ATSDR PFAS Update: No Final Report Yet, But Further Guidance on Minimal Risk Levels and Drinking Water Concentrations

As most of our readers know, our firm has written extensively on PFAS, and we recently gave a 30 minute, free webinar on the important findings of the ATSDR’s toxicological profile on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The webinar discussed the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry’s role in setting minimal risk levels (MRLs) for toxic substances, including comprehensive analyses of selected contaminants that are deemed most harmful to human health. Because the PFAS profile is perhaps the most
Continue reading...

Feed It Once And Now It Stays: Another National PFAS Class Action Seeking A Study Rather Than Money

It’s been written about exhaustively in PFAS circles: the C8 Science Panel and its “probable link” findings between PFOA and various diseases. This was a groundbreaking study that was part of a settlement agreement in watershed litigation that ultimately led to a whopping $671 million payout for over 3,000 individual plaintiffs. The defendant, DuPont, had not only agreed to the creation of an independent panel of experts to evaluate any link between exposure to PFOA and human disease, but it
Continue reading...

And Then There Were Five: One State Expands Its Concern To Other PFAS Chemicals And Other Major (Breaking) News On PFAS

Every week there’s more news surrounding the mystifying nature of PFAS chemicals. Our firm recently published a well-received article that explored the state of PFAS and what the horizon holds for regulation and litigation. And this week we have more news on the PFAS front. We should buckle-up because it’s only going to heat-up from here. In November 2017, we reported on the New Jersey scientists that were urging the state to impose a strict limit of 13 ppt for
Continue reading...

Bystanders Beware – No Strict Products Liability Claims for Bystanders in AFFF / PFAS Actions in Pennsylvania

Lawsuits involving water contamination have been trending over the past couple years throughout the United States. We’ve seen a shift in the plaintiff’s bar’s focus from pursuing point sources to utilizing traditional product liability theories to support allegations of contamination against manufacturer defendants when the opportunity presents itself. The blue print’s simple – pursue deep pocketed manufacturers where insurance is often available. The product liability lawsuits against manufacturers of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) – a firefighting foam utilized at airports
Continue reading...