Case guide
Lived or worked near possible paraquat spraying? Keep the places, dates and product details you know.
Updated Oct 4, 202614 sources
See If You Qualify
Free · No obligation · About 2 minutes
Updated Oct 4, 202614 sources
This may apply to you if
These are cited sources. Their inclusion does not imply that they endorse People’s Justice or reviewed this page.
Srishti Shrestha · Epidemiology Branch, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences · First author, Agricultural Health Study Parkinson cohort
Finding: The prospective cohort did not find a statistically significant overall association for reported paraquat use. Exposure and disease measurement limits prevent treating that as proof of no possible effect.
Shrestha: pesticides and incident Parkinson disease, original cohort (opens in a new tab) · Sep 10, 2020 · Checked Oct 3, 2026
Kimberly C. Paul · Department of Neurology, University of California, Los Angeles · First author of the cited agricultural exposure case-control study
Finding: Modeled historical paraquat applications were associated with Parkinson disease under several exposure measures and periods; proximity is not personal dose or a legal acceptance boundary.
Paul: agricultural paraquat applications and Parkinson disease, original case-control study (opens in a new tab) · Feb 2, 2024 · Checked Oct 3, 2026
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, first-author affiliation · Environmental Research · 2020
Read the source: Pesticide use and incident Parkinson disease in the Agricultural Health Study (opens in a new tab) · Checked Oct 3, 2026
University of California, Los Angeles, first-author affiliation · International Journal of Epidemiology · 2024
Read the source: Agricultural paraquat dichloride applications and Parkinson disease (opens in a new tab) · Checked Oct 3, 2026
Not covered by this case
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.
Lived or worked near possible paraquat spraying? Keep the places, dates and product details you know. A map is not your measured dose. Get care at once for suspected recent exposure.
Keep the location, date and what you directly saw. Distinguish observation from a product record. Do not guess the chemical from an aircraft or field.
EPA recognizes possible bystander risks from off-target spray and requires controls on labeled aerial use. Its overview is not a measurement of what reached one home. Save an available application notice or report with its source and ask which record identifies the actual product.
It uses addresses and past spray records to estimate nearby use. It does not measure what entered your body. A study window is not a claim boundary.
The California study modeled historical paraquat applications within a 500-meter area around home and work addresses. Results varied by measure and time window. The model does not establish which air route, amount or event caused one person’s disease. Keep that limit when comparing an address with agricultural records.
No cause is decided from an address alone. Studies need their design and limits. A doctor and lawyer should assess your own records separately.
The positive California study and the farm cohort’s null overall result use different designs. Exposure measurement and other pesticide exposures affect interpretation. Some California-study authors disclosed plaintiff-expert consulting. Neither finding turns proximity into a guarantee that a firm accepts a claim or that one illness has a paraquat cause.
Get medical care at once. Tell the care team what happened and what chemical is known. A legal review should not delay care.
CDC describes serious acute poisoning risks from swallowing, skin contact or breathing exposure. Signs alone do not prove dose or the substance. Follow professional instructions for the actual situation instead of handling contaminated materials or choosing a home treatment to preserve a claim.
Keep home and job dates, actual spray notices and care reports. Mark gaps as gaps. Ask how to obtain missing covered health records.
Application documents and an exposure model answer different questions. Retain original records without inserting a product name where it was never recorded. The access rule has exceptions and does not promise every person all public, employer or clinical files. Ask why each requested record matters.
Have a lawyer check the applicable filing rule. Read written fees and expenses. Confirm who receives the history and what action comes next.
There is no national drift-claim cutoff supplied here. The law and claim affect the personal period, and a records request does not establish a pause. Ask about legal expenses after a loss and confirm representation rather than treating a nearby field or a web inquiry as an accepted case.
Syngenta’s corporate predecessor ICI identified paraquat neurotoxicity in 1958 and confirmed brain penetration in 1966
Paraquat exposure was associated with an overall odds ratio of 1.64 for Parkinson’s disease, confirming a statistically significant increased risk
People who reported using paraquat had about 2.5 times the odds of Parkinson’s disease (odds ratio 2.5; 95% CI 1.4–4.7)
The review is free and private. Asking for it doesn’t commit you to anything.
Register your interestParaquat spray drift can travel hundreds of meters to several kilometers from the target area, depending on application method, wind conditions, droplet size, and atmospheric conditions. Aerial applications produce the widest drift patterns because spray is released from height and is carried by wind currents. Ground rig applications produce narrower drift but can still carry paraquat well beyond field boundaries. Studies have detected paraquat residues in air, soil, and water samples at significant distances from application sites. For litigation purposes, atmospheric dispersion modeling can reconstruct historical drift patterns based on known application records and weather data to estimate your exposure level.
Several sources can help determine whether paraquat was used near your home. USGS pesticide use estimates provide county-level data on paraquat application for every county in the United States. State departments of agriculture maintain records of restricted-use pesticide purchases and applications. County agricultural commissioners (particularly in California) maintain detailed application records. The USDA Census of Agriculture provides crop data that can indicate likely pesticide use patterns. Your attorney can subpoena application records from specific farms and aerial application companies. Even without specific records, the type of crops grown near your home (cotton, soybeans, corn, orchards) can indicate likely paraquat use, as the herbicide was widely used on these crops.
Drift exposure claims may involve lower estimated exposure levels than direct applicator claims, but they are recognized and viable in the paraquat litigation. The strength of a drift claim depends on several factors: the duration and frequency of exposure (living near treated fields for decades produces significant cumulative exposure), the proximity of your home to application sites, the availability of evidence documenting paraquat use in your area, and the severity of your Parkinson’s disease. The scientific evidence supports the conclusion that chronic low-level exposure over years can cause the same neurotoxic damage as shorter periods of higher exposure. An attorney can evaluate the specific circumstances of your drift exposure and advise on the viability and potential value of your claim.
Checked against 12 primary sources by People's Justice editors · Updated
How we make moneyPeople's Justice research team · Updated Oct 4, 2026