive tissue homeostasis. PFAS accumulate in reproductive organs, and the testes are exposed to systemic PFAS through blood circulation. The young age of onset for testicular cancer (15-35) means that military personnel and firefighters exposed to AFFF during early career years are at peak vulnerability. The C8 Science Panel confirmed the "probable link" through dose-response data showing progressively higher testicular cancer rates with higher PFOA blood levels.

PFAS are potent endocrine disruptors that specifically target the thyroid gland. They interfere with thyroid function through several mechanisms: competing with thyroid hormones (T3 and T4) for binding sites on transport proteins like transthyretin and thyroid-binding globulin; disrupting the hypothalamic-pituitary-thyroid axis that regulates thyroid hormone production; altering the expression of genes involved in thyroid hormone synthesis; and triggering autoimmune responses against thyroid tissue. The C8 Science Panel determined a "probable link" between PFOA and thyroid disease after studying 69,000 exposed residents, and multiple subsequent studies have confirmed the association in firefighters, military personnel, and contaminated communities.

You can determine if your water is contaminated with PFAS through several methods. Municipal water systems are required under the EPA's 2024 PFAS drinking water rule to test for PFAS and report results publicly. Contact your water provider and ask for PFAS test results, or check the EPA's PFAS monitoring data. If you have a private well, you can have it tested by a state-certified laboratory — contact your state health department for approved labs. The EWG (Environmental Working Group) maintains an interactive map at ewg.org/interactive-maps/pfas_contamination showing known PFAS contamination sites nationwide. The DoD PFAS Task Force website lists contaminated military installations. If your water source is near a military base, airport, or fire training facility, PFAS testing is strongly recommended.

The most important evidence for an AFFF lawsuit includes proof of exposure and a medical diagnosis. Exposure evidence can include military service records showing assignment to a contaminated base, employment records from a fire department showing AFFF training, residential history near a contaminated military installation or airport, water quality testing data from your local water system, and blood PFAS testing showing elevated levels. Medical evidence includes diagnosis records for a PFAS-linked condition (kidney cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid disease, ulcerative colitis, liver damage), treatment records, and pathology reports. You do not need all of these — an attorney can help you identify and gather the strongest available evidence. Blood PFAS testing, while not required, can provide powerful direct evidence of exposure.

DuPont's internal knowledge of PFOA toxicity is one of the most well-documented cases of corporate concealment in environmental law. Key facts: In 1980, 2 of 8 pregnancies among PFOA-exposed workers resulted in birth defects — DuPont concealed this from regulators. Throughout the 1990s, DuPont's own animal studies showed PFOA caused tumors in rats — the company continued discharging PFOA into the Ohio River. DuPont did not disclose PFOA contamination of community drinking water until forced to by litigation. Attorney Robert Bilott's 2001 lawsuit against DuPont exposed decades of concealment and led to the creation of the C8 Science Panel. The 2023 article "The Devil They Knew" documented that manufacturers knew of PFAS dangers by 1970.

Yes. Active-duty firefighters can file AFFF lawsuits against the manufacturers of AFFF (3M, DuPont, Tyco, BASF) while continuing to serve. The lawsuits target the chemical companies that manufactured and sold toxic AFFF, not fire departments or municipalities. Filing a lawsuit does not affect your employment, pension, or benefits. Many active firefighters are plaintiffs in MDL 2873. If you are currently experiencing health issues linked to AFFF exposure, you should consult both your department physician and an AFFF attorney. AFFF lawsuits and workers' compensation claims are separate legal processes — you can pursue both simultaneously.

Kidney cancer claims are among the highest-valued in MDL 2873 due to the strength of causation science. Based on the C8 bellwether verdicts ($1.6M for Bartlett), the C8 global settlement (averaging ~$189,000 per claim), and projected MDL 2873 settlement tiers, kidney cancer cases with strong exposure evidence may be valued at $100,000 to $500,000 for Tier II cases, and $500,000 to $2 million or more for Tier III cases involving advanced-stage or metastatic disease. Military firefighters and crash rescue personnel with decades of direct AFFF handling and Stage III/IV kidney cancer represent the strongest claims. Compensation depends on the stage at diagnosis, treatment required, strength of exposure documentation, and individual circumstances.

Yes. Military families — spouses and children — who lived on contaminated bases and drank contaminated water have their own independent claims in the AFFF litigation. The claims are based on residential exposure to PFAS-contaminated drinking water, not occupational exposure. Base housing assignments, family member ID cards, and dependents' medical records provide documentation of residence and duration of exposure. Children who grew up on contaminated bases are particularly important claimants because they experienced PFAS exposure during developmental periods of heightened vulnerability. Family members do not need to have been firefighters or to have handled AFFF directly — drinking contaminated water is sufficient exposure to support a claim if a PFAS-linked condition has been diagnosed.

The timeline for personal injury settlements in MDL 2873 depends on the progress of the bellwether trial process. Science Day was held June 20, 2025, and Daubert motions and expert depositions are currently underway. Trial dates have not yet been set, but the litigation is advancing steadily. After bellwether trials produce verdicts or settlements, the results typically inform settlement negotiations for the remaining claims. Individual settlement payments are generally distributed 1 to 3 years after bellwether outcomes through a claims administration process. Water utility settlements exceeding $12.5 billion have already been approved, demonstrating the defendants' financial capacity and willingness to settle. Filing now ensures your claim is included in any settlement framework that emerges.

Yes. The legal claim is based on the fact that you were diagnosed with testicular cancer and that your diagnosis was caused by PFAS exposure from AFFF — not on your current health status. Even if your treatment was successful and you are in remission, you suffered a compensable injury: the cancer diagnosis itself, the surgery (orchiectomy), any chemotherapy or radiation treatment, the emotional distress of a cancer diagnosis, lost wages during treatment, and potential fertility impacts are all elements of damages. The C8 bellwether verdicts awarded $5.1 million (Freeman) and $12.5 million (Wolf) for testicular cancer — both plaintiffs had completed treatment. Filing promptly is important because statutes of limitations may bar claims that are not brought within the applicable deadline.

The full spectrum of thyroid disease has been associated with PFAS exposure: hypothyroidism (underactive thyroid, the most common), hyperthyroidism (overactive thyroid), autoimmune thyroiditis (Hashimoto's disease), thyroid nodules, and thyroid cancer (particularly papillary thyroid carcinoma). Hypothyroidism is the most frequently diagnosed thyroid condition in PFAS-exposed populations and causes fatigue, weight gain, cold intolerance, and depression. All of these conditions were encompassed within the C8 Science Panel's "probable link" determination for thyroid disease. If you have been diagnosed with any form of thyroid disease and have a history of AFFF exposure, you may have a viable claim.

Yes. PFAS are "forever chemicals" that bioaccumulate in the human body over time. Even if you moved away from the contaminated area years ago, the PFAS you absorbed through drinking water remain in your blood and tissue. PFOS has a half-life of approximately 5 years in the human body, meaning it takes decades for blood levels to decline significantly after exposure stops. If you lived in an area with PFAS-contaminated water for an extended period and have been diagnosed with a linked condition, you may have a viable claim regardless of where you currently live. Your residential history (establishing you lived in the contaminated area), water quality data from that period, and your medical diagnosis are the key elements of the claim.

AFFF settlement values depend on the specific diagnosis and the strength of exposure evidence. Based on existing C8 settlements and the water utility settlement values, three compensation tiers have been projected: Tier I (moderate — documented exposure with medical monitoring needs or early-stage diagnosis) may recover $25,000 to $100,000. Tier II (significant — cancer diagnosis linked to PFAS, firefighter with documented AFFF use) may recover $100,000 to $500,000. Tier III (severe — advanced cancer, death, or decades of direct occupational exposure) may recover $500,000 to $2 million or more. The C8 personal injury settlements averaged approximately $189,000 per claim. Bellwether trials in MDL 2873 will provide clearer guidance on personal injury valuations.

Yes. DuPont restructured into three separate companies: DuPont de Nemours (successor company), Chemours (spun off in 2015 to assume fluorochemical liabilities), and Corteva Agriscience (spun off in 2019). All three entities are named defendants in MDL 2873 and jointly settled water utility claims for $1.185 billion. Courts have generally held that corporate restructurings do not eliminate liability for pre-existing torts, and the three-company structure has been criticized as an attempt to isolate liabilities rather than accept responsibility. For plaintiffs, the existence of three successor entities with shared liability actually increases the pool of assets available to satisfy personal injury claims.

The cancers most strongly linked to AFFF/PFAS exposure in firefighters include kidney cancer (RR=1.74, IARC Group 1 for PFOA), testicular cancer (RR=2.22, highest relative risk), thyroid cancer, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and liver cancer. The C8 Science Panel also established "probable links" to thyroid disease and ulcerative colitis. NIOSH studies have identified elevated rates of multiple cancers in firefighters broadly, including mesothelioma, bladder cancer, and several digestive cancers. The AFFF litigation specifically targets cancers linked to PFAS exposure through the C8 Science Panel findings and IARC classifications. Firefighters diagnosed with any cancer who handled AFFF should consult an attorney to evaluate their claim.

Yes. Given the established link between PFAS exposure and kidney cancer, individuals with significant AFFF exposure — firefighters, military personnel, and residents of contaminated communities — should discuss enhanced kidney screening with their healthcare provider. Kidney cancer is often diagnosed at advanced stages because early-stage disease is frequently asymptomatic. Screening options include periodic abdominal CT scans or kidney ultrasounds, urinalysis checking for microscopic hematuria, and monitoring of kidney function through blood tests. Early detection dramatically improves outcomes — localized kidney cancer has a 93% five-year survival rate compared to significantly lower survival for advanced disease. Blood PFAS testing can help quantify your exposure level and inform the appropriate screening interval.

No. VA benefits and AFFF product liability lawsuits are completely separate legal processes. You can receive VA disability compensation for a PFAS-linked condition (such as kidney cancer or thyroid disease) and simultaneously pursue a product liability lawsuit against the manufacturers of AFFF (3M, DuPont, Tyco, BASF). The lawsuit targets the chemical companies that manufactured and sold toxic AFFF, not the U.S. government or the Department of Defense. Your VA benefits will not be reduced, offset, or otherwise affected by any compensation you receive from an AFFF settlement or verdict. Many veterans in MDL 2873 are receiving VA benefits while their AFFF claims proceed.

The $10.3 billion 3M settlement resolves water utility claims — it compensates public water systems for the cost of testing, treating, and remediating PFAS contamination. It does not resolve personal injury claims. Your personal injury claim against 3M for health conditions caused by PFAS exposure remains active and is proceeding through MDL 2873 separately. The water utility settlements actually strengthen personal injury claims in several ways: they demonstrate that defendants accept responsibility for PFAS contamination, they confirm the scale of contamination, and they establish that defendants have the financial capacity to pay substantial settlements. The $12.5+ billion in water utility settlements is separate from and in addition to any personal injury settlements that will be negotiated.

Three bellwether jury trials in the C8 litigation against DuPont produced groundbreaking verdicts validating the PFAS-cancer link. Two of these involved testicular cancer: David Freeman received $5.1 million in April 2016 for testicular cancer caused by PFOA exposure from DuPont's Washington Works facility, and Kenneth Wolf received $12.5 million in July 2016 for testicular cancer from the same exposure source. These verdicts demonstrated that juries accept the C8 Science Panel's causation findings and are willing to award substantial damages for testicular cancer. The verdicts directly led to the $670.7 million global settlement of the remaining ~3,550 C8 personal injury claims.

Thyroid disease claims are generally valued lower than cancer claims because the condition is typically less life-threatening and more treatable. However, thyroid disease claims are still viable and can result in meaningful compensation. Hypothyroidism requires lifelong medication and monitoring, thyroid cancer requires surgery and radioactive iodine treatment, and all thyroid conditions impose ongoing medical costs and quality-of-life impacts. Settlement values for thyroid disease typically fall in the Tier I ($25,000-$100,000) range, while thyroid cancer may reach Tier II ($100,000-$500,000). The C8 Science Panel's "probable link" determination provides the same strong causation foundation for thyroid disease as for kidney or testicular cancer.

Yes, water utility settlements and personal injury settlements are entirely separate tracks in MDL 2873. Water utility settlements — including 3M ($10.3B), DuPont/Chemours/Corteva ($1.185B), Tyco ($750M), and BASF ($316.5M) — compensate public water systems for the cost of testing for, treating, and remediating PFAS contamination. These settlements go to the water utilities, not to individual residents. Personal injury settlements compensate individuals who drank contaminated water and developed health conditions as a result. The personal injury track in MDL 2873 encompasses over 15,216 individual claims and is advancing toward bellwether trials. Your personal injury claim is not affected by the water utility settlements — those settlements resolved a different category of harm.

Yes. Statutes of limitations vary by state, typically ranging from 2 to 3 years for personal injury claims. However, most states apply a "discovery rule" that starts the clock when you discovered — or reasonably should have discovered — that your PFAS exposure caused your illness. Because PFAS-related cancers can take years or decades to develop, and because manufacturers concealed the health risks of PFAS for decades, many people are still within their filing window. For many plaintiffs, the discovery date is tied to a cancer diagnosis, the public disclosure of contamination at a specific military base, or the widespread media coverage of PFAS health risks that began in 2018-2019. Acting promptly is critical — do not assume you have unlimited time.

No. AFFF attorneys work on a contingency fee basis, meaning they only get paid if you receive a settlement or verdict. If your case is unsuccessful, you owe nothing. The initial case evaluation is free and confidential. This arrangement ensures that firefighters, military personnel, and community members can seek legal representation regardless of their financial situation. Attorney fees are typically 33-40% of the recovered amount, and all litigation costs are advanced by the law firm.

The primary defendants in MDL 2873 include: 3M Company, which manufactured PFOS-based AFFF from the 1960s and agreed to a $10.3 billion water utility settlement in 2023; DuPont, Chemours, and Corteva, which manufactured PFOA and settled water utility claims for $1.185 billion; Tyco Fire Products (a subsidiary of Johnson Controls), a major AFFF distributor that settled for $750 million; BASF, which supplied AFFF chemical components and settled for $316.5 million; and AGC Chemicals, a fluorochemical manufacturer. Additional defendants include other AFFF formulators and distributors. The personal injury claims against these defendants remain pending and are advancing toward bellwether trials.

MDL 2873 — officially titled "In re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation" — is a multidistrict litigation consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina (Charleston) before Judge Richard Gergel. Over 15,216 personal injury claims have been consolidated into this MDL for coordinated pre-trial proceedings. The MDL process benefits individual plaintiffs by pooling resources for discovery, expert testimony, and legal research. You do not need to travel to South Carolina — your attorney handles all filings and communications. Science Day was held June 20, 2025 with expert presentations on liver and thyroid cancer. Daubert motions and expert depositions are underway, with bellwether trial dates yet to be set. The water utility settlement track has been largely resolved; the personal injury track is the current focus.

Yes. PFAS are called "forever chemicals" because they do not break down in the environment or the human body. PFOS has a half-life in human blood of approximately 5 years, meaning that exposure from decades ago continues to pose health risks today. Many AFFF plaintiffs were exposed in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s and are only now developing cancers and diseases linked to that exposure. The discovery rule in most states starts the statute of limitations when you learned — or should have learned — of the connection between your PFAS exposure and your diagnosis, not when the exposure occurred. Because PFAS health risks were concealed by manufacturers for decades, the discovery rule provides an important protection for individuals with historical exposure.

PFAS blood testing measures the concentration of specific PFAS compounds — including PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, and PFNA — in your blood serum. The test is typically ordered by a healthcare provider and performed by a clinical laboratory. Results are reported in nanograms per milliliter (ng/mL) or parts per billion (ppb). The general U.S. population has background PFAS levels of approximately 1-5 ng/mL for PFOS and 0.5-2 ng/mL for PFOA. Firefighters and residents of contaminated communities may have levels 10 to 100 times higher. PFAS blood testing serves two important purposes. First, it provides direct evidence of exposure for your legal claim — elevated blood levels establish that you absorbed PFAS into your body, strengthening the link between your exposure and your diagnosis. Second, it can identify individuals at elevated risk who should receive enhanced medical monitoring even if they have not yet developed disease. If you were a firefighter who handled AFFF, a military member stationed at a contaminated base, or a resident of a community with known PFAS water contamination, PFAS blood testing is strongly recommended both for your health and for potential legal claims.

The timeline for AFFF lawsuits is shaped by the MDL 2873 structure. Over 15,216 personal injury claims have been consolidated for coordinated pre-trial proceedings before Judge Richard Gergel in the District of South Carolina. The water utility settlement track has been largely resolved with over $12.5 billion in approved settlements. The personal injury track is advancing toward bellwether trials — Science Day was held June 20, 2025, and Daubert motions and expert depositions are currently underway, with trial dates yet to be set. After bellwether trials produce verdicts or settlements, the results typically establish a framework for resolving the remaining claims. Individual settlement timelines generally range from 1 to 3 years after bellwether outcomes. Your attorney handles all filings and communications — families do not need to attend hearings or actively participate in day-to-day proceedings. The MDL process is designed to be efficient for plaintiffs while preserving the resources needed to take representative cases to trial if necessary.

The AFFF lawsuits are not filed against the U.S. government or the military — they are filed against the manufacturers of AFFF and its chemical components, primarily 3M, DuPont/Chemours/Corteva, Tyco Fire Products, and BASF. These companies manufactured and sold AFFF knowing that the PFAS it contained were toxic, bioaccumulative, and persistent in the environment. The legal claims allege that the manufacturers failed to warn the military and individual users about the health risks of PFAS exposure. Military veterans can file AFFF lawsuits regardless of their current status — active duty, retired, or separated. VA benefits and AFFF lawsuit compensation are separate and do not affect each other. You can receive VA disability benefits for a PFAS-linked condition and simultaneously pursue a legal claim against the AFFF manufacturers. Military service records, base assignment history, and occupational specialty codes are valuable evidence for establishing exposure. The VA has recognized certain cancers in firefighters and may provide presumptive disability coverage for conditions linked to occupational exposures during military service.

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are called "forever chemicals" because they contain carbon-fluorine bonds — one of the strongest bonds in chemistry — that make them virtually indestructible in the environment and the human body. PFAS do not break down through natural processes such as sunlight, water, or biological activity. Once released through AFFF use, manufacturing, or disposal, they persist in soil, water, and living tissue indefinitely. PFOS has a half-life in the human body of approximately 5 years, meaning that even after exposure stops, it takes decades for blood levels to decline significantly. PFAS are dangerous because they bioaccumulate — they build up in blood, organs, and tissue over time. Chronic exposure through contaminated drinking water results in steadily increasing body burdens even at low concentrations. The C8 Science Panel found "probable links" to six diseases at exposure levels common in contaminated communities. IARC classified PFOA as a Group 1 carcinogen in 2023. The EPA set the enforceable drinking water standard at 4 parts per trillion — an extraordinarily low level that reflects the scientific consensus that no amount of PFAS exposure is truly safe. An estimated 100 million Americans have PFAS in their drinking water, and 98% of Americans tested have detectable PFAS in their blood.

Dive deeper

Related Guides

7 GUIDES

The full investigation

Part of the AFFF Firefighting Foam Investigation

AFFF Firefighting Foam LawsuitAFFF firefighting foam containing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) has been used since the 1960s at military bases, airports, and fire training facilities across the United States. These "forever chemicals" do not break down in the environment and have contaminated groundwater, soil, and drinking water supplies serving millions of Americans. The C8 Science Panel established "probable links" between PFAS exposure and six diseases including kidney cancer, testicular cancer, and thyroid disease. MDL 2873, consolidated before Judge Richard Gergel in the District of South Carolina, encompasses over 15,216 personal injury claims against manufacturers including 3M, DuPont, Chemours, Tyco Fire Products, and BASF. Water utility settlements exceeding $12.5 billion have been approved, and the personal injury track is advancing toward bellwether trials with Daubert motions and expert depositions underway.CASE OVERVIEW

Quick Eligibility Review

Check your eligibility — free

PFAS and Kidney Cancer: The Scientific Evidence

Kidney Cancer Claims in the AFFF Litigation

Scientific Evidence

Meta-Analysis of PFAS Exposure and Cancer Risk: Kidney and Testicular Cancer

"The Devil They Knew": Industry Knowledge of PFAS Dangers Since 1970

C8 Science Panel: Probable Link Evaluations for PFOA-Associated Diseases

Frequently Asked Questions

Who qualifies for an AFFF firefighting foam lawsuit?

Why is 3M the largest defendant in the AFFF litigation?

Why do firefighters have the highest PFAS blood levels?

How strong is the link between PFAS and kidney cancer?

How many military bases are contaminated with PFAS?

What is the average AFFF settlement amount?

Why does testicular cancer have the highest relative risk from PFAS exposure?

How does PFAS exposure cause thyroid disease?

How do I find out if my water is contaminated with PFAS?

What evidence do I need to file an AFFF lawsuit?

What did DuPont know about PFOA toxicity?

Can active-duty firefighters file AFFF lawsuits?

What compensation can kidney cancer victims receive in the AFFF litigation?

Can military families who lived on base file AFFF lawsuits?

When will AFFF personal injury settlements be paid?

Can I file an AFFF lawsuit for testicular cancer even if I am in remission?

What types of thyroid disease are linked to PFAS exposure?

Can I file an AFFF lawsuit if I moved away from the contaminated area?

How much compensation can I receive from an AFFF lawsuit?

Are DuPont, Chemours, and Corteva all liable in the AFFF litigation?

What cancers are most common in firefighters exposed to AFFF?

Should AFFF-exposed individuals get kidney cancer screening?

Does filing an AFFF lawsuit affect my VA benefits?

How does the $10.3 billion 3M settlement affect my personal injury claim?

What were the C8 bellwether verdicts for testicular cancer?

Is thyroid disease as valuable as cancer in an AFFF lawsuit?

Are water utility settlements different from personal injury settlements?

Is there a deadline to file an AFFF lawsuit?

Do I have to pay anything upfront to file an AFFF lawsuit?

Which companies are being sued in the AFFF litigation?

What is MDL 2873 and how does it affect my case?

Can I file an AFFF lawsuit if I was exposed years or decades ago?

What is PFAS blood testing and should I get tested?

How long does an AFFF lawsuit take?

Can military veterans file AFFF lawsuits against the government?

What are "forever chemicals" and why are they dangerous?

Related Guides

Part of the AFFF Firefighting Foam Investigation