Lawsuit alleges AFFF firefighting foam exposure caused firefighter’s cancer

A lawsuit filed on March 24 in federal courtroom in South Carolina alleges that publicity to aqueous movie forming foam (AFFF) brought on a Georgia firefighter to develop most cancers.

The lawsuit names a number of defendants, together with 3M and DuPont, and alleges negligence, battery, insufficient warning, design defect, fraudulent concealment, breach of specific and implied warranties, and wantonness. The grievance seeks punitive damages, accusing the defendants of demonstrating “a aware and outrageous disregard for his or her security with implied malice.”

AFFF is a kind of firefighting foam which is used to place petroleum-based fires out. It comprises per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), which the grievance describes as “poisonous.”

PFAS can bind to blood proteins, keep within the physique for a very long time, and accumulate, build up with every publicity over time, in keeping with the lawsuit, which accuses the defendants of constructing and promoting AFFF regardless of understanding it was poisonous, would enter firefighters’ our bodies, and would persist and accumulate there.

Animal testing executed by defendants, in keeping with the grievance, had established by 1970 that perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), a PFAS, was poisonous, and had established by 1990 that PFOA brought on testicular tumors in rats, resulting in DuPont classifying PFOA as a confirmed animal carcinogen and doable human carcinogen. Further analysis by defendants, together with at the least 3M and DuPont, in keeping with the lawsuit, discovered by 2000 that PFOA brought on testicular, liver and pancreatic most cancers in rats.

The grievance argues that when one thing causes most cancers in animals and it isn’t recognized how, that one thing have to be assumed to be a doable human carcinogen till it’s recognized the way it causes most cancers. No recognized mechanism behind PFAS inflicting most cancers is at the moment recognized.

Analysis and testing executed by defendants, in keeping with the lawsuit, had established by 1980 that PFOA and one other PFAS, perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), can bind to blood proteins and accumulate within the physique, persisting there for a very long time.

By 1990, defendants, together with at the least DuPont, in keeping with the grievance, have been conscious that their employees uncovered to PFOA noticed elevated most cancers charges, and extra analysis and testing executed by 2010, executed by at the least 3M and DuPont, additionally discovered elevated most cancers charges in employees uncovered to PFOA.

Defendants within the lawsuit in some unspecified time in the future, in keeping with the grievance, stopped utilizing sure PFAS after being requested to by america Environmental Safety Company, switching to newer PFAS, together with “short-chain PFAS.” Defendants within the lawsuit, in keeping with the grievance, are conscious that short-chain PFAS also can accumulate within the physique and trigger testicular, liver and pancreatic most cancers in rats.

An impartial science panel referred to as the C8 Science Panel printed a report in 2012 which acknowledged they discovered a “possible hyperlink” between publicity to simply 0.05 components per billion of PFOA in consuming water for one yr, testicular most cancers and kidney most cancers.

PFAS, in keeping with the grievance, are present in 99% of america inhabitants. The lawsuit argues there is no such thing as a acceptable degree of PFAS in human blood.

The grievance argues that defendants within the lawsuit repeatedly argue towards the validity of scientific proof of the risks of PFAS, but “knowingly, willfully, purposefully, deliberately, recklessly, and/or negligently refuse to fund or conduct any scientific examine” which might produce knowledge legitimate sufficient for his or her acknowledged requirements.

The lawsuit seeks to get better damages primarily based on an allegation of negligence, or the failure to be moderately cautious to stop hurt from occurring. The grievance argues the defendants had an obligation of care to be moderately cautious to stop PFAS in AFFF from coming into, persisting in and accumulating within the blood of individuals, and failed on this responsibility.

The lawsuit argues that the defendants knew PFAS might accumulate in and trigger hurt to folks, however proceeded to behave negligently, inflicting the plaintiff to develop most cancers.

The grievance seeks damages primarily based on a battery accusation, arguing that the defendants did not ask for or obtain permission or consent from the plaintiff to permit PFAS to enter and accumulate in his physique. This entry and accumulation, in keeping with the lawsuit, is an illegal, offensive and dangerous bodily invasion of the plaintiff which unreasonably interferes together with his use and possession of his physique.

Insufficient warning is alleged by the grievance, which argues the defendants knew or ought to have recognized that AFFF publicity was dangerous to human well being and that publicity to AFFF was possible primarily based on the way in which they have been making and promoting AFFF.

The defendants, in keeping with the lawsuit, did not warn that PFAS would enter and accumulate within the physique the place they’d then trigger hurt.

The grievance argues that AFFF is flawed by design as a result of it’s poisonous, making it unreasonably harmful. Defendants, understanding that it was poisonous, in keeping with the lawsuit, might have made and offered various formulations of the product which didn’t include poisonous PFAS, and these formulations have been “accessible, sensible, and technologically possible.”

The lawsuit accuses defendants of fraudulently concealing the poisonous nature of PFAS from shoppers, knowingly making false claims in regards to the security of AFFF as a way to persuade folks to buy and use AFFF.

The defendants, in keeping with the grievance, expressly and impliedly warranted that AFFF is secure to make use of as directed when, in truth, it isn’t as a result of it will probably trigger most cancers.

The wantonness allegation within the grievance argues that the actions of the defendants “have been willful and wanton and exhibited a reckless disregard for the life, well being, and security of” AFFF customers.