Veterans exposed to aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) during military service can join an ongoing lawsuit against the manufacturers of the foam and, separately, file a VA disability claim for any illness tied to that exposure. An AFFF lawsuit for veterans runs through a consolidated federal case in South Carolina (MDL No. 2873), and the two paths do not cancel each other out: a settlement from the lawsuit does not reduce VA benefits, and a VA rating does not affect eligibility to sue. Timing matters, though. A streamlined filing window closed on September 10, 2025, and late filers face higher costs and stricter deadlines.
Who Qualifies
Two things have to line up: a diagnosed health condition linked to PFAS, and evidence of exposure to AFFF during service. Exposure most often happened on military bases where the foam was stored, used in firefighting training, or released into groundwater. The Department of Defense has identified more than 700 installations where PFAS may have been used or released.
Military firefighters have the highest documented exposure levels, but they are not the only veterans with a case. Service members who drank contaminated water on base or worked in areas where AFFF was present may also qualify. A firm unfamiliar with military exposure patterns may miss this and wrongly conclude a non-firefighter has no claim.
Filing Deadlines
The most consequential deadline has already passed. In August 2025, Judge Richard M. Gergel established a Filing Facilitation Window through Case Management Order No. 35, which closed on September 10, 2025. Claims filed inside that window got streamlined procedures, shared expert testimony, and distributed litigation costs.
Filing after the window is still possible, but harder. Late filers have to retain their own expert witnesses, produce both general and specific causation reports within 120 days of filing, and carry significantly greater upfront litigation costs.
State statutes of limitations also apply, generally running one to three years. Most states use a discovery rule, so the clock typically starts when the veteran is diagnosed or reasonably should have connected the illness to AFFF exposure. Because PFAS-related diseases often surface decades after exposure, the discovery rule matters a lot, but it also makes the analysis fact-specific. A veteran who suspects a claim should talk to an attorney promptly rather than assume time is unlimited.
Health Conditions That Support a Claim
In 2023, the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified PFOA as a confirmed human carcinogen and PFOS as a possible human carcinogen. A study of U.S. Air Force servicemen found that elevated PFOS blood levels were associated with a higher risk of testicular cancer.
The conditions most commonly cited in AFFF litigation are:
- Kidney cancer, one of the strongest associations in the scientific literature and the focus of the first planned bellwether trial.
- Testicular cancer, consistently linked to PFOS exposure.
- Thyroid disease and thyroid cancer, though study results on thyroid cancer specifically remain mixed.
- Liver cancer, on the MDL’s priority list of qualifying diagnoses.
- Ulcerative colitis, a non-cancer condition with established ties to PFAS.
Weaker-linked cancers such as prostate or bladder cancer may still support a lower-tier claim depending on exposure history and other facts.
Where the Lawsuit Stands
Thousands of veterans, firefighters, and civilians have filed personal injury lawsuits consolidated in MDL No. 2873 before Judge Gergel in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. The corporate defendants include 3M, DuPont (with its successors Chemours and Corteva), Tyco Fire Products, Chemguard, Buckeye Fire Equipment, and National Foam.
A key ruling came in September 2022, when Judge Gergel rejected the manufacturers’ government-contractor defense. The companies had argued they should be immune because they produced AFFF to military specifications. The court found that the specs were essentially performance standards allowing each manufacturer to create its own formulation, and that AFFF manufacturers “had significantly greater knowledge than the government about the properties and risks associated with their products and knowingly withheld highly material information from the government.”
The personal injury side of the MDL has not yet produced a trial verdict or a global settlement. In August 2024, Judge Gergel selected seven bellwether cases from Pennsylvania residents diagnosed with kidney cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid disease, or ulcerative colitis. The first bellwether trial, focused on kidney cancer, was originally set for October 2025 but was postponed in August 2025 after a surge of new filings overwhelmed the docket. No new trial date has been confirmed, with rescheduling anticipated for mid-2026 or later.
A court-appointed special master is working with attorneys on both sides to develop a settlement matrix, a points-based system for scoring and valuing individual claims based on factors like diagnosis type, exposure duration, and age at diagnosis. As of mid-2026, the specifics have not been finalized.
What Payouts May Look Like
No personal injury settlements have been paid yet, so all figures are projections. Attorney estimates suggest individual payouts could range from roughly $20,000 to $600,000 or more, depending on the severity of the diagnosis and the strength of the exposure evidence. The tiers being discussed:
- Highest tier ($300,000–$600,000+): kidney or pancreatic cancer, lengthy exposure histories of 15 years or more, and diagnosis at a younger age with few confounding risk factors like smoking.
- Middle tier ($100,000–$300,000): testicular cancer and other closely linked cancers with significant but not extreme exposure.
- Lower tier ($20,000–$100,000): cancers with a weaker established link to PFAS such as prostate or bladder cancer, shorter exposure periods, non-cancer conditions like ulcerative colitis or thyroid disease, or cases complicated by other risk factors.
These estimates come from attorney projections and comparisons to prior PFAS litigation. They are not guaranteed and will depend on the final settlement matrix, bellwether outcomes, and each case’s facts.
Running a VA Claim in Parallel
There are currently no presumptive conditions for PFAS exposure in the VA system. Unlike certain Agent Orange conditions, a PFAS-related illness is not automatically assumed to be service-connected. Every claim is evaluated case by case, and the veteran has to establish a direct service connection.
That requires three things: evidence of AFFF exposure during service, a current medical diagnosis, and a medical opinion (a nexus letter) stating that the illness is “at least as likely as not” connected to that exposure. Useful supporting evidence includes duty assignments at bases where AFFF was used, training records documenting firefighting exercises, deployment history, and statements from fellow service members who can verify the exposure.
Claims can be filed online through the VA’s disability compensation portal. Processing times can stretch to several months or longer. Denied claims can be appealed with additional evidence.
The VA has been reviewing whether kidney cancer should be added to the presumptive list for PFAS-exposed veterans, a process authorized under the PACT Act. According to Task & Purpose, that rulemaking was paused in January 2026 following an executive order issued by President Trump. A bill called the VET PFAS Act (H.R. 3639), introduced in May 2025 with 25 co-sponsors, would designate PFAS exposure as service-connected and cover veterans diagnosed with kidney cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid disease, ulcerative colitis, high cholesterol, and pregnancy-induced hypertension. As of mid-2026, it remains in the House Subcommittee on Health.
One boundary worth knowing: PFAS blood testing is not currently available at VA medical centers. The VA says it is “reevaluating blood testing in accordance with new Federal research.” The DOD offers PFAS blood testing, but only to current DOD firefighters and personnel with firefighting duties, not to the general veteran population. Veterans concerned about exposure can talk to their provider about commercial testing or contact a local VA Environmental Health Coordinator.
Because the two processes are separate, an AFFF lawsuit settlement does not reduce VA disability payments, and a VA rating does not affect civil litigation eligibility. The same evidence, including service records, medical documentation, witness statements, and nexus letters, supports both tracks, so gathering it once and using it twice is more efficient than treating them as isolated efforts.
Choosing an Attorney and Getting Records Together
AFFF cases are handled on contingency, meaning the attorney takes a percentage of any recovery and the veteran pays nothing upfront. No recovery, no fee. The specific percentage varies between firms, so ask during the initial consultation.
Look for a firm with experience in mass tort litigation and the MDL process, which works differently from a standard individual lawsuit. Just as important, the attorney should understand how AFFF exposure happens in military settings, including exposure through contaminated drinking water rather than direct firefighting duties.
A few practical points:
- Gather records early. Service records showing duty stations, training assignments, and any firefighting duties are critical, as are medical records documenting diagnosis and treatment. Photos, incident reports, and buddy statements strengthen a claim.
- Monitor your health. AFFF-related conditions can take years or decades to appear, and regular checkups build a documented timeline useful for both VA claims and litigation.
- Stay informed. The VA’s kidney-cancer review, the VET PFAS Act, and the outcome of bellwether trials could all shift the picture in the coming years.