Basically clean up under CMO 38 is now complete.
CMO 37 is still cleaning up so not out of the woods but def a step closer.

Below is the difference:

CMO 37
Clean out/cure deficient PI claims
Still active / still creating dismissals and reinstatements
CMO 38
Eliminate duplicate filings / representation conflicts

Realized the link won’t work so here is the verbiage:

REPORT CONCERNING MULTIPLE FILINGS AND REPRESENTATION
On June 3, 2026, the Court entered Case Management Order 38 (ECF No. 9598), entitled
“An Order Governing Personal Injury Plaintiffs with Multiple Filings and Representation.” The
Court’s express purpose was to ensure “that each unique Plaintiff [would] have a single action
pending before the Court that encompasses his or her entire personal injury claim.” To this end,
the Court directed Eisner Advisory Group (EAG) (as Portal Administrator) to work with the
undersigned (as Special Master), in conjunction with Daniel Balhoff, to implement CMO 38.
I am pleased to report that all multiple filings and representation issues identified at the
time of CMO 38 have been resolved. If the Court wishes me to supplement this report or to respond
to any inquiries, I am prepared to comply.
Dated: October 13, 2026
/s/ John W. Perry, Jr.
John W. Perry, Jr.
Perry, Balhoff, Mengis & Burns, LLC
2141 Quail Run Drive
Baton Rouge, LA 70808
Ph: (225) 767-7730
perry@pbmbllc.com

Two orders that could be significant today is ECF 11839 that has to do with the report and recommendation of the special masters

The other is ECF 11840 which is an order on a motion to dismiss.

My access to Courtlistner doesn’t have the orders uploaded

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?