The MDL 2873 AFFF litigation is the consolidated federal case pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, where Judge Richard M. Gergel oversees pretrial proceedings for more than 15,000 lawsuits over firefighting foam containing PFAS chemicals.1United States District Court District of South Carolina. Aqueous Film-Forming Foams (AFFF) Products Liability Litigation – MDL No. 2873 The docket includes personal injury claims from firefighters and residents exposed to Aqueous Film-Forming Foam, along with cost-recovery claims from public water systems whose supplies were contaminated.
What the Litigation Covers
The chemicals at the heart of the case are per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, and in particular PFOA and PFOS. Both were used in AFFF because they smother fuel fires quickly, and both resist breaking down in the environment and in the body.2United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. Order Denying Transfer – MDL No. 2873 Plaintiffs allege the foam migrated from military bases, airports, and industrial training sites into local groundwater, contaminating drinking water for surrounding communities.1United States District Court District of South Carolina. Aqueous Film-Forming Foams (AFFF) Products Liability Litigation – MDL No. 2873 The claims sound in strict liability and negligence: the product was inherently hazardous by design, and manufacturers knew about the persistence and toxicity of PFAS well before users or the public were warned.
The primary defendants are the companies that made or distributed the foam and its chemical ingredients. Four defendant groups have already settled with the water-provider class:
- 3M Company, which agreed to pay between $10.5 billion and $12.5 billion.33M Company. Public Water Supplier Settlement Agreement
- DuPont, Chemours, and Corteva, which collectively committed $1.185 billion.4DuPont. Chemours, DuPont, and Corteva Reach Comprehensive PFAS Settlement With US Water Systems
- Tyco Fire Products and Chemguard, which reached a $750 million settlement.
- BASF Corporation, which agreed to pay $312.5 million.
Those settlements pay for filtration and remediation at public water systems. They do not compensate individuals for health injuries.5Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) Products Liability Litigation. Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) Products Liability Litigation (MDL 2873)
Health Conditions That Qualify
Case Management Order No. 35 identifies six medical conditions as the “Listed Claims” for personal injury purposes in the MDL:6United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation – Case Management Order No. 35
- Kidney cancer
- Testicular cancer
- Liver cancer
- Thyroid cancer
- Thyroid disease, including hyperthyroidism and hypothyroidism
- Ulcerative colitis
These were selected because the scientific evidence connecting them to PFAS exposure is strongest. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry has been running a multi-site study across U.S. communities with contaminated drinking water to strengthen that evidence base.7Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). Multi-Site Study
A diagnosis outside these six categories does not automatically bar a claim, but the court’s pretrial structure and any eventual settlement framework will prioritize the listed conditions. If your diagnosis falls outside the list, ask an attorney whether your claim fits within MDL 2873 or needs to proceed on its own.
Who Can File
Plaintiffs generally fall into three groups.
Occupational Users
Military firefighters, municipal fire department personnel, and airport crash-rescue crews who used AFFF in training or active emergencies form the core occupational category. What matters is repeated, direct contact with the foam over a meaningful period. A single incidental exposure is difficult to build a claim around. Eligibility usually turns on proving that your job duties put you in regular contact with firefighting foam.
Community Members Exposed Through Drinking Water
Residents who lived near military installations, airports, or industrial sites where AFFF was regularly used may qualify based on contaminated drinking water. These claims rest on consuming PFAS-laden water from private wells or municipal systems over an extended period, in a geographic area where testing confirmed contamination tied to firefighting activities. The closer your home to a known source and the longer you lived there, the stronger the connection.
Water Providers
Public and private water utilities have their own track. Their claims recover the cost of installing advanced filtration, such as granular activated carbon systems, to bring PFAS levels below federal limits. Most of the major utility claims are covered by the settlements described above.
Evidence You Will Need
A viable personal injury claim connects three things: proof of exposure, proof of a qualifying diagnosis, and a timeline linking the two. Pulling this together early prevents delays once your case enters the court’s administrative pipeline.
Medical Records
You need a definitive diagnosis of one of the six listed conditions, documented through certified records from your treating physicians. That means pathology reports, imaging results, and treatment summaries showing the date and nature of the diagnosis. A passing mention in an office note is not enough. The court expects lab-confirmed, clinician-documented evidence.
Occupational Exposure Records
Former military personnel should obtain their DD Form 214, which documents duty stations, assignments, and military occupational specialties.8National Archives. DD Form 214 Discharge Papers and Separation Documents You can request it through the National Archives or the VA’s online records portal.9Veterans Affairs. Request Your Military Service Records Civilian firefighters should gather personnel files, training certifications, and pension records showing years of service and job titles that involved handling AFFF.
Environmental Exposure Records
If your claim rests on contaminated drinking water, compile a residential history backed by deeds or lease agreements. That documentation is cross-referenced against environmental testing data to confirm you lived in an affected area. If you relied on a private well, prior water quality tests strengthen the case. Utility bills confirming reliance on local groundwater rather than a treated municipal supply can also help.
How Claims Are Filed
Individual plaintiffs do not file into the MDL themselves. An attorney admitted to federal court handles it, either by filing directly in the District of South Carolina or by filing in another federal district and letting the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transfer the case in. South Carolina has streamlined direct filing, waiving local counsel requirements and simplifying the civil cover sheet.10United States District Court District of South Carolina. MDL 2873 FAQs
Once your case is docketed, you can track its status through PACER, the federal courts’ electronic records system. A PACER account is free to register and lets you view filings, orders, and scheduling updates for your case within the broader MDL.11United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. PACER
Filing Deadlines
Most states apply a discovery rule to toxic exposure cases: the statute of limitations does not start until you knew, or reasonably should have known, that your injury was linked to AFFF exposure. Someone diagnosed with kidney cancer in 2025 who only recently learned about the connection to PFAS in the local water supply may still have time.
Waiting carries real risk. Judge Gergel created a filing facilitation window to encourage timely filing, and any eventual global settlement will almost certainly include a cutoff after which new claims are ineligible. If you have a qualifying diagnosis and a plausible exposure history, delay offers no advantage.
What Compensation Might Look Like
No personal injury settlements have been finalized in MDL 2873. The billions committed by 3M, the DuPont group, Tyco, and BASF are for water systems, not individual claimants.5Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) Products Liability Litigation. Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) Products Liability Litigation (MDL 2873)
Legal analysts have projected personal injury values in rough tiers based on diagnosis severity. These are estimates, not official figures:
- Aggressive cancers such as kidney or liver cancer, projected in the range of $200,000 to $500,000.
- Serious conditions with somewhat less severe prognoses, projected in the $150,000 to $300,000 range.
- Conditions with weaker causal links or less severe outcomes, potentially $75,000 or less.
Final amounts will depend on the strength of your exposure evidence, the severity of your diagnosis, and the outcome of bellwether trials still being organized. Bellwethers are representative test cases that show both sides how juries respond to the evidence. The first personal injury bellwether is expected to focus on kidney cancer, though no firm trial date has been set as of mid-2026.
Attorney Fees
These cases are handled on contingency, meaning your attorney takes a percentage of any recovery rather than billing you upfront. A one-third fee is standard in mass tort litigation, though some firms use a sliding scale that shifts with when the case resolves. Ask specifically whether the attorney’s percentage is calculated before or after litigation expenses are deducted, because that choice makes a meaningful difference in your net recovery.
Tax Treatment
Compensation for personal physical injuries or physical sickness is generally excluded from federal gross income. Under 26 U.S.C. ยง 104(a)(2), damages paid on account of physical injuries, whether by verdict or settlement, are not taxable. Punitive damages are always taxable.12Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 26 USC 104 – Compensation for Injuries or Sickness If a future settlement includes a punitive component, that portion is subject to income tax. Talk to a tax professional before your settlement finalizes.
Where the Case Stands Now
The water-provider track is largely resolved, with billions committed to filtration and remediation.5Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) Products Liability Litigation. Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) Products Liability Litigation (MDL 2873) The personal injury track is moving much more slowly. A bellwether trial originally scheduled for October 2025 was taken off the calendar, and as of mid-2026 no replacement date has been confirmed. The court is working toward consolidating a group of representative cases, with the first trial expected to involve kidney or testicular cancer plaintiffs. Individual personal injury cases remain stayed while that work continues.
MDL litigation involving tens of thousands of plaintiffs and complex causation questions takes years. The water-provider settlements moved first because the damages were easier to quantify. Personal injury claims require individualized proof linking exposure to a specific diagnosis, which is inherently slower. Plan for a multi-year timeline before any personal injury settlement framework is in place.