PFAS Lawsuit: The Firefighting Foam MDL No. 2873 in the Court's Own Words

What the PFAS lawsuit is about

The court's own page for the MDL says: “These cases all involve varied causes of action and claims relating to per- or polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).” (U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, MDL No. 2873 website, Introduction (read Oct. 6, 2026))

On what the cases claim, it says: “Plaintiffs generally allege that aqueous film-forming foams (AFFFs) containing perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and/or perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), two types of PFAS, contaminated groundwater near various military bases, airports, and other industrial sites where AFFFs were used to extinguish liquid fuel fires.” (U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, MDL No. 2873 website, Introduction (read Oct. 6, 2026))

And on the harm: “The plaintiffs allege that they were caused personal injury, a need for medical monitoring, property damage or other economic losses.” (U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, MDL No. 2873 website, Introduction (read Oct. 6, 2026))

These are allegations. No document read for this page decides whether PFAS caused any illness, and the orders quoted below show the motions on the experts for thyroid and liver cancer still being briefed.

Where the PFAS lawsuit is

In the court's words: “These cases have been assigned to the Honorable Richard M. Gergel for coordinated discovery and pretrial matters.” (U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, MDL No. 2873 website, Introduction (read Oct. 6, 2026)) The court is the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, and the master docket is 2:18-mn-2873. The Panel's report lists the date transferred as December 7, 2018.

The Panel's report of October 1, 2026 lists 15,264 actions now pending in MDL No. 2873, and 19,840 in total since it began. The figures are the report's, as of its date, and this page prints them with that date.

The cases include claims for personal injury, medical monitoring, property damage and other losses, as the court's page says. This page is about the personal injury claims, and nothing on it is a way to file a case or to take part in one.

The six injuries the PFAS lawsuit pursues

On August 15, 2025, Case Management Order No. 35 named them: “The Listed Claims are: (1) kidney cancer, (2) testicular cancer, (3) ulcerative colitis, (4) thyroid disease, (5) liver cancer, and (6) thyroid cancer.” (Case Management Order No. 35, In re Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2873, No. 2:18-mn-2873-RMG, ECF No. 7823, at 1 (D.S.C. Aug. 15, 2025) n.1)

An earlier order recorded the plaintiffs' side's position: “the PEC has confirmed that its present intention and that of its members is that the only personal injury claims it seeks to pursue are those six (6) listed above.” (Case Management Order No. 33, In re Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2873, No. 2:18-mn-2873-RMG, ECF No. 6863, at 2 (D.S.C. Mar. 26, 2025)) The same order adds: “There were approximately 200 other injuries that various plaintiffs at one time pursued in this MDL, which the PEC is not pursuing.” (Case Management Order No. 33, In re Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2873, No. 2:18-mn-2873-RMG, ECF No. 6863, at 2 (D.S.C. Mar. 26, 2025))

Two more conditions are named in Second Amended Case Management Order No. 28: “There are two additional Leach injuries that are not addressed in CMO-26, high cholesterol and pregnancy-induced hypertension.” (Second Amended Case Management Order No. 28, In re Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2873, No. 2:18-mn-2873-RMG, ECF No. 4985, at 1 (D.S.C. May 15, 2024) n.1) This page read no later order on them.

A Listed Claim is an injury the plaintiffs' leadership pursues in the MDL. It is not a finding that PFAS caused it in anyone, and the checker above says the same.

An illness that is not on the list

Second Amended Case Management Order No. 28 governs a claim for any other illness, which it calls an Unlisted Claim and has “defined as a disease or condition that is not on the list filed with the Court pursuant to Paragraph 1, not among the conditions addressed by CMO 26, or not pregnancy-induced hypertension or high cholesterol, regardless of alleged PFAS source” (Second Amended Case Management Order No. 28, In re Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2873, No. 2:18-mn-2873-RMG, ECF No. 4985, at 4 (D.S.C. May 15, 2024)).

For a new case: “After April 24, 2024, any newly filed lawsuits initiated in or transferred to this MDL alleging Unlisted Claims shall be subject to this Order, but shall not be entitled to any tolling as provided in Paragraph 6(b).” (Second Amended Case Management Order No. 28, In re Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2873, No. 2:18-mn-2873-RMG, ECF No. 4985, at 6 (D.S.C. May 15, 2024)) And of earlier cases, the court wrote: “Importantly, the tolling provisions afforded by CMO 28 continue to apply to cases which were eligible for such tolling pursuant to CMO 28.” (Case Management Order No. 33, In re Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2873, No. 2:18-mn-2873-RMG, ECF No. 6863, at 2 (D.S.C. Mar. 26, 2025))

The order sets deadlines for medical records and expert reports on an Unlisted Claim. A lawyer can read them with you; this page counts none of them.

The proof a personal injury case has to give

Case Management Order No. 35 sets Proof Requirements. The first: “Evidence of Diagnosis: A succinct record or, if necessary, records sufficient to establish a diagnosis of the injury(ies) alleged including, assuming it exists, evidence of the earliest diagnosis date.” (Case Management Order No. 35, In re Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2873, No. 2:18-mn-2873-RMG, ECF No. 7823, at 5 (D.S.C. Aug. 15, 2025))

For drinking water: “A plaintiff alleging exposure via a public water system shall also provide the public water system identification number” (Case Management Order No. 35, In re Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2873, No. 2:18-mn-2873-RMG, ECF No. 7823, at 5 (D.S.C. Aug. 15, 2025)), and proof of the addresses where the water was drunk, through documents such as “leases, deeds, other property records, utility bills, or other evidence that reliably and verifiably establishes proof of residency.” (Case Management Order No. 35, In re Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2873, No. 2:18-mn-2873-RMG, ECF No. 7823, at 6 (D.S.C. Aug. 15, 2025))

For direct exposure: “A plaintiff claiming direct exposure to AFFF must establish exposure to AFFF by submitting evidence in their possession, custody, or control establishing service or employment as a firefighter, or in the military, or at another job in which he or she regularly used or was otherwise exposed to AFFF by records such as military service records, employment records and documents, or relevant tax forms establishing such service or employment.” (Case Management Order No. 35, In re Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2873, No. 2:18-mn-2873-RMG, ECF No. 7823, at 6 (D.S.C. Aug. 15, 2025))

For turnout gear: “A plaintiff who is only claiming exposure to PFAS through firefighter turnout gear shall produce the required Turnout Gear Plaintiff Fact Sheet” (Case Management Order No. 35, In re Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2873, No. 2:18-mn-2873-RMG, ECF No. 7823, at 7 (D.S.C. Aug. 15, 2025)).

For a case filed after the window the order opened: “The plaintiff shall have 90 days from the date the action is filed in or transferred to this MDL to serve (to the extent not already provided via a Plaintiff Fact Sheet) on Defendants named in the action a complete set of medical records that document the diagnosis, management, and treatment of plaintiffs alleged injury.” (Case Management Order No. 35, In re Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2873, No. 2:18-mn-2873-RMG, ECF No. 7823, at 9 (D.S.C. Aug. 15, 2025)) And: “The plaintiff shall have 120 days from the date the action is filed in or transferred to this MDL to serve on Defendants named in the action expert disclosures compliant with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) that support plaintiffs allegation of general causation and specific causation for the specific disease(s) or condition(s) he or she alleges.” (Case Management Order No. 35, In re Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2873, No. 2:18-mn-2873-RMG, ECF No. 7823, at 9 (D.S.C. Aug. 15, 2025))

Until then: “Unless and until a plaintiff complies with all requirements of this Order, all other proceedings in his/her action shall be stayed absent order of Court.” (Case Management Order No. 35, In re Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2873, No. 2:18-mn-2873-RMG, ECF No. 7823, at 10 (D.S.C. Aug. 15, 2025))

Where the trials and the expert motions stand

In the same order, the court wrote that “the Bellwether trial scheduled for October 20, 2025, and all related dates in CMO 26-I, are vacated until such a time as the Court deems appropriate.” (Case Management Order No. 35, In re Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2873, No. 2:18-mn-2873-RMG, ECF No. 7823, at 1 (D.S.C. Aug. 15, 2025))

On August 31, 2026, Case Management Order No. 33F recalled: “On December 31, 2025, the Court issued Case Management Order 33C [ECF No. 8622], setting a briefing schedule for Rule 702 Motions as to general causation experts related to thyroid cancer and/or liver cancer.” (Case Management Order No. 33F, In re Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2873, No. 2:18-mn-2873-RMG, ECF No. 11298, at 1 (D.S.C. Aug. 31, 2026)) It then set: “Responses to Rule 702 Motions to be filed by: November 20, 2026.” (Case Management Order No. 33F, In re Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2873, No. 2:18-mn-2873-RMG, ECF No. 11298, at 1 (D.S.C. Aug. 31, 2026)) And: “Replies in Support of Rule 702 Motions to be filed by: January 22, 2027.” (Case Management Order No. 33F, In re Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2873, No. 2:18-mn-2873-RMG, ECF No. 11298, at 1 (D.S.C. Aug. 31, 2026))

Those motions concern the experts who would testify on general causation, the question whether PFAS can cause thyroid or liver cancer at all. This page read no ruling on them.

Filing periods, and the tolling the orders describe

For a case filed directly in the MDL, Case Management Order No. 35 says: “In the event that a named Defendant seeks to challenge jurisdiction at some point for a case or cases directly filed in this MDL, any and all statute of limitations are deemed tolled as of the date of direct filing in the MDL.” (Case Management Order No. 35, In re Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2873, No. 2:18-mn-2873-RMG, ECF No. 7823, at 3 (D.S.C. Aug. 15, 2025))

That is a rule for one situation, in the order's own words. No document read for this page says which state's filing period applies to a PFAS claim, or when its clock starts, so this page counts no deadline.

The product liability calculator on this site quotes each state's period and repose for a product claim from its code. A lawyer can say which applies to your claim, and whether a rule on when an illness was discovered changes it.

What this page does not say about money

No document read for this page states a settlement or verdict figure for a personal injury claim in the MDL, 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 PFAS lawsuit

This site is not a law firm, does not refer anyone to a lawyer, and cannot say what a lawyer would recover. The questions that decide a claim are ones the court and a lawyer answer: whether your illness and your exposure fit a claim, which state's law applies, and the filing period for your claim.

Bring the record of the diagnosis with its date, the records that show where you lived or worked and when, any water system notices, your record of costs, and the orders this page quotes.