Attorney Jessica Paluch-Hoerman, founder of TruLaw, has over 28 years of experience as a personal injury and mass tort attorney, and previously worked as an international tax attorney at Deloitte. Jessie collaborates with attorneys nationwide — enabling her to share reliable, up-to-date legal information with our readers.
This article has been written and reviewed for legal accuracy and clarity by the team of writers and legal experts at TruLaw and is as accurate as possible. This content should not be taken as legal advice from an attorney. If you would like to learn more about our owner and experienced injury lawyer, Jessie Paluch, you can do so here.
TruLaw does everything possible to make sure the information in this article is up to date and accurate. If you need specific legal advice about your case, contact us by using the chat on the bottom of this page. This article should not be taken as advice from an attorney.
Question: Can I still file an AFFF liver cancer lawsuit?
Answer: Yes, you can still file an AFFF liver cancer lawsuit in 2025 as the court’s recent expansion to include liver cancer claims means new plaintiffs with hepatic injuries can join MDL 2873 for the second round of bellwether trials scheduled after the initial kidney cancer trials.
On this page, we’ll discuss this question in further depth, major defendants in AFFF litigation, timing considerations for liver cancer claims, and much more.
PFAS chemicals from AFFF accumulate preferentially in liver tissue due to their chemical properties and the liver’s role in processing toxic chemicals, leading to chronic inflammation and oxidative stress.
Long-term exposure studies show PFAS concentrations in liver tissue can exceed blood levels by substantial margins, creating a toxic burden that persists for years after initial exposure.
The liver’s inability to metabolize PFAS compounds means these “forever chemicals” continue damaging hepatocytes and disrupting bile acid metabolism indefinitely.
If you or someone you love has been diagnosed with liver cancer after AFFF exposure, you may be eligible to seek compensation.
Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page to receive an instant case evaluation that can help you determine if you qualify to file an AFFF Lawsuit today.
Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) has been the standard firefighting tool for military bases, airports, and fire departments since the 1960s, containing synthetic chemicals called PFAS that are now scientifically linked to liver cancer through multiple peer-reviewed studies.
Recent research from the University of Southern California demonstrates that individuals with high levels of PFOS (a key PFAS component in AFFF) face a 4.5-fold increased risk of developing hepatocellular carcinoma, the most common form of liver cancer, findings supported by ongoing National Cancer Institute research into PFAS cancer risks.
The National Cancer Institute (NCI) and Environmental Protection Agency have both issued warnings about the cancer-causing potential of these “forever chemicals” that accumulate in human bodies over decades of exposure.
PFAS chemicals are known as “forever chemicals” because they don’t break down naturally in the environment or human body, accumulating over decades of exposure and causing long-term health damage.
These synthetic compounds include perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS), which are the primary toxic components found in firefighting foam products used by firefighters and military personnel.
The specific PFAS compounds found in AFFF typically include:
These chemicals damage liver cells through oxidative stress and inflammation, with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and CDC issuing specific warnings about PFAS toxicity levels exceeding safe exposure limits in firefighting personnel.
The liver’s role in filtering toxins makes it particularly vulnerable to PFAS accumulation, leading to cellular damage that can progress to cancerous tumors over time.
The landmark University of Southern California study published in JHEP Reports found that individuals with PFOS blood levels at the 90th percentile (above 55 μg/L) had a 4.5-fold increased risk to develop hepatocellular carcinoma compared to those with lower exposure levels.
This groundbreaking research examined blood samples from a multiethnic cohort and used advanced metabolomics to identify the biological pathways through which PFAS chemicals cause liver cancer.
The types of liver cancer linked to exposure to PFAS include, but are not limited to:
The connection between PFAS and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) serves as a precursor to liver cancer, with CDC/ATSDR documenting various health effects showing that PFAS exposure increases NAFLD risk by up to 73% in heavily exposed individuals.
This progression from fatty liver disease to cirrhosis and eventually to liver cancer represents a well-documented pathway that affects thousands of firefighters and military personnel exposed to AFFF.
Recent studies have also identified links between PFAS exposure and other cancers, including testicular cancer, prostate cancer, and thyroid cancer, demonstrating the widespread carcinogenic effects of these chemicals beyond just liver tissue.
Military personnel, civilian firefighters, airport workers, and industrial facility workers face the highest risk of AFFF-related liver cancer due to repeated occupational exposure during training exercises, emergency responses, and equipment maintenance.
Veterans who served at military installations between 1970 and 2024 experienced particularly intense levels from prolonged exposure to AFFF (as AFFF was routinely used in training exercises without proper protective equipment or health warnings).
The specific exposure scenarios that increase liver cancer risk frequently consist of:
Veterans face particularly elevated exposure levels from years of repeated contact during training exercises firefighters conducted at military installations with documented PFAS contamination, including Camp Lejeune, Dover Air Force Base, and hundreds of other facilities where groundwater contamination exceeds EPA safety limits.
The Department of Defense has acknowledged PFAS contamination at military installations and is working to phase out AFFF use.
If you or a loved one developed liver cancer after exposure to AFFF firefighting foam, you may be eligible to seek compensation.
Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page to receive an instant case evaluation and determine whether you qualify to join others in filing an AFFF Lawsuit today.
Early detection of liver cancer is vital for AFFF-exposed individuals, as this aggressive disease often develops without noticeable early symptoms and can progress rapidly once established.
Discussing your AFFF exposure history with healthcare providers is important for proper diagnosis and documentation that supports both medical treatment and potential legal claims.
The latency period between AFFF exposure and developing cancer can range from 10 to 40 years, making it important for exposed individuals to maintain regular medical monitoring throughout their lifetime.
The primary symptoms of liver cancer include unexplained weight loss, persistent upper right abdominal pain or swelling, and jaundice (yellowing of skin and eyes), which often appear as the disease progresses beyond early stages.
These symptoms develop as liver tumors grow and interfere with normal liver function, causing toxins to accumulate in the bloodstream and affecting multiple body systems.
Additional symptoms that may indicate liver cancer include:
Symptoms may develop gradually over months or years, with early-stage liver cancer often presenting no noticeable symptoms until the disease reaches advanced stages where treatment options become more limited.
The insidious nature of liver cancer makes regular screening important for individuals with known AFFF exposure, as early detection greatly improves treatment outcomes and survival rates.
PFAS exposure has also been linked to other serious health issues including ulcerative colitis and thyroid disease, which may occur alongside or independently of cancer development.
Blood tests can detect PFAS levels in the body, measuring specific biomarkers for PFOA and PFOS concentrations that indicate exposure levels and help establish causation links between AFFF contact and liver cancer development.
These specialized tests require particular laboratory capabilities and should be performed by healthcare providers familiar with occupational exposure assessment and PFAS toxicology.
Diagnostic tests used to detect liver cancer can include:
Documenting exposure history, test results, and medical records is vital for both treatment planning and supporting future AFFF personal injury claims against AFFF manufacturers.
Healthcare providers should be informed about occupational AFFF exposure to ensure appropriate testing protocols and to establish medical records that demonstrate the connection between chemical exposure and cancer development.
The legal process of filing an AFFF liver cancer lawsuit involves gathering comprehensive evidence of exposure and medical diagnosis, working with attorneys experienced in mass tort litigation, and acting within statute of limitations deadlines that vary by state.
Knowing the AFFF MDL procedures and scientific evidence requirements is important for building a strong case that optimizes compensation potential.
Early action is vital, as evidence preservation and timely filing can greatly impact case outcomes and settlement values.
Qualifying for AFFF liver cancer lawsuits requires documented occupational exposure to firefighting foam, typically lasting at least six months, along with a primary liver cancer diagnosis after 1970.
Exposure can include:
Qualifying criteria for AFFF liver cancer claims typically involve:
Both hepatocellular carcinoma and cholangiocarcinoma diagnoses qualify for compensation, and having multiple risk factors such as alcohol use or hepatitis doesn’t automatically disqualify claims if AFFF exposure can be documented.
The key is establishing a clear timeline between exposure and diagnosis, supported by employment records and medical documentation demonstrating the adverse health effects of PFAS exposure.
Required documentation includes employment records showing firefighting or military service, DD-214 military discharge forms, and complete medical records confirming liver cancer diagnosis and treatment history.
Preserving all relevant documents is vital, as these records form the foundation of your personal injury claims and help establish the connection between AFFF exposure and cancer development.
Supporting evidence that strengthens AFFF cancer lawsuits commonly includes:
Preserving all documents and avoiding destruction of any potential evidence is vital once litigation is contemplated, as spoliation of evidence can severely damage your AFFF firefighting foam cases.
Even seemingly minor documents like training schedules or work assignments can provide valuable evidence of exposure timing and duration.
Specialized legal representation provides important advantages including comprehensive knowledge of the AFFF firefighting foam MDL procedures, access to leading scientific experts, and extensive experience with mass tort litigation against major corporations.
Experienced AFFF lawyers know the detailed scientific evidence required to prove causation and have established relationships with medical experts who can support your case.
Attorney services that support successful firefighting foam cancer lawsuits may include:
Contingency fee arrangements mean no upfront costs for clients, with attorneys typically receiving 33-40% of any settlement or verdict amount only if the case is successful.
This fee structure allows injured individuals to pursue justice against major corporations without financial risk, ensuring access to high-quality legal representation from an experienced law firm regardless of economic circumstances.
If you or a loved one developed liver cancer after exposure to AFFF firefighting foam, you may be eligible to seek compensation.
Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page to receive an instant case evaluation and determine whether you qualify to join others in filing an AFFF Lawsuit today.
Our lead AFFF firefighting foam attorney at TruLaw is dedicated to supporting clients through the process of filing a claim in the AFFF litigation.
With extensive experience in chemical-exposure litigation, Jessica Paluch-Hoerman and our partner law firms work with industry leaders to prove how toxic PFAS chemicals in AFFF firefighting foam — and the resulting contamination of water supplies—caused you harm.
TruLaw focuses on securing financial compensation for medical expenses, pain and suffering, property damage, lost income, and ongoing health monitoring resulting from your AFFF exposure and the associated health risks.
We know the health and environmental impacts of AFFF firefighting foam on your life and provide the personalized guidance you need when seeking justice.
At TruLaw, we believe financial concerns should never stand in the way of justice.We operate on a contingency-fee basis — you pay legal fees only after you recover compensation.
If you or a loved one developed cancer or another serious illness after long-term exposure to AFFF firefighting foam (or PFAS-contaminated water linked to AFFF use), you may be eligible to seek compensation.
Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page to receive an instant case evaluation and determine whether you qualify to join others in filing an AFFF Firefighting Foam Lawsuit today.
AFFF lawsuits are being filed by firefighters, military veterans, airport personnel, and others nationwide after years of repeated exposure to toxic firefighting foam (AFFF) that contains per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
TruLaw is currently accepting clients for the AFFF firefighting foam lawsuit.
A few reasons to choose TruLaw for your AFFF cancer lawsuit include:
If you or a loved one developed cancer or another serious illness after long-term exposure to AFFF firefighting foam, you may be eligible to seek compensation.
Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page to receive an instant case evaluation and learn whether you qualify for the AFFF Lawsuit today.
Establishing causation requires both documented AFFF exposure history through military service or firefighting employment and a liver cancer diagnosis, with firefighting foam attorneys working alongside medical experts to connect the exposure to disease development using scientific evidence.
The University of Southern California study demonstrating a 4.5-fold higher risk of liver cancer from PFOS exposure provides strong scientific support for causation arguments in AFFF cases (particularly given the severe health risks from occupational exposure).
Statutes of limitations vary by state, typically ranging from 2-3 years from cancer diagnosis or discovery of the AFFF connection, making immediate attorney consultation important to determine deadlines based on your circumstances.
Some states have discovery rules that extend deadlines when the connection between exposure and cancer becomes known, but acting quickly protects your rights regardless of state law variations.
Veterans can file AFFF firefighting foam lawsuits separate from VA disability claims, with military service records serving as strong evidence of exposure, and many veterans are successfully pursuing claims in the current MDL.
Your DD-214 discharge papers and service records provide documentation of exposure at military installations where AFFF was routinely used, supporting your eligibility for compensation through the civilian court system.
Medical monitoring claims may be available in certain states for exposed individuals without current cancer diagnoses, emphasizing the importance of regular health screenings and consulting an attorney about available options for future protection from serious health risks.
Some jurisdictions allow claims for the cost of ongoing medical surveillance when toxic exposure creates increased cancer risk, providing compensation for monitoring expenses even before disease develops.
Contingency fee arrangements mean clients pay no upfront costs, with attorneys typically receiving 33-40% of any settlement or verdict only if the case is successful, ensuring access to experienced legal representation without financial risk.
This fee structure allows individuals to pursue justice against major corporations regardless of their economic circumstances, with attorneys investing their own resources in case development and expert witness preparation.
AFFF cases are consolidated in a multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the US District Court for the District of South Carolina.
Rather than a class action, a multidistrict litigation means each case receives individual evaluation for damages while benefiting from coordinated discovery and expert evidence development.
This MDL structure typically results in higher settlements than class actions because compensation is based on individual circumstances rather than averaged across all participants, allowing for personalized case evaluation and tailored settlement amounts.
Managing Attorney & Owner
With over 25 years of legal experience, Jessica Paluch-Hoerman is an Illinois lawyer, a CPA, and a mother of three. She spent the first decade of her career working as an international tax attorney at Deloitte.
In 2009, Jessie co-founded her own law firm with her husband – which has scaled to over 30 employees since its conception.
In 2016, Jessie founded TruLaw, which allows her to collaborate with attorneys and legal experts across the United States on a daily basis. This hypervaluable network of experts is what enables her to share the most reliable, accurate, and up-to-date legal information with our readers!
Here, at TruLaw, we’re committed to helping victims get the justice they deserve.
Alongside our partner law firms, we have successfully collected over $3 Billion in verdicts and settlements on behalf of injured individuals.
Would you like our help?
At TruLaw, we fiercely combat corporations that endanger individuals’ well-being. If you’ve suffered injuries and believe these well-funded entities should be held accountable, we’re here for you.
With TruLaw, you gain access to successful and seasoned lawyers who maximize your chances of success. Our lawyers invest in you—they do not receive a dime until your lawsuit reaches a successful resolution!
AFFF Lawsuit claims are being filed against manufacturers of aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF), commonly used in firefighting.
Claims allege that companies such as 3M, DuPont, and Tyco Fire Products failed to adequately warn users about the potential dangers of AFFF exposure — including increased risks of various cancers and diseases.
Depo Provera Lawsuit claims are being filed by individuals who allege they developed meningioma (a type of brain tumor) after receiving Depo-Provera birth control injections.
A 2024 study found that women using Depo-Provera for at least 1 year are five times more likely to develop meningioma brain tumors compared to those not using the drug.
Suboxone Tooth Decay Lawsuit claims are being filed against Indivior, the manufacturer of Suboxone, a medication used to treat opioid addiction.
Claims allege that Indivior failed to adequately warn users about the potential dangers of severe tooth decay and dental injuries associated with Suboxone’s sublingual film version.
Social Media Harm Lawsuits are being filed against social media companies for allegedly causing mental health issues in children and teens.
Claims allege that companies like Meta, Google, ByteDance, and Snap designed addictive platforms that led to anxiety, depression, and other mental health issues without adequately warning users or parents.
Transvaginal Mesh Lawsuits are being filed against manufacturers of transvaginal mesh products used to treat pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI).
Claims allege that companies like Ethicon, C.R. Bard, and Boston Scientific failed to adequately warn about potential dangers — including erosion, pain, and infection.
Bair Hugger Warming Blanket Lawsuits involve claims against 3M — alleging their surgical warming blankets caused severe infections and complications (particularly in hip and knee replacement surgeries).
Plaintiffs claim 3M failed to warn about potential risks — despite knowing about increased risk of deep joint infections since 2011.
Baby Formula NEC Lawsuit claims are being filed against manufacturers of cow’s milk-based baby formula products.
Claims allege that companies like Abbott Laboratories (Similac) and Mead Johnson & Company (Enfamil) failed to warn about the increased risk of necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) in premature infants.
Here, at TruLaw, we’re committed to helping victims get the justice they deserve.
Alongside our partner law firms, we have successfully collected over $3 Billion in verdicts and settlements on behalf of injured individuals.
Would you like our help?