Our Eligibility & Screening Criteria in AFFF Cases
The reliable and experienced team of marketing professionals at Atraxia Media use the most effective approach to find and onboard clients who are a good fit for your law firm based on your criteria. The marketing strategy that helps us find clients injured by AFFF exposure can be divided into the following stages:
- Pre-screening: Because we are well aware that not each civilian or military firefighter injured by AFFF exposure is a good fit for your law firm, our intake specialists will conduct a thorough pre-screening to find the clients who meet your eligibility requirements.
- Screening each case: Our team of professionals uses your intake questionnaire to interview clients and gather the information you need to help them with their case. This is how we can make sure the cases we send you are perfect for your law firm to handle.
- Following up on all of our calls: This is a crucial step in ensuring that potential clients whose cases meet your eligibility requirements will be put in touch with your law firm. If the lead qualifies, we schedule a follow-up call with the person seeking legal assistance.
- Delivering signed contracts to your firm: Once we determine which clients meet your eligibility requirements, we sign a contract with each and subsequently deliver the contracts to your law firm. We will send you exclusively cases that are perfect for your practice area.
- Helping your law firm get more clients: According to your focus and budget, we will continue looking for AFFF exposure cases that are suitable for your law firm so that you have a constant influx of clients whose cases you can work on.
- Running in-house marketing strategies that generate cases: Our expert team will make sure that no potential claimant goes unnoticed, as we will run in-house marketing strategies to generate more and more cases for your law firm to handle.
- Signing potential AFFF plaintiffs exclusive to your law firm.
Civilian and military firefighters may be eligible to file a claim for AFFF exposure if they:
- Used AFFF regularly on the job and were exposed to PFAS from the product
- Subsequently developed one of the following diseases:
- Kidney cancer
- Testicular cancer
- Ulcerative colitis
- Thyroid disease
- Thyroid cancer
- Bladder cancer
- Leukemia
- Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma
- Hodgkin's lymphoma
- Multiple myeloma
- Male breast cancer
- Prostate cancer
- Pancreatic cancer
- Liver cancer
From our first interaction with a potential client until the moment they sign the engagement letter, we handle everything, including ad development, social media buying, and screening. We only need to know the number of AFFF exposure cases your law firm would like to receive. Atraxia Media's marketing process is more than just securing potential clients - it is a whole process of attracting and signing new clients as per your needs.
AFFF Facts & History
The fire suppressant AFFF, aqueous film-forming foam, was devised by the U.S. Navy and the 3M company in 1966. Since then, it has been the go-to fire suppressant for extinguishing Class B fires, those stemming from flammable liquids and gases such as gasoline, jet fuel, and petroleum. However, while AFFF is very effective, it poses a major health threat to civilian and military firefighters, who are inevitably exposed to it on the job. This is because the fire suppressant contains between 50% and 98% perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, known as PFAS or "forever chemicals." Out of this group of toxic substances, PFOA and PFOS are perhaps the most dangerous, as they have a strong association with cancer.
At the moment, cancer is the leading cause of death among civilian and military firefighters. In fact, firefighters have a 9% higher risk of receiving a cancer diagnosis and a 14% higher risk of dying from cancer than the general population. Often, cancer in this occupational group is the consequence of AFFF exposure. To aggravate the situation, PFAS are also present in the turnout gear firefighters wear to shield them from extreme heat and fire. With wear and tear, the turnout gear also releases "forever chemicals," posing an unreasonable health threat to firefighters. Nevertheless, most of their exposure to PFAS comes from using AFFF regularly, which is why there are so many lawsuits filed against AFFF manufacturers.
AQUEOUS FILM-FORMING FOAM (AFFF) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL NO. 2873
Location:
- District of South Carolina
Presiding Judge:
Plaintiffs:
- Civilian and military firefighters who used the fire suppressant AFFF on the job, and developed a disease related to PFAS exposure.
Defendants:
- 3M Company
- Buckeye Fire Equipment
- Kidde
- WillFire HC LLC (Williams Fire & Hazard Control)
- E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company
- The Chemours Company F.C., LLC
- Chemguard Inc
- Tyco Fire Products LP
- National Foam Inc
- BASF Corporation
- Dynax Corporation
- Chemicals Incorporated
- Sentinel Emergency Solutions, LLC
- Carrier Global Corporation
- Raytheon Technologies Corporation
- Amerex Corporation
- Clariant Corporation
- AGC Chemicals Americas Inc.
- PBI Performance Products, Inc.
- Arkema Inc.
- Archroma U.S., Inc.
Products:
AFFF (aqueous film-forming foam) used regularly by civilian and military firefighters to extinguish Class B fires.
Plaintiff Allegations:
The plaintiffs allege that for decades, AFFF has been manufactured with PFAS, which can build up inside the body and increase the risk of cancer and other serious health problems. Du Pont and dozens of other AFFF manufacturers failed to warn civilian and military firefighters about the risk of developing cancer by using this fire suppressant.
History:
2023:
March:
- A 62-year-old man from Texas was exposed to PFAS during his service as a firefighter in the U.S. Marine Corps. The exposure led to his diagnosis of prostate cancer and subsequent prostatectomy. His lawsuit alleges he experienced personal injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress as a consequence of his exposure to AFFF.
- In a lawsuit filed in Massachusetts, the International Association of Fire Fighters accused the National Fire Protection Association of imposing a testing standard requiring the use of PFAS in firefighter turnout gear despite the health risks exposure to these chemicals entails.
January:
- Roughly 317 new AFFF lawsuits have been added to the MDL, bringing the number of pending cases to 3,704. The monthly average of new cases for the MDL in 2022 was 175, meaning this month was nearly double that.
- A group of 3 defendants, Tyco, BASF, and Chemguard Inc., filed Summary Judgment motions, seeking to get themselves out of the first bellwether AFFF trial before it goes to trial in May 2023.
2022:
December:
- Another 100 new cases were added to the AFFF MDL between November 15, 2022, and December 15, 2022. This brings the number of pending cases to 3,399. During 2022, the AFFF class action has added 1,300 new cases, a growth rate of almost 50%.
September:
- 3 M's government contractor defense in the AFFF lawsuits was rejected by the MDL judge. The company had sought summary judgment because it manufactured AFFF under a government contract and should be immune from liability. The court disagreed and established that the government contractor defense could not apply since 3M withheld information from the government about the health risks of AFFF exposure.
2021:
April:
- In a product liability lawsuit filed against chemical and safety equipment manufacturers, a worker in the hydraulic fracturing industry alleged that exposure to the PFAS in AFFF caused him to develop prostate cancer.
- In a complaint brought in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina against over a dozen different companies, a volunteer firefighter alleged that his prostate cancer diagnosis resulted from exposure to the PFAS in AFFF that was used during training and response exercises.
March:
- In a case filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, a man alleged he was diagnosed with testicular cancer from AFFF that was used throughout his career, including during training exercises and when fighting actual fires.
- A firefighter from Georgia filed a product liability lawsuit against multiple chemical and safety equipment manufacturing companies, alleging his exposure to AFFF during training and actual firefighting events led to cancer development.
- After a lifetime of service for the Scottsdale Fire Department, a man from Arizona alleged he was diagnosed with prostate cancer caused by exposure to AFFF, which was extensively used during training and response exercises.
February:
- In a complaint filed in South Carolina, a Florida man alleged he developed kidney cancer caused by AFFF used regularly while working on an aircraft carrier and submarine.
- Following years of exposure to AFFF working on an aircraft carrier and submarine, a former U.S. Navy engineer alleged he was diagnosed with kidney cancer. He filed a product liability complaint against the manufacturers of AFFF, alleging that they showed reckless disregard for the health of those exposed to their products.
- In a complaint filed in South Carolina, a former firefighter alleged he was diagnosed with prostate cancer following years of exposure to the PFAS in AFFF during his military career at air force bases and working at a civilian fire department.
January:
- A complaint was brought by a man and his wife in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, alleging he developed cancer after he was often exposed to the PFAS in AFFF. The man worked as a firefighter at a Louisiana International Airport from 1995 to 2002, where AFFF was routinely used during training exercises and in response to fuel-based fires.
- A Texas firefighter filed a product liability lawsuit that alleged toxic chemicals in fire foam caused him to develop testicular cancer after years of exposure throughout his career.
- A former career firefighter alleged he developed colon cancer following exposure to AFFF over nearly four decades of fighting fuel-based fires and during training exercises. In a product liability complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, the firefighter indicated that many safety equipment and chemical manufacturers, including 3M Company and Tyco Fire Products, should be held liable for his colon cancer diagnosis.
