WASHINGTON — A naval veteran based in Georgia has launched a lawsuit after being diagnosed with kidney cancer, which he attributes to his exposure to firefighting foam containing toxic chemicals. This case adds to the growing litigation concerning aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF), widely used in military and firefighting contexts.
The plaintiff, a longtime firefighter at Memphis Naval Station in Tennessee, claims that his cancer was caused by extended interaction with PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) present in the AFFF foam and firefighting gear he used regularly. PFAS chemicals are known for their resistance to heat and water, properties that have historically made them valuable in various industrial applications, including firefighting foams.
In related developments, the Department of the Air Force has begun a program to phase out PFAS-containing foams. An $8.55 million initiative aims to purchase over 270,000 gallons of a newer, fluorine-free foam, beginning with installations abroad before encompassing stateside bases.
The switch follows an alarming increase in litigation, with active lawsuits climbing to 9,198 in July from 8,270 in June alone. Notably, a Kentucky firefighter has attributed his severe thyroid disease to PFAS exposure, commencing yet another lawsuit against manufacturers.
Amid these ongoing legal battles, fresh scientific insights emerged last June from a study analyzing PFAS interaction with human skin. The research revealed that shorter-chain PFas were absorbed at higher rates, while longer chains tended to accumulate in the skin, potentially leading to prolonged contamination.
This growing body of academic and clinical evidence underscores the dangers associated with PFAS compounds. These findings have empowered plaintiffs in their legal standings against major chemical manufacturers, such as 3M, accused of concealing the risks associated with PFAS exposure.
The legal struggle also extends beyond personal injury claims. Recent court activities include a dispute over insurance coverage involving Kidde-Fenwal Inc., where insurers contest the obligation to cover claims related to PFAS exposures under existing policies.
Further complicating the national response to this chemical hazard, the AFFF class action lawsuits have seen participation from various sectors, including municipal water systems and individual cancer survivors. These cases, currently coordinated under a multidistrict litigation (MDL) in South Carolina, reflect the broad and intense legal scrutiny facing PFAS uses.
As the litigation unfolds, affected parties eagerly await trial dates and potential settlements, which could set precedents for compensation related to chemical exposure. Meanwhile, victims like the naval veteran from Georgia bear the personal and medical costs of what they allege to be significant corporate and regulatory oversights in managing PFAS-related risks. As the case numbers swell and scientific studies deepen the understanding of PFas risks, the coming months are likely to be pivotal in shaping responses to a persisting environmental and health crisis.