Do I have to pay anything upfront to file a paraquat lawsuit?

No. Paraquat Parkinson’s 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 anyone harmed by paraquat exposure can seek legal representation regardless of their financial situation.

Paraquat Aerial Spray Drift - Paraquat Parkinson’s 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.

How Paraquat Spray Drift Exposes Rural Communities

When paraquat is applied by aircraft or ground rigs, a portion of the spray inevitably drifts beyond the target area. The distance and concentration of drift depend on multiple factors including wind speed and direction, droplet size, application height, temperature, humidity, and the specific application equipment used. Under certain conditions, paraquat drift can travel hundreds of meters to several kilometers from the application site, exposing anyone in the downwind area.

Aerial application produces the most extensive drift patterns due to the height from which the spray is released and the difficulty of controlling droplet placement from a moving aircraft. Crop dusting operations in the Midwest, Central Valley of California, and Southern agricultural regions applied millions of pounds of paraquat by air over decades. Rural residents living near these operations were exposed repeatedly during each growing season, accumulating significant cumulative doses over years and decades.

The populations most affected by drift exposure include rural homeowners living adjacent to treated fields, children attending rural schools near agricultural operations, outdoor workers in adjacent non-agricultural properties, and anyone who spent time outdoors in rural areas during or shortly after paraquat applications. These individuals were exposed to a restricted-use pesticide without their knowledge or consent.

Proving Drift Exposure in the Litigation

Drift exposure claims require demonstrating proximity to paraquat application sites and the occurrence of drift events. Evidence can include residential history showing proximity to agricultural land where paraquat was used, aerial application records from neighboring farms, USDA and state agriculture department records of paraquat purchases and applications in the area, testimony from neighbors and community members about crop dusting operations, and historical satellite imagery showing the proximity of homes and schools to treated fields.

Expert witnesses in the litigation use atmospheric dispersion modeling to reconstruct drift patterns based on historical weather data, application records, and geographic information. These models can estimate the concentration of paraquat that would have reached a plaintiff’s residence or school based on the known application sites and conditions.

Research & evidence

Scientific Evidence

cross-sectional

Paraquat and Parkinson’s Disease: The Role of Corporate Agnotology

Dorsey ER, et al. (2023). Movement Disorders

Key findings

Syngenta’s corporate predecessor ICI identified paraquat neurotoxicity in 1958 and confirmed brain penetration in 1966
The Louise Marks studies documenting substantia nigra cell loss in paraquat-exposed animals were suppressed and not reported to regulators
Syngenta’s 2003 "Scientific Influencing Strategy" was a coordinated effort to selectively publish favorable research while discrediting independent scientists
Syngenta specifically targeted Dr. Deborah Cory-Slechta and hired v-Fluence to manage reputation and influence scientific discourse
The pattern mirrors tobacco industry agnotology documented by Proctor and others, representing a deliberate corporate strategy to maintain a profitable product at the expense of public health

meta-analysis

Exposure to Pesticides or Solvents and Risk of Parkinson Disease (Meta-Analysis)

Pezzoli G, Cereda E. (2013). Neurology

Key findings

Paraquat exposure was associated with an overall odds ratio of 1.64 for Parkinson’s disease, confirming a statistically significant increased risk
The association was consistent across multiple independent studies conducted in different countries and populations
Herbicide and pesticide exposure in general was associated with a pooled odds ratio of 1.62 for Parkinson’s disease
The meta-analytic approach provides the aggregated statistical power that individual studies cannot achieve, strengthening the causal inference

cohort

Rotenone, Paraquat, and Parkinson’s Disease (FAME Study)

Tanner CM, Kamel F, Ross GW, et al. (2011). Environmental Health Perspectives

Key findings

Paraquat users had a 2.5-fold (250%) increased risk of Parkinson’s disease compared to non-users
The association was statistically significant and persisted after controlling for confounding variables including age, sex, smoking, and other pesticide exposures
Rotenone use was also associated with increased Parkinson’s risk (2.5x), and both compounds inhibit mitochondrial complex I through similar mechanisms
The study used objective pesticide application records rather than self-reported exposure, substantially reducing recall bias

FAQ

Frequently Asked Questions

36 QUESTIONS

Yes. Thousands of lawsuits have been filed against Syngenta, Chevron Phillips Chemical, and Growmark alleging that paraquat exposure caused Parkinson’s disease. These cases are consolidated in MDL 3004 in the Southern District of Illinois. The litigation alleges that manufacturers knew paraquat was neurotoxic, suppressed research documenting the link to Parkinson’s disease, and failed to warn users of the neurological risks. You may have a legal claim if you were exposed to paraquat through agricultural work, residential proximity to treated fields, or other contact and have been diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease. Attorneys handle these cases on contingency. Fee arrangements vary, so confirm terms with any attorney you consult.

Wrongful death claims are typically filed by the surviving spouse, adult children, parents (if the deceased had no spouse or children), or the personal representative of the deceased’s estate. The specific rules vary by state — some states give priority to the surviving spouse, others allow children to file independently, and some require claims to be brought by the estate’s executor or administrator. In many cases, an attorney can help identify the appropriate party to file the claim and assist with any estate administration requirements. The key is that someone with legal standing files the claim within the applicable statute of limitations, which in wrongful death cases often runs from the date of death.

Paraquat 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.

Yes. Research suggests that early-onset Parkinson’s disease (diagnosed before age 50) is more strongly associated with environmental exposures like paraquat than late-onset cases. The reasoning is that younger individuals are less likely to develop Parkinson’s from age-related degeneration alone, making environmental factors a more prominent contributor. Studies have found that occupational pesticide exposure is a stronger risk factor for early-onset than late-onset Parkinson’s. In the litigation, early-onset diagnosis strengthens the causation argument because it is more difficult for defendants to attribute the disease solely to aging when the patient is in their 40s or 50s.

The EPA has never formally attempted to ban paraquat. The agency classified it as a Restricted Use Pesticide in 1978 (limiting use to licensed applicators) and has conducted periodic registration reviews, but has consistently reaffirmed the herbicide’s registration. The 2021 interim decision added safety measures but no ban. The 2024 full registration review again declined to ban paraquat despite 90 studies submitted by the Michael J. Fox Foundation. The EPA’s position stands in stark contrast to more than 70 countries that have banned paraquat, including major agricultural nations like the EU, China, and Brazil. Advocates continue to push for a U.S. ban, but regulatory action remains stalled.

Yes. Immigration status has no bearing on your right to file a paraquat Parkinson’s lawsuit. Attorney-client privilege protects all communications between you and your lawyer, and the litigation targets the paraquat manufacturers (Syngenta, Chevron Phillips, Growmark) — not your employer or immigration authorities. Courts have consistently held that civil litigation rights are available to all persons regardless of immigration status. Many law firms involved in the paraquat MDL offer Spanish-language legal services and have extensive experience working with agricultural communities. Your focus should be on documenting your paraquat exposure and Parkinson’s diagnosis, not on immigration concerns.

Paraquat causes Parkinson’s disease through a multi-step neurotoxic cascade. First, paraquat crosses the blood-brain barrier using amino acid transport systems. Once in the brain, it is taken up by dopaminergic neurons in the substantia nigra. Inside these neurons, paraquat undergoes redox cycling — repeatedly gaining and losing electrons — generating massive quantities of reactive oxygen species (free radicals). This oxidative stress inhibits mitochondrial complex I, disrupting cellular energy production and creating a self-amplifying cycle of damage. The result is selective death of dopamine-producing neurons and accumulation of alpha-synuclein protein aggregates called Lewy bodies. The loss of these neurons produces the cardinal symptoms of Parkinson’s: tremor, rigidity, slowness of movement, and balance problems.

Paraquat settlement amounts are calculated through a tiered framework based primarily on Parkinson’s disease severity and exposure documentation strength. Key factors include your Hoehn & Yahr stage (1–5 scale of disease severity), disease duration since diagnosis, documented exposure history (applicator records, employment records, residential proximity), medical evidence quality (neurologist reports, DaTscan results, treatment records), age at diagnosis, impact on daily functioning and employment, and whether you require surgery (DBS), nursing home care, or full-time caregiving. Cases with the strongest combination of severe disease and well-documented exposure receive the highest tier placement and settlement values.

Syngenta is owned by Syngenta Group, which is a subsidiary of China National Chemical Corporation (ChemChina), a Chinese state-owned enterprise. ChemChina acquired Syngenta in 2017 for $43 billion. In 2021, ChemChina merged with Sinochem Group to form Sinochem Holdings, which now ultimately controls Syngenta Group. The Chinese state ownership is significant because it means a sovereign government entity bears the financial responsibility for Syngenta’s paraquat liabilities. China itself banned paraquat in 2017, the same year it acquired the world’s largest paraquat manufacturer.

Helpful evidence includes medical records documenting your Parkinson’s disease diagnosis and treatment history, employment records showing agricultural work during periods of paraquat use (pay stubs, W-2s, tax returns, employer records), records of paraquat application on properties where you worked or lived (crop dusting records, purchase receipts, applicator logs), testimony from co-workers or family members about paraquat use in your area, and residential history showing proximity to agricultural land where paraquat was applied. You do not need all of these — an attorney can help you identify and gather the strongest available evidence for your specific situation.

In many states, yes. Wrongful death statutes of limitations often run from the date of death rather than the date of discovery of the paraquat-Parkinson’s connection. This can provide a longer filing window in some cases, particularly when the deceased died recently. However, the specific rules vary significantly by state, and some states apply the same discovery rule to wrongful death claims as to personal injury claims. Because of this complexity, it is important to consult an attorney as soon as possible after a family member’s death from Parkinson’s disease. The attorney can determine the applicable deadline under your state’s law and ensure the claim is filed in time.

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.

Early-onset Parkinson’s cases often receive higher valuations for several compounding reasons. First, the causation argument is stronger because early onset is a marker of environmental rather than age-related causes. Second, the cumulative disease burden is greater — a person diagnosed at 45 may live with Parkinson’s for 30+ years versus 10–15 years for a late-onset patient. Third, lost earning capacity during peak working years adds substantial economic damages. Fourth, the impact on family life, child-rearing, and spousal relationships adds significant non-economic damages. Settlement tier placement considers all of these factors, and early-onset cases with strong exposure documentation are among the most valuable in the MDL.

No. The fact that paraquat remains legal in the United States does not prevent you from filing a lawsuit or undermine your claim. Product liability law does not require that a product be banned or recalled for lawsuits to succeed — it requires that the manufacturer failed to adequately warn of known risks. Syngenta and its predecessors knew of paraquat’s link to Parkinson’s disease and failed to warn users. The EPA’s failure to act is actually cited by plaintiffs as evidence that regulatory systems failed to protect the public, strengthening the argument that judicial remedies are necessary. Many successful mass tort litigations — including tobacco, asbestos, and Roundup — proceeded and resulted in massive settlements while the products remained on the market.

Yes. Many farmworkers lack formal employment documentation, especially those who worked as seasonal or day laborers. Alternative forms of evidence include pay stubs, W-2s, or 1099 forms from any documented employment periods; tax returns showing agricultural income; testimony from co-workers, supervisors, or neighbors who can confirm your work history; photographs showing you at agricultural work sites; records from agricultural labor contractors; and housing records from farmworker housing on or near agricultural operations. An experienced paraquat attorney can help identify and compile the strongest available evidence for your specific situation. The absence of formal employment records does not disqualify your claim.

Parkinson’s disease typically develops 10 to 20 or more years after initial paraquat exposure. This long latency period is consistent with the progressive nature of dopaminergic neuron loss — symptoms do not appear until approximately 60–80% of dopamine-producing neurons have been destroyed. Because of this latency, individuals who were exposed to paraquat during the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s may only now be receiving Parkinson’s diagnoses. The long delay also means that many people may not initially connect their Parkinson’s to past paraquat exposure, which is why the discovery rule in most states is critical to preserving filing rights.

The paraquat litigation is in an active settlement phase following the April 2025 framework agreement and the series of bellwether and state court settlements in 2025–2026. Individual settlement payment timelines depend on the pace of claims administration under the framework agreement. Typically, once a framework agreement is in place, the claims administration process involves submitting documentation, tier assignment by the administrator, and payment distribution. This process generally takes 6 months to 2 years from case filing. Filing now ensures your claim is in the queue for the current distribution cycle. The contingency fee structure means there are no costs to you during the waiting period.

Internal documents obtained through litigation discovery reveal that Syngenta and its corporate predecessors (ICI, Zeneca) knew about paraquat’s neurotoxicity for decades. ICI identified neurotoxic properties in 1958, confirmed brain penetration in mice in 1966, and suppressed the Louise Marks studies in the 1990s showing substantia nigra cell loss. In 2003, Syngenta developed a "Scientific Influencing Strategy" to suppress and discredit independent research. The company targeted Dr. Deborah Cory-Slechta to keep her off EPA panels and hired v-Fluence for reputation management. Dr. Ray Dorsey’s 2023 paper documented this as "agnotology" — the deliberate production of ignorance — drawing direct parallels to the tobacco industry’s denial of the smoking-cancer link.

Compensation depends on the severity and duration of your Parkinson’s disease and the strength of your documented paraquat exposure. Projected settlement tiers range from $20,000 to $150,000 for early-stage or lower-severity cases, $150,000 to $300,000 for moderate cases, and $400,000 to $1,000,000 or more for severe, long-duration cases. The average projected settlement is $600,000 to $900,000. These are estimates based on the MDL framework settlement agreement and comparable toxic tort precedents. Final amounts depend on individual case circumstances.

Wrongful death claims in the paraquat litigation seek several categories of compensation. A survival action covers the deceased’s own damages: pain and suffering during the illness, medical expenses incurred before death, and lost earning capacity from the date of diagnosis to the date of death. The wrongful death claim covers the family’s losses: loss of financial support (particularly significant when the deceased was the primary earner), loss of companionship and consortium, loss of parental guidance and care, funeral and burial expenses, and emotional distress of surviving family members. Some states also allow punitive damages in wrongful death cases when the defendant’s conduct was particularly egregious — which the evidence of Syngenta’s deliberate suppression of neurotoxicity research may support.

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.

Yes, in many cases. While some Parkinson’s cases have a strong genetic component (particularly those associated with LRRK2, PARK7, PINK1, or SNCA gene mutations), genetics and environmental exposure are not mutually exclusive. Research demonstrates that genetic predisposition and paraquat exposure interact synergistically — individuals with certain genetic variants who are also exposed to paraquat face a dramatically higher risk than either factor alone. The legal standard does not require paraquat to be the sole cause of your Parkinson’s disease; it requires that paraquat exposure was a substantial contributing factor. If you carry a genetic variant associated with Parkinson’s and were also exposed to paraquat, your claim may still be viable. An attorney can evaluate the specific interplay of genetics and exposure in your case.

More than 70 countries have banned paraquat. The most significant bans include: the European Union (2007, covering all 27 member states), China (2017), Brazil (2020, the world’s largest agricultural market), Thailand (2019), Malaysia (2020), Peru (2021), Chile (2020), Taiwan (2020), and dozens of countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. The United Kingdom banned paraquat as part of the EU ban before Brexit. Switzerland, where Syngenta is headquartered, also prohibits paraquat use. The international consensus is clear: the vast majority of countries that have reviewed the scientific evidence have concluded that paraquat poses unacceptable risks to human health. The United States is a notable outlier in continuing to allow its use.

No. This is central to the litigation. Paraquat labels have historically warned about acute toxicity (the risk of death from ingestion or heavy exposure) but did not warn about the long-term neurological risks, specifically the link to Parkinson’s disease. Syngenta and its predecessors knew of paraquat’s neurotoxicity since the 1950s and 1960s but never included warnings about Parkinson’s risk on product labels. The failure to warn is a primary legal theory in MDL 3004. Additionally, safety information was often provided only in English, despite the predominantly Spanish-speaking farmworker population. The combination of no neurological warnings and no language-appropriate information created a situation where the workers most exposed to paraquat had the least information about its dangers.

The Farming and Movement Evaluation (FAME) study, published by Dr. Caroline Tanner and colleagues in Environmental Health Perspectives in 2011, is the most important epidemiological study in the paraquat litigation. The study examined pesticide use and Parkinson’s disease risk in a large agricultural population using detailed pesticide application records rather than self-reported data. The key finding was that paraquat users had a 2.5-fold (250%) increased risk of developing Parkinson’s disease compared to non-users. This result was statistically significant and persisted after controlling for other risk factors. The FAME study’s exceptional methodology and clear findings make it the cornerstone of plaintiffs’ causation evidence in MDL 3004.

No. The $187.5 million initial settlement announced in June 2021 was an early fund for early-filing plaintiffs, not the total resolution amount. The broader MDL framework settlement agreement reached in April 2025 covers the remaining approximately 5,000 cases and is expected to involve significantly larger total compensation. The specific financial terms of the framework agreement remain confidential. For context, the comparable Roundup litigation resulted in Bayer paying approximately $10.9 billion to settle over 100,000 cases. While the paraquat plaintiff population is smaller, the individual case values are projected to be substantial given the severity of Parkinson’s disease and the strength of the evidence.

Yes. While Syngenta is the primary defendant as the manufacturer, Chevron Phillips Chemical Company and Growmark Inc. face significant liability as major distributors and marketers of paraquat in the United States. Chevron Phillips distributed paraquat under various brand names, and Growmark — a large agricultural cooperative — sold paraquat products directly to farmers and applicators across the Midwest. Distributors share liability under product liability law when they market dangerous products without adequate warnings. The failure of all defendants to warn users about paraquat’s link to Parkinson’s disease is a central claim in the litigation, regardless of whether the specific defendant manufactured or distributed the paraquat to which you were exposed.

Yes. Statutes of limitations vary by state, typically ranging from 2 to 4 years. However, most states apply a "discovery rule" that starts the clock when you discovered (or reasonably should have discovered) that your Parkinson’s disease was caused by paraquat exposure — not when you were first exposed and not when you were diagnosed. Because the paraquat-Parkinson’s connection has become widely publicized only in recent years, many individuals are still within their filing window. However, the MDL has reached settlement stage, and filing promptly ensures your claim is included in the framework settlement agreement.

MDL 3004 (In re: Paraquat Products Liability Litigation) is the multidistrict litigation in the Southern District of Illinois where approximately 5,000 paraquat Parkinson’s cases have been consolidated before Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel. The MDL was established in June 2021 to coordinate pre-trial proceedings for cases filed across the country. Syngenta agreed to a $187.5 million initial settlement at the time of MDL formation, and a broader framework settlement agreement was reached in April 2025. The MDL structure allows your case to benefit from shared discovery, expert testimony, and negotiating power without requiring you to go to trial individually.

This is one of the most troubling aspects of the paraquat story. More than 70 countries have banned paraquat, including the EU (2007), China (2017), Brazil (2020), and Thailand (2019). Yet the EPA completed its 2024 registration review and reaffirmed paraquat’s registration without a ban, even after the Michael J. Fox Foundation submitted 90 studies supporting the link to Parkinson’s disease. Critics allege that industry lobbying and Syngenta’s "Scientific Influencing Strategy" have influenced EPA decision-making. The EPA’s failure to act is cited in the litigation as evidence of regulatory capture and as a reason why judicial remedies are necessary to protect public health.

Yes. Family members of paraquat applicators and farmworkers may have been exposed through take-home contamination — paraquat residue on work clothing, boots, skin, and hair brought into the home. Spouses who laundered contaminated work clothing and children who came into contact with contaminated items or surfaces are recognized exposure pathways in the litigation. If you developed Parkinson’s disease and a family member worked with or around paraquat, you may have a viable claim even if you never directly handled the herbicide. Additionally, wrongful death claims can be filed by surviving family members on behalf of individuals who died from Parkinson’s disease caused by paraquat exposure.

Paraquat Parkinson’s lawsuits seek several categories of damages. Compensatory damages cover direct costs including past and future medical bills, neurological treatment, medication costs (levodopa, dopamine agonists), physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy, deep brain stimulation surgery, nursing home or assisted living care, and in-home caregiver costs. Economic damages include lost wages and earning capacity from inability to continue working, which is particularly significant for farmworkers whose livelihoods depend on physical labor. Non-economic damages compensate for pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of independence, emotional distress, and the progressive deterioration of cognitive and motor function that characterizes Parkinson’s disease. Wrongful death damages are available to surviving family members when Parkinson’s disease has caused death. Punitive damages may be awarded based on evidence that Syngenta and its predecessors knew of paraquat’s neurotoxicity, suppressed research, and implemented a deliberate strategy to manufacture doubt about the paraquat-Parkinson’s connection — conduct that courts may find rises to the level of willful and wanton disregard for human safety.

The timeline for paraquat Parkinson’s lawsuits is shaped by the MDL structure and the current settlement momentum. MDL 3004 was established in June 2021, and the litigation has progressed through discovery, expert depositions, and bellwether proceedings. Syngenta’s initial $187.5 million settlement (2021) and the broader framework settlement agreement (April 2025) establish the resolution structure. Individual settlement timelines generally range from 6 months to 2 years after filing, depending on case complexity and the pace of the claims administration process under the framework agreement. The recent wave of settlements — including the Philadelphia state court cases (2025) and the Mertens bellwether (January 2026) — indicates that the litigation is in an active resolution phase. Filing now positions your case for the current settlement distribution cycle. The contingency fee structure means there are no costs to you during the process.

Yes. You do not need to have directly handled or been sprayed with paraquat to have a viable claim. Several indirect exposure pathways are recognized in the litigation. Spray drift exposure affects rural residents who lived within proximity of fields where paraquat was applied — aerial and ground applications can carry paraquat hundreds of meters from the target area, depending on wind conditions and droplet size. Take-home exposure affects family members of applicators who were exposed through contaminated work clothing, boots, vehicles, and equipment brought into the home. Bystander exposure affects individuals who were present near application sites during or shortly after spraying, including children playing in rural areas, school students at rural schools adjacent to treated fields, and workers in adjacent non-agricultural properties. Groundwater exposure may affect individuals who consumed water from wells near heavily treated agricultural land. If you have been diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease and have any history of proximity to paraquat use, a free attorney consultation can evaluate whether your exposure pathway supports a viable claim.

Yes. Surviving family members — typically spouses, children, or parents — can file wrongful death claims on behalf of individuals who died from Parkinson’s disease caused by paraquat exposure. Wrongful death claims seek compensation for the deceased’s pain and suffering before death, medical expenses incurred during the illness, funeral and burial costs, loss of financial support and services to the family, and loss of companionship and consortium. In many states, the statute of limitations for wrongful death claims runs from the date of death rather than the date of diagnosis, which may provide a longer filing window. Because Parkinson’s disease is progressive and often contributes to death through complications such as aspiration pneumonia, falls, and cognitive decline, many paraquat-exposed individuals have already passed away. Their families retain the right to seek compensation through the wrongful death legal framework. An attorney can evaluate the specific facts of your family member’s case and advise on the applicable state law.

Dive deeper

Related Guides

7 GUIDES

The full investigation

Part of the Paraquat Parkinson’s Investigation

Paraquat Parkinson’s LawsuitParaquat is a restricted-use herbicide manufactured primarily by Syngenta and distributed by Chevron Phillips Chemical and Growmark. Despite being banned in more than 70 countries including the European Union, China, Brazil, and Thailand, paraquat remains legal in the United States, where approximately 10 million pounds are applied annually. Scientific evidence — including the landmark Farming and Movement Evaluation (FAME) study published in 2011 — demonstrates that paraquat exposure increases the risk of Parkinson’s disease by 2.5 times. The mechanism is well understood: paraquat triggers oxidative stress through redox cycling, inhibits mitochondrial complex I, and selectively kills dopamine-producing neurons in the substantia nigra, leading to the progressive motor and cognitive deterioration characteristic of Parkinson’s disease. MDL 3004 was established in June 2021 in the Southern District of Illinois, with approximately 5,000 cases pending. Bellwether proceedings and settlement negotiations are ongoing, with projected individual settlements ranging from $20,000 to over $1,000,000 depending on disease severity and exposure documentation.CASE OVERVIEW

Paraquat Aerial Spray Drift

Quick Eligibility Review

Check your eligibility — free

How Paraquat Spray Drift Exposes Rural Communities

Proving Drift Exposure in the Litigation

Scientific Evidence

Paraquat and Parkinson’s Disease: The Role of Corporate Agnotology

Exposure to Pesticides or Solvents and Risk of Parkinson Disease (Meta-Analysis)

Rotenone, Paraquat, and Parkinson’s Disease (FAME Study)

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I sue for Parkinson’s disease caused by paraquat exposure?

Who can file a wrongful death claim for a paraquat victim?

How far can paraquat spray drift travel from the application site?

Is early-onset Parkinson’s more strongly linked to paraquat than late-onset?

Has the EPA ever tried to ban paraquat?

Can undocumented farmworkers file paraquat lawsuits?

How does paraquat specifically cause Parkinson’s disease?

How are paraquat settlement amounts calculated?

Who owns Syngenta now?

What evidence do I need to file a paraquat Parkinson’s lawsuit?

Is there a different deadline for wrongful death claims versus living plaintiff claims?

I lived near farmland but don’t know if paraquat was used — how can I find out?

Are early-onset Parkinson’s cases worth more in the litigation?

Does the fact that paraquat is still legal in the U.S. hurt my lawsuit?

I don’t have formal employment records from my farm work — can I still file a claim?

How long after paraquat exposure does Parkinson’s develop?

When will paraquat settlement payments be distributed?

What did Syngenta know about paraquat’s link to Parkinson’s disease?

How much compensation can I receive for a paraquat Parkinson’s claim?

What compensation is available in a paraquat wrongful death claim?

Are drift exposure claims as strong as direct applicator claims?

Can genetic Parkinson’s patients also file paraquat claims?

Which countries have banned paraquat?

Were farmworkers ever warned about paraquat’s link to Parkinson’s disease?

What is the FAME study and why is it important?

Is the $187.5 million Syngenta settlement the total amount available?

Are Chevron and Growmark also defendants in the paraquat lawsuits?

Is there a deadline to file a paraquat Parkinson’s lawsuit?

Do I have to pay anything upfront to file a paraquat lawsuit?

What is MDL 3004?

Why hasn’t the EPA banned paraquat in the United States?

Can family members of farmworkers file paraquat lawsuits?

What damages can I recover in a paraquat Parkinson’s lawsuit?

How long does a paraquat Parkinson’s lawsuit take?

I was never directly sprayed with paraquat — can I still file a claim?

Can I file a wrongful death claim for a family member who died from Parkinson’s disease caused by paraquat?

Related Guides

Part of the Paraquat Parkinson’s Investigation