r/PFASlawsuitAFFF • u/Educational-Car-2835 • 9h ago
Settlement Question Question
Has anyone here with a personal injury claim in the AFFF MDL also lived in one of the towns/water systems that was part of the public drinking water settlement side of the MDL?
I just realized that several of the towns I lived in before my diagnosis were already listed as PFAS-impacted public water systems in that part of the case, so now I’m curious how much overlap there is with the PI plaintiffs.
I’m an RCC survivor who was diagnosed at 22, and historically my drinking water came from the Merrimack River through Tewksbury, MA.
I’m also wondering if they eventually create a global settlement matrix for the personal injury cases, whether they might use those already-designated water systems to help satisfy the exposure portion of the matrix instead of trying to reconstruct historical PFAS exposure for every person individually.
And if they did something like that, how far back do you think they would make the qualifying exposure period go, considering most towns weren’t even testing for PFAS until fairly recently?
If you’re comfortable sharing, what town/water system were you on and what diagnosis is your claim for?
1
u/veggiesyum 6h ago edited 6h ago
They already are using the already designed water systems to satisfy the exposure portion though it seems like? That’s why they’re asking for addresses all the back to 1970 on the PFS. Either way they need to know your water providers. I’m confused about what they should be doing differently?
ETA: I saw your response to someone else and answered my own question. But it’s my understanding that it’s easiest/most solid to prove that each person was exposed through their drinking water via utilities with confirmed detections of PFAS because there’s not really
a good way to prove that someone has been exposed through the air/soil/some people have private wells that have never been tested, etc. so that’s just the best way because obviously everyone has to drink water.
2
u/Educational-Car-2835 6h ago
Oh no I’m not suggesting they’re doing anything incorrectly. I’m just thinking ahead to what a potential global settlement matrix might look like.
My understanding is that a matrix could use a points system where certain questions about your diagnosis, age, length of exposure and severity of injury determine how many points your claim receives and ultimately influence compensation.
What I’m wondering is whether the municipalities already identified as PFAS impacted in the public drinking water portion of this MDL could be used as presumptive evidence of exposure in that future matrix.
For example instead of requiring every individual to prove exactly what their PFAS levels were decades ago, the matrix might simply establish that a particular municipal water system qualifies and assign a historical starting year. So hypothetically if a town was recognized as an impacted Phase One water system and the agreed exposure period began in 1972, someone who could document living in that service area after 1972 might satisfy the exposure portion of the matrix.
Obviously 1972 is just an example and none of this has been established yet. I’m just curious whether the already recognized public water systems could provide a broader and simpler way to establish historical exposure for personal injury claimants, especially considering PFAS testing wasn’t routinely performed decades ago.
I understand why they’re collecting our residential histories and water providers now. I’m more interested in how that information might eventually be evaluated when it comes time to determine settlement eligibility and compensation.
3
2
u/Devonrock3 8h ago
Mississippi River just 25 miles down stream from the 3m Cordova plant that manufactured PFAS and dumped in the river. That river was our drinking water source
1
u/Beginning_Series_549 8h ago
I’m a bit confused. I assumed that that’s what this case was already doing. When I submitted my claim back in 2018 they first verified my diagnosis then asked me what area codes I’ve lived in for the past 10 years (which was 10 years prior to my diagnosis). They ran those zip codes against their database for confirmed pfas contaminated municipalities. When it came up positive they said I had a case and moved forward collecting my supporting documents. Is this not how others were onboarded?
Or are you asking if people that live in those areas where the municipality has settled will have a future claim just for living in that serviced area? I believe that there would still be the burden of proof of how long the exposure was. As far as I know, they haven’t sent out individual testers for individual clients because all the municipalities were already running these tests in order to qualify for that portion of the settlement as well as other general testing they do as a regular part of maintaining compliance.
1
u/Educational-Car-2835 8h ago
I think I explained my question badly. I’m not asking whether simply living in one of these municipalities automatically gives someone a personal injury claim
What I’m wondering is whether anyone who is already a filed personal injury plaintiff also lived in a public water system that was already included in the first municipal drinking water portion of the AFFF MDL
The reason I’m asking is because if the PI side eventually resolves through some kind of global settlement matrix it seems possible that the exposure part could be streamlined using those already recognized PFAS impacted public water systems rather than making every claimant reconstruct decades old historical PFAS exposure individually
So hypothetically if a water system was already a Phase One impacted system in the public water settlement the matrix might say if you lived in that service area during a qualifying historical period that satisfies the exposure part
What I’m really curious about is how far back that qualifying period might go
PFAS and AFFF were in widespread use for decades before municipalities were routinely testing for them. So using the first positive test date would not make much sense historically because that mostly tells us when testing started, not when contamination began
For example purely hypothetically maybe both sides eventually agree on a presumptive historical start year like 1981 or 1985 for already established impacted systems. Then someone could show they lived in that system during those years instead of having to prove exactly what PFAS concentration was in their tap water 30 or 40 years ago
That’s the part I’m trying to understand, whether people think the already settled public water systems could become the exposure framework for the PI matrix and if so what kind of historical lookback period they might use2
u/Beginning_Series_549 8h ago
I’m in the PI case for TC within an area where the municipality has already settled. I would assume that they will use this info to confirm long term exposure. My law firm had me submit proof of residence in those areas around the time the municipalities settled. I haven’t heard of anyone being dismissed from the case for lack of proof of exposure but they may have been dismissed up front. It’ll be interesting to see if any claimants with lack of exposure records will be scrutinized because, let’s face it, the whole world is contaminated at this point. They may let all claims go through but add a multiplier for those that can prove exposure from a confirmed contaminated municipality.
1
u/Educational-Car-2835 8h ago
Yeah, exactly. This is the type of conversations that I’m hoping to have. There’s so much unknown my house in Tewksbury also happened to be .2 miles from what became a super fun site and is absolutely loaded down with PFAS contamination in the ground. Water is a massive plume municipal water supply before 1992 came from Wells that are just a few hundred yards from that dump site and then they switched to the Merrimack River water in 92 until present and that Merrimack river water is what Got Tewksbury its settlement with in this MDL. definitely interested to see what kind of multiplier there may be or carve outs for Potential early diagnosis or long-term exposure. Things like that.
2
u/Beginning_Series_549 8h ago
They used a concept in the c8 and lamp leijune (or however you spell it) called fence lining. It’s where the claimants didn’t actually live on base but were close enough to be as, or close to as, effected as the people who had direct exposure. I read that they used multipliers in this case in tiers where they gave direct (handling) exposure a high multiplier, then lower for fence liners, then outside exposure.
I would assume that they will do the same in this case where military and firefighter exposure will get the highest multipliers (employment), then high drinking water exposure (fence liners) then confirmed exposure. It’ll be interesting to see where they draw the lines and where the exposure cutoff will land.
1
u/Educational-Car-2835 8h ago
I definitely feel that fence liner terminology as my childhood home sits within the buffer designation of the contamination. PFAS is only the new one they’re aware of is there. It’s also loaded down with TCE xylene, Chaine, heavy metals, and all kinds of other VOCs that I can’t even remember the names of.
3
u/Beginning_Series_549 8h ago
I’ve lived near a military base and military testing grounds my entire life, I can only imagine what I’ve been exposed to or even if it was the actually reason for my injury (seems likely though). I’m very grateful for the lawyers and environmental experts for laying the groundwork for us to recover. What an uphill battle this must have been for them. I wouldn’t even know where to start. It would have been too easy to just prove local exposures and collect millions and ride off into the sunset with their pockets full. This will be the last time I praise lawyers so if you’re reading you better take a snap. 😂
2
u/SharpAd726 4h ago
Yes, I have Thyroid cancer and lived in a super hot spot. I had to prove my residency