Gear, Foam or Both: Which PFAS Case Fits?

Why are firefighter PFAS cases split between two courts?

The foam case takes only claims about harm from AFFF foam. Federal cases about turnout gear alone can be moved to a separate case in Minnesota. Federal cases that involve both foam and gear are sent to the foam case.

The panel that groups federal cases has turned gear-only claims away from the foam case more than once. In December 2025, it said adding them would be “a step too far.” It wanted the foam case to stay tied to foam claims. In 2024, it kept the Connecticut firefighters’ gear case out of the foam case because that suit made no foam claims.

The foam case is already very large. The panel said Judge Richard Gergel handles more than 15,000 cases there. They include towns and water providers, people who say their water was polluted, and firefighters who say foam at work made them sick. The panel did not want to add what could be a large new set of gear cases to that load.

Some people wanted the gear cases in the foam case anyway. The lawyers who lead the people suing in the foam case asked for that. So did 3M, three other companies, and the people suing in three related cases. The panel said no.

Where would a claim about foam and gear go?

If it is in federal court, the panel has said it will keep sending it to the foam case in South Carolina. Every gear case the panel has sent there also claimed harm from foam.

That court already holds thousands of injury suits that involve turnout gear as well as foam. One example is a February 2021 order. It moved in cases by firefighters who said both foam and their gear harmed them.

The panel agreed that the gear buyers’ cases overlap heavily with those injury suits. It still found that one judge for both would add more complexity and waste than it would save.

Whether your claim includes foam depends on your own work history. A lawyer can ask about training, fires or spills where foam was used. Then they can explain which court may hear your claim.

Where would a claim about gear alone go?

If it is filed in federal court, it may join the gear case in Minnesota. That case takes only gear cases with no foam claims. The panel decides which new cases join it.

When a related case is filed in another federal court, the panel’s clerk can issue an order to move it in. These are called tag-along cases. If no one objects within seven days, the case moves. If someone objects, the panel decides.

This has already happened. The clerk named four cases in August 2026. Three joined on August 27 because no one objected. The fourth is the Connecticut firefighters’ case, and 3M objected to moving it. A September order names one more, brought by the Harvard Fire Protection District in Illinois.

The cases the panel grouped in August were all brought by buyers of the gear. Gear here means more than coats and pants. The panel’s list includes breathing gear, hoods, helmets, gloves, boots and reflective tape.

Grouping covers only the shared early steps of each case. When those steps end, each moved case goes back to the court where it was filed, unless it has already ended.

What has a judge said about firefighters’ own gear claims?

In September 2026, a federal judge in Connecticut let firefighters’ gear claims move ahead, in part. It was an early ruling on what the lawsuit claims. It did not find that the gear harmed anyone.

The Connecticut case began in June 2024. On September 15, 2026, Judge Alvin W. Thompson ruled on the companies’ requests to throw it out. He found that the firefighters themselves can ask for money and for a program of medical tests.

The firefighters say the chemicals hurt them at the level of their cells, and that this makes later illness more likely. 3M called that exposure only. The judge said that, at this early stage, the claim is enough to count as a physical injury under Connecticut’s product law.

Claims that 3M was careless and failed to warn go on. So does a claim that PFAS materials 3M made just for turnout gear had a design defect. A claim against 3M for making PFAS in general was dismissed. Claims against the other gear and fabric makers go on too.

Other parts were cut. The unions cannot seek medical monitoring or money for their members. Medical monitoring, a court-ordered testing program, cannot stand as its own claim, but it remains a possible remedy.

On September 23, 2026, the judge declined to ask Connecticut’s highest court whether state law allows medical monitoring for this kind of exposure. He denied that request without prejudice, so it could come up again.

Could the Connecticut case still move to Minnesota?

It could. That question was still open in the records we read. Under the panel’s schedule, answers to 3M’s request to keep it out were due October 1, 2026, and any reply by October 8.

The panel’s records we could read showed no filings after September 14, 2026, and no decision. Federal law lets the panel move only cases that are pending in federal courts.

The Connecticut ruling applies Connecticut’s product law to that case. Laws differ by state. If you only wore gear and never used foam, an attorney can check what may apply to you.