Paraquat Lawsuit: The Settlement, the Opt-Outs and the Court's Orders in MDL No. 3004

What the paraquat lawsuit claims

The court describes the MDL as a litigation “in which over 5,000 individual Plaintiffs allege that they developed Parkinson’s disease because of their exposure to an herbicide, paraquat dichloride” (Memorandum and Order, In re Paraquat Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3004, No. 3:21-md-3004-NJR, ECF No. 5237, at 1 (S.D. Ill. Apr. 17, 2024))

It describes the product: “Paraquat is a restricted-use quaternary ammonium herbicide that is used to control weeds in farming operations and other settings around the United States.” (Memorandum and Order, In re Paraquat Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3004, No. 3:21-md-3004-NJR, ECF No. 5237, at 1 (S.D. Ill. Apr. 17, 2024))

These are claims and allegations. No document read for this page finds that paraquat is the cause of any case of Parkinson's disease, and the court's ruling quoted below excluded the plaintiffs' general causation expert in the first trial cases.

The court's ruling on the causation expert

General causation asks whether a substance can cause a disease at all. The court explained the expert's role: “Dr. Wells serves as Plaintiffs’ sole expert witness on the critical issue of general causation, offering an opinion that occupational exposure to paraquat can cause Parkinson’s disease.” (Memorandum and Order, In re Paraquat Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3004, No. 3:21-md-3004-NJR, ECF No. 5237, at 2 (S.D. Ill. Apr. 17, 2024))

It ruled: “Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Dr. Wells’ Expert Testimony (Doc. 4355) is GRANTED, and Dr. Wells’ testimony will be EXCLUDED at trial.” (Memorandum and Order, In re Paraquat Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3004, No. 3:21-md-3004-NJR, ECF No. 5237, at 97 (S.D. Ill. Apr. 17, 2024)) And in a second order the same day, on the four trial cases, it wrote that “it is not necessary to reach the merits of these arguments because Plaintiffs’ claims fail for a more fundamental reason: the inability to establish a causal link between occupational paraquat exposure and Parkinson’s disease without Dr. Wells’ testimony.” (Memorandum and Order, In re Paraquat Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3004, No. 3:21-md-3004-NJR, ECF No. 5238, at 3 (S.D. Ill. Apr. 17, 2024))

It then said what would come next: “Considering the dismissal of the four trial selection cases, the Court intends to expeditiously identify a new set of trial cases and set a tight schedule for limited discovery and trial.” (Memorandum and Order, In re Paraquat Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3004, No. 3:21-md-3004-NJR, ECF No. 5238, at 8 (S.D. Ill. Apr. 17, 2024)) That ruling decided four selected cases; the later orders quoted below concern the settlement and the cases that remain.

The paraquat lawsuit settlement

The court records it: “In April 2025, the Court was advised that the parties had reached a global settlement.” (Order Selecting Opt-Out Cases for Limited Discovery, In re Paraquat Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3004, No. 3:21-md-3004-NJR, ECF No. 5833, at 1 (S.D. Ill. June 2, 2026)) And the agreement: “On September 3, 2025, Co-Lead Plaintiffs’ Counsel and Defendants executed a Master Settlement Agreement for Certain Individual Claims and Actions Involving Paraquat Products” (Case Management Order No. 24, In re Paraquat Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3004, No. 3:21-md-3004-NJR, ECF No. 5808, at 1 (S.D. Ill. Apr. 8, 2026))

It names who administers it: “the Settlement tasked Special Master Randi Ellis with various responsibilities related to Settlement administration and determinations concerning Settlement qualification and eligibility.” (Case Management Order No. 24, In re Paraquat Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3004, No. 3:21-md-3004-NJR, ECF No. 5808, at 1 (S.D. Ill. Apr. 8, 2026)) Not every plaintiff qualifies; the court ordered the administrators to report “The names of the plaintiffs that did not qualify for the settlement criteria, the firms representing each plaintiff, the reason the plaintiff did not qualify, and the information reviewed to determine that the plaintiff did not qualify.” (Case Management Order No. 24, In re Paraquat Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3004, No. 3:21-md-3004-NJR, ECF No. 5808, at 1 (S.D. Ill. Apr. 8, 2026))

The court put the trial schedule on hold for it: “on May 9, 2025, the Court stayed those case- specific discovery deadlines to allow lead counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendants to focus on finalizing terms of a settlement agreement.” (Order Extending Stay and Vacating Trial Date, In re Paraquat Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3004, No. 3:21-md-3004-NJR, ECF No. 5719, at 1 (S.D. Ill. Sept. 29, 2025)) “The October 2025 trial date is hereby VACATED .” (Order Extending Stay and Vacating Trial Date, In re Paraquat Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3004, No. 3:21-md-3004-NJR, ECF No. 5719, at 2 (S.D. Ill. Sept. 29, 2025)) And later: “the Court finds it appropriate to extend the stay of the case-specific deadlines outlined in its January 2025 Order until March 6, 2026, to allow the settlement process to unfold.” (Order Extending Stay (text order), In re Paraquat Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3004, No. 3:21-md-3004-NJR (S.D. Ill. Dec. 30, 2025))

No document read for this page states what the settlement pays or how it is divided. The court's order refers to an assigned tier and an offer for each eligible plaintiff without stating any amount.

If you decline the settlement offer

The court calls the declined cases “opt-out cases (cases in which Plaintiff declined the settlement offer)” (Order Selecting Opt-Out Cases for Limited Discovery, In re Paraquat Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3004, No. 3:21-md-3004-NJR, ECF No. 5833, at 1 (S.D. Ill. June 2, 2026)).

It ordered that “Special Master Ellis shall meet with each plaintiff who opted out of the Settlement or has not opted in or opted out” (Case Management Order No. 24, In re Paraquat Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3004, No. 3:21-md-3004-NJR, ECF No. 5808, at 2 (S.D. Ill. Apr. 8, 2026)), “to ensure that the plaintiff is making an informed decision and understands his or her rights and obligations should the plaintiff choose not to participate in the Settlement.” (Case Management Order No. 24, In re Paraquat Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3004, No. 3:21-md-3004-NJR, ECF No. 5808, at 2 (S.D. Ill. Apr. 8, 2026))

And it has started moving some declined cases forward: “the Court selects the following cases for limited discovery, defined as the completion of a Plaintiff Fact Sheet (PFS), Plaintiff’s deposition, and narrow third-party discovery.” (Order Selecting Opt-Out Cases for Limited Discovery, In re Paraquat Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3004, No. 3:21-md-3004-NJR, ECF No. 5833, at 2 (S.D. Ill. June 2, 2026)) “Third-party discovery will be limited to cases where proof of an applicator’s license or evidence of a Plaintiff’s use of paraquat is lacking.” (Order Selecting Opt-Out Cases for Limited Discovery, In re Paraquat Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3004, No. 3:21-md-3004-NJR, ECF No. 5833, at 2 (S.D. Ill. June 2, 2026) n.1)

The questionnaire every plaintiff must serve

The court's first requirement of each plaintiff is a Plaintiff Assessment Questionnaire: “CMO 10 requires all Plaintiffs to complete a PAQ and serve it upon Defendants within 30 days of their complaint being entered on the docket.” (Order Adopting Special Master's Report and Recommendations, In re Paraquat Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3004, No. 3:21-md-3004-NJR, ECF No. 5839, at 1 (S.D. Ill. June 10, 2026))

A missed questionnaire has a consequence: “After this additional 10-day period expires, the failure to cure or justify the noncompliance with CMO 10 subjects the Plaintiff’s case to dismissal without prejudice.” (Order Adopting Special Master's Report and Recommendations, In re Paraquat Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3004, No. 3:21-md-3004-NJR, ECF No. 5839, at 2 (S.D. Ill. June 10, 2026)) The court has applied it, adopting its Special Master's recommendations to dismiss cases that served none.

Those duties did not pause for the settlement: “The obligations and deadlines imposed on individual Plaintiffs under CMOs 10, 21, and 21A remain in full force .” (Order Extending Stay and Vacating Trial Date, In re Paraquat Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3004, No. 3:21-md-3004-NJR, ECF No. 5719, at 2 (S.D. Ill. Sept. 29, 2025))

The pending motion and voluntary dismissals

The defendants have asked the court to rule against a whole class of claims: “On February 2, 2026, Defendants moved for partial summary judgment on all failure-to-warn claims in pending cases.” (Case Management Order No. 23, In re Paraquat Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3004, No. 3:21-md-3004-NJR, ECF No. 5783, at 2 (S.D. Ill. Feb. 11, 2026))

Because of that motion, a plaintiff can no longer simply drop a case: “any Plaintiff seeking voluntary dismissal must do so by joint stipulation between the parties that have appeared or by Order of this Court.” (Case Management Order No. 23, In re Paraquat Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3004, No. 3:21-md-3004-NJR, ECF No. 5783, at 2 (S.D. Ill. Feb. 11, 2026)) This page read no ruling on the motion.

The records the court asks for

Proof of use matters in the cases the court is moving forward: “Third-party discovery will be limited to cases where proof of an applicator’s license or evidence of a Plaintiff’s use of paraquat is lacking.” (Order Selecting Opt-Out Cases for Limited Discovery, In re Paraquat Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3004, No. 3:21-md-3004-NJR, ECF No. 5833, at 2 (S.D. Ill. June 2, 2026) n.1)

In practice that means an applicator's license or the license of a supervisor you worked under, purchase receipts or farm records showing paraquat was bought and used, and the dates and places of use. For the diagnosis, keep the neurologist's records and the date it was made, with the bills.

Where the federal cases are

The MDL is No. 3004, before Chief Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel, master docket 3:21-md-3004. The Panel's report lists the date transferred as June 7, 2021. The court's MDL page names the case: “Paraquat Products Liability Litigation Case No. 3:21-md-3004-njr” (U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, Paraquat Products Liability Litigation website (read Oct. 6, 2026))

The Panel's report of October 1, 2026 lists 6,602 actions now pending in it, and 8,495 in total since it began. The figures are the report's, as of its date, and this page prints them with that date.

The court's page lists its orders by date; among them, read for this page, is Order No. 24: “Providing Special Master with Access to Information Concerning MDL Settlement” (U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, Paraquat Products Liability Litigation website (read Oct. 6, 2026))

What this page does not say about money

No document read for this page states what the settlement pays, a plaintiff's offer, or a verdict or trial figure, so this page states none and does not estimate one.

What the checker above does is add up the costs you can document, so you have one figure to bring to a lawyer. It is the sum of what you enter and nothing else.

Talking to a lawyer about a paraquat lawsuit

This site is not a law firm, does not refer anyone to a lawyer, and cannot say what the settlement or a lawyer would recover. The questions that decide a claim are ones the settlement's terms and a lawyer answer: whether a case qualifies, what an offer means, and what declining it would lead to.

Bring the records of where and when you used paraquat, any license, the diagnosis and treatment records, your record of costs, any offer you received, and the orders this page quotes.