Maryland & South Carolina PFAS Lawsuits Stay in Federal Court — What the Supreme Court’s Silence Means for You
If you lived near a military base in Maryland or South Carolina and you or someone you love has been diagnosed with kidney cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid disease, or ulcerative colitis, the news you just read about the Supreme Court declining to hear Maryland and South Carolina’s appeal probably felt like a door closing. It is not. The Supreme Court’s decision to let the Fourth Circuit’s ruling stand means the states’ environmental damage cases against 3M will proceed in federal court rather than state court. That is a procedural ruling about where the states’ cases sit. It says nothing about whether an individual person who drank PFAS-contaminated water and got sick can pursue a claim. That path is open, and it runs through the AFFF multidistrict litigation already underway in the District of South Carolina.
We are Attorney911 — The Manginello Law Firm. We handle toxic tort and catastrophic injury cases, and we are writing this for one person: someone who just searched “PFAS lawsuit” after hearing that Maryland and South Carolina lost their bid to keep their cases in state court, and who is wondering whether the window has closed on their own claim. It has not. What follows is everything you need to understand about what happened, what it means for you, and what to do about it.
What the Supreme Court Actually Did — and What It Did Not Do
On Monday, the United States Supreme Court declined, without comment, to hear an appeal filed by the states of Maryland and South Carolina. Those states had asked the Court to overturn a March 2025 ruling by the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that allowed 3M Company to keep the states’ PFAS contamination lawsuits in federal court rather than returning them to state courts.
Here is what that ruling means in plain terms. Under a federal law called the federal officer removal statute, a private company that was acting at the direction of the federal government can move a lawsuit from state court to federal court. 3M argued that because it manufactured AFFF — the firefighting foam — to military specifications for the Navy for more than 30 years, and because that military-specification AFFF required the use of PFAS, the company was acting under federal direction. The Fourth Circuit agreed, and the Supreme Court let that ruling stand by declining to review it.
What the Supreme Court did not do is rule on the merits of whether 3M is liable for PFAS contamination. It did not decide whether 3M knew about the health risks of PFAS and concealed them. It did not decide whether the water near your home was contaminated. It did not close the courthouse door to anyone. It simply declined to disturb a procedural ruling about which courthouse the states’ environmental cases will sit in.
The Fourth Circuit’s divided opinion acknowledged the states’ strategy. Maryland and South Carolina had each filed two separate lawsuits — one for general PFAS contamination and one specifically for AFFF contamination — in a deliberate attempt to keep the broader PFAS claims in state court by excluding AFFF-related claims from those complaints. The court saw through that strategy, with the majority writing that “despite the States’ artful crafting of their complaints,” 3M’s removal was plausible because the conduct the states sued over was “at least related to” 3M’s federal work.
Circuit Judge Henry Floyd dissented, and his dissent is worth understanding because it captures the concern many people share. He wrote that the majority’s ruling risked sweeping lawsuits “properly before state courts” into the federal system based on a connection that was “too tenuous.” He pointed out that 3M was trying to remove claims “seeking recovery for pollution from products made for and sold on the consumer market” — and that the only link to federal work was that “the resulting pollutants are commingled in the environment.”
That dissent matters because it signals that the fight over jurisdiction is not the same as the fight over liability. The question of which court hears the case is separate from the question of whether the company is responsible for the harm.
What PFAS Is and Why These Chemicals Are Called “Forever”
PFAS stands for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances. They are a family of thousands of synthetic chemicals that have been used since the 1940s in everything from nonstick cookware to water-repellent clothing to stain-resistant fabrics. They earned the name “forever chemicals” for one reason: they do not break down in nature. They do not biodegrade. They do not decay. Once PFAS enters soil, groundwater, or a human body, it stays — for years, for decades, potentially for a lifetime.
In the human body, different PFAS compounds have different half-lives — the time it takes for the concentration in your blood to drop by half. Depending on the specific compound, those half-lives range from roughly two to nine years. That means if you were exposed to PFAS through contaminated drinking water for a decade, the chemicals are still in your blood now, measurable by a simple blood test, years after the exposure stopped.
PFAS was a key ingredient in aqueous film-forming foam — AFFF — the firefighting foam especially effective at suppressing fuel fires. The military used AFFF extensively for decades on bases across the country, including at installations throughout Maryland and South Carolina. Training exercises, equipment testing, and emergency responses all released AFFF into the environment, where its PFAS components seeped into groundwater and migrated into the aquifers that feed municipal and private drinking water supplies.
The Military Connection — Why Maryland and South Carolina Are Ground Zero
Maryland and South Carolina carry an extraordinary concentration of military installations, and that is precisely why PFAS contamination is a pressing issue in both states.
In Maryland, AFFF was historically used at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Fort Meade, Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Joint Base Andrews, and the U.S. Naval Academy. These installations sit within watersheds that supply drinking water to surrounding civilian communities. In South Carolina, the military footprint includes Joint Base Charleston, Shaw Air Force Base, Fort Jackson, Marine Corps Recruit Depot Parris Island, and Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort. Each of these facilities used AFFF in training and fire suppression over decades, and each sits atop aquifers that feed the water supplies of the towns and neighborhoods around them.
The contamination works like this: AFFF is sprayed or discharged during training exercises or fire emergencies. It soaks into the ground. The PFAS compounds in the foam percolate through soil into the groundwater, forming what hydrogeologists call a “plume” — an underground body of contaminated water that moves with the natural flow of the aquifer. That plume can travel miles from the original discharge point, reaching municipal wells and private residential water sources years or decades after the AFFF was first used.
Because PFAS does not biodegrade, contamination from AFFF training exercises conducted in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s is still active in the groundwater today. The Department of Defense dropped the specific PFAS requirement from its AFFF military specification in 2019, but it acknowledged that complete PFAS elimination remains technically infeasible while still meeting military performance standards. That acknowledgment is a fact 3M leverages in its legal defense — but it is also a fact that means the contamination pathway was known, foreseeable, and ongoing for decades.
The Federal Officer Removal Statute — How 3M Pulled the States’ Cases Into Federal Court
The federal officer removal statute is a procedural tool that has existed since the Civil War era. Its purpose is to allow private defendants who were acting under the direction of the federal government to have their cases heard in federal court rather than state court, on the theory that federal officers and their contractors should not be subjected to potentially hostile state courts when carrying out federal directives.
3M’s argument was straightforward: it manufactured AFFF containing PFAS to military specifications for the Navy for more than 30 years. The military-specification AFFF required the use of PFAS. Therefore, 3M was acting under federal direction when it produced the foam, and any lawsuit relating to that production belongs in federal court.
The states countered with a creative strategy. They filed separate lawsuits — one for general PFAS contamination and one specifically for AFFF contamination — and argued that the general PFAS suits had nothing to do with AFFF or the military. South Carolina’s PFAS suit “expressly excludes” AFFF, and Maryland’s PFAS lawsuit “does not seek any remediation, restoration, damages, or any other relief related to any PFAS contamination caused by AFFF.”
3M responded that the strategy was a shell game. Because PFAS compounds from military AFFF and from consumer products are chemically identical and commingled in the environment, 3M argued, it is impossible to distinguish between contamination from military-specification AFFF and contamination from consumer PFAS products. Therefore, even the “non-AFFF” PFAS suits are related to 3M’s federal work.
The district courts in both states initially agreed with the states and sent the PFAS cases back to state court. But the Fourth Circuit reversed, and the Supreme Court declined to intervene. That is where the matter stands: the states’ environmental cases will proceed in federal court.
“Despite the States’ artful crafting of their complaints, 3M’s notices of removal plausibly alleged that the conduct for which the States sued them is at least related to the company’s federal work.”
This language from the Fourth Circuit majority tells you what the court was doing: it looked past the labels the states put on their complaints and focused on whether the underlying conduct — manufacturing PFAS that contaminated the environment — was connected to 3M’s government-directed AFFF production. The court found that connection plausible enough to keep the cases in federal court.
What the Dissent Warned — and Why It Matters for Individual Claims
Judge Floyd’s dissent is important for a different reason than the majority opinion. The majority decided a procedural question about jurisdiction. The dissent raised a substantive concern about what happens when courts stretch the connection between a defendant’s government work and a plaintiff’s harm so broadly that state courts become effectively unavailable.
Judge Floyd wrote that 3M was “seeking to remove a claim seeking recovery for pollution from products made for and sold on the consumer market” and that the majority’s ruling reads the causal nexus requirement “so broadly as to move toward foreclosing state courtrooms to plaintiffs bringing state-law claims against defendants, when those defendants in turn identify even the slightest connection between the claims at issue at work they have performed as government contractors.”
He added: “Given what I see as the scant connection shown between 3M’s production of consumer products and its AFFF production, I would trust the courts of Maryland and South Carolina to hear these cases and ensure any liability is apportioned properly.”
For an individual plaintiff, the dissent matters because it signals that the removal fight is not the end of the case — it is the beginning of a different fight in a different courtroom. The substantive questions — did 3M know about the health risks, did it warn anyone, did it continue producing PFAS despite internal knowledge of harm — remain to be litigated regardless of which courthouse the case sits in.
The Health Conditions Linked to PFAS Exposure
The science connecting PFAS to specific human diseases has been building for years, and it is stronger now than it has ever been. The C8 Science Panel — a group of independent epidemiologists who studied the health effects of PFOA exposure in the Mid-Ohio Valley as part of a class-action settlement — found “probable links” between PFOA and six specific health conditions:
- Kidney cancer
- Testicular cancer
- High cholesterol
- Thyroid disease
- Pregnancy-induced hypertension
- Ulcerative colitis
The International Agency for Research on Cancer — the world’s leading cancer-science authority — classified PFOA as a Group 1 carcinogen, meaning it is carcinogenic to humans based on sufficient evidence of cancer in experimental animals and strong mechanistic evidence. PFOS was classified as Group 2B, possibly carcinogenic to humans.
For individuals who lived or worked near military installations where AFFF was used, the conditions with the strongest epidemiological support are kidney cancer and testicular cancer. These are the diseases the AFFF multidistrict litigation has focused on for its first personal-injury bellwether cases. Thyroid disease, ulcerative colitis, and pregnancy-induced hypertension also carry documented associations.
If you have been diagnosed with one of these conditions and you lived for a meaningful period near a military base, a civilian airport where AFFF was used, or an industrial site where PFAS was manufactured or used, the connection between your diagnosis and your exposure may be more than coincidence. It may be the basis for a claim.
How to Know If You Were Exposed — Blood Serum PFAS Testing
The single most important piece of evidence linking your health to PFAS contamination is a blood serum PFAS test. This is a blood draw that measures the concentration of specific PFAS compounds in your bloodstream. Unlike many environmental toxins that are metabolized and excreted quickly, PFAS accumulates and persists — which means a blood test today can still detect exposure from years or decades ago.
But there is a clock on this evidence. Because PFAS half-lives in human blood range from approximately two to nine years depending on the compound, the concentration in your blood is declining over time. The longer you wait to test, the lower your levels will be — and the harder it becomes to prove a meaningful exposure. If you were heavily exposed in the 1990s or early 2000s and have not been tested, the levels still detectable today may be a fraction of what they were at peak exposure. Testing now captures what remains before it declines further.
Blood serum PFAS testing serves as the biological bridge between environmental contamination and individual injury. It is the evidence that says: these chemicals are not just in the water near the base — they are in your body, at elevated levels, and they match the fingerprint of the contamination plume.
The AFFF Multidistrict Litigation — Where Individual Cases Live
While the states’ environmental cases proceed in federal court as separate lawsuits, individual personal-injury claims from people who were exposed to PFAS through AFFF are being consolidated in a federal multidistrict litigation. The AFFF MDL — formally designated as MDL No. 2873, In re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation — is centralized in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina before Judge Richard M. Gergel.
As of mid-2026, the AFFF MDL had more than 15,000 actions pending. The defendants include 3M Company, DuPont, Chemours, Corteva, Tyco Fire Products, Kidde-Fenwal, National Foam, Chemguard, and other AFFF manufacturers. The MDL consolidates pretrial proceedings — discovery, motion practice, expert challenges — so that each individual plaintiff does not have to litigate these issues separately. Individual cases retain their separate identities and can be sent back to their original courts for trial, or resolved through the MDL’s settlement processes.
The MDL has already produced an enormous document repository. 3M’s internal corporate documents — including internal toxicological studies, communications about health risks, and corporate decision-making records — have been produced in discovery under protective order. These documents are central to the failure-to-warn and punitive-damages theories. Individual plaintiffs must coordinate with MDL leadership counsel to access the discovery repository.
The first personal-injury bellwether case in the AFFF MDL was selected to focus on kidney cancer. Bellwether cases are test trials — they do not bind other plaintiffs, but they provide valuable information about how juries respond to the evidence, what defenses work, and what the cases are worth. The bellwether process drives global settlement pressure, which is why 3M has already announced multi-billion-dollar settlements with public water providers nationally.
The Defendant — 3M Company and the Corporate Structure Behind the Foam
3M Company is the primary defendant in both the state AG environmental cases and the individual AFFF personal-injury cases. 3M manufactured PFAS for more than 60 years and produced AFFF to military specifications for the Navy for more than 30 years. The company has already entered into a major public-water-provider settlement — agreeing to pay approximately $10.3 billion in present value (up to approximately $12.5 billion nominally over 13 years) to U.S. public water systems for PFAS remediation. DuPont, Chemours, and Corteva agreed separately to approximately $1.185 billion with public water providers.
Those settlements are for municipal water systems — not for individuals. A person who drank contaminated water and developed cancer is not covered by the water-provider settlement money. Those injury cases are a separate fight, and they are the cases that the AFFF MDL is designed to handle.
The corporate structure matters because it affects who you sue and where the money is. 3M is a Minnesota-based multinational corporation with substantial assets and insurance. The other AFFF manufacturers — DuPont (now split into DuPont de Nemours, Chemours, and Corteva through a series of corporate restructurings), Tyco Fire Products (under Johnson Controls), Kidde-Fenwal, National Foam, and Chemguard — each carry their own liability exposure and insurance towers. Part of the work in an individual PFAS case is identifying which manufacturers’ products were used at which installations, in what volumes, and over what time periods, so that liability can be allocated across the responsible parties.
The U.S. Department of Defense directed and specified PFAS-containing AFFF for decades, but sovereign immunity shields the federal government from most direct claims by individuals. However, the government-contractor defense — which 3M is expected to raise — does not provide automatic immunity. It provides a shield only if 3M can prove it followed government specifications precisely, did not conceal known hazards from the government, and the government authorized the design. If 3M possessed internal knowledge of PFAS health risks that it did not share with the military, the government-contractor defense may be limited or defeated.
Theories of Liability — How a PFAS Personal Injury Case Is Built
Individual PFAS personal-injury claims are built on several legal theories, each targeting a different aspect of the manufacturer’s conduct:
Products liability — design defect. 3M designed and manufactured PFAS-containing AFFF with inherent environmental and health hazards. Plaintiffs can argue that feasible safer alternatives existed or that the foreseeable risks of PFAS migration into groundwater and human bodies outweighed the product’s utility. The defense will argue that the military required PFAS in the foam and that no feasible alternative existed that met military specifications. The plaintiff’s counter is that 3M knew about the risks and failed to pursue or advocate for alternatives, and that the company continued producing PFAS for consumer products even when it knew the environmental consequences were severe.
Products liability — failure to warn. This is potentially the strongest theory. 3M allegedly possessed internal knowledge of PFAS bioaccumulation and toxicity for decades but did not adequately warn military users, downstream communities, or regulators of the risks of environmental contamination and human exposure. The internal corporate documents produced in the AFFF MDL discovery are the backbone of this claim. If 3M’s own scientists documented health risks years before the company warned anyone, the failure-to-warn theory carries significant force — and significant punitive-damages potential.
Public nuisance and environmental contamination. The state AG suits use this theory to seek recovery for PFAS contamination of state waterways, wildlife, and natural resources. Individual plaintiffs can assert private nuisance and trespass for contamination of private property and water supplies.
Civil conspiracy and concert of action. Multiple PFAS manufacturers allegedly coordinated to suppress information about health risks and maintain market position despite internal knowledge. This theory, advanced in the AFFF MDL, targets the industry-wide pattern of concealment.
The Government-Contractor Defense — 3M’s Strongest Shield and Its Limits
The government-contractor defense is the central legal battleground in individual AFFF personal-injury cases. The defense provides that a contractor acting under federal authority is not liable for design-defect claims if three conditions are met: (1) the government established reasonably precise specifications for the product, (2) the product conformed to those specifications, and (3) the contractor warned the government about known dangers that were not within the government’s knowledge.
3M will argue that all three conditions are satisfied: the Navy specified the AFFF formulation, 3M produced foam to those specifications, and 3M disclosed what it knew to the military. The plaintiff’s job is to break one of those three prongs — most often the third. If 3M possessed internal toxicological data showing PFAS was bioaccumulative and harmful, and if it did not share that information with the Navy, the warning prong fails and the defense collapses.
This is why the internal corporate documents produced in the AFFF MDL are so critical. They contain the evidence of what 3M knew, when it knew it, and what it told (or did not tell) the government. The discovery already produced under protective order in the MDL is the raw material for defeating the government-contractor defense in individual cases.
Maryland’s Legal Framework — Contributory Negligence and Environmental Authority
Maryland presents a unique challenge for individual PFAS plaintiffs. Maryland is one of the few remaining contributory negligence jurisdictions in the United States. Under contributory negligence, any fault attributed to the plaintiff completely bars recovery — there is no proportional reduction. If a defendant can argue that a plaintiff knowingly consumed contaminated water after being warned, or that the plaintiff assumed the risk by continuing to live in a contaminated area, the contributory negligence doctrine could theoretically bar the claim entirely.
This makes the framing of the case critical. For most PFAS plaintiffs, the exposure was involuntary — they drank the water from their tap, their municipal supply, or their private well without knowing it was contaminated. The defense may try to argue that once contamination became public knowledge, the plaintiff should have stopped drinking the water or installed filtration. The counter is that PFAS contamination is invisible, tasteless, and odorless, and that the manufacturers’ failure to warn is precisely what kept the exposure going.
Maryland’s Environmental Article provides the state Attorney General with the authority to pursue natural resource damages, which forms the basis of the state’s separate environmental suits. But for an individual plaintiff, the personal-injury claim runs through the same tort system as any other injury case — with the added complication of contributory negligence and the procedural reality that the case may be removed to federal court.
Maryland’s statute of limitations for personal injury is generally in the three-year range, but toxic exposure cases typically invoke the discovery rule — the clock does not start running until the plaintiff knew or reasonably should have known of the injury and its connection to the exposure. For someone diagnosed with kidney cancer in 2024 who only learned in 2023 that their drinking water near a military base was contaminated with PFAS, the limitations clock may have started when that connection was discovered, not when the exposure occurred decades ago. The specific limitations rule must be confirmed for each individual’s circumstances.
South Carolina’s Legal Framework — Modified Comparative Negligence and the MDL Hub
South Carolina follows a modified comparative negligence rule with a 51% bar. This means that a plaintiff’s recovery is reduced by their percentage of fault, but if the plaintiff is 51% or more at fault, they recover nothing. For PFAS plaintiffs, this is a more forgiving standard than Maryland’s contributory negligence — a plaintiff who is found to be 10% at fault still recovers 90% of their damages.
South Carolina’s statute of limitations for personal injury is also generally in the three-year range, with the same discovery-rule considerations for latent disease. South Carolina’s personal-injury SOL and any toxic-tort-specific provisions must be confirmed for each plaintiff’s filing date and diagnosis date.
The District of South Carolina is also where the AFFF MDL is centralized, making it a critical hub for all related federal PFAS litigation. Judge Gergel has managed the consolidated litigation, and thousands of corporate documents are already available through the MDL discovery repository. For an individual plaintiff in South Carolina, filing in or near the MDL’s home district creates procedural efficiencies — the court is already familiar with the science, the defendants, and the legal issues.
The Evidence Clock — What Exists, Who Holds It, and How Fast It Disappears
PFAS cases are built on several categories of evidence, each with its own timeline and its own custodian. Understanding what exists and how fast it can disappear is the single most important reason to act quickly.
Blood serum PFAS testing. This is the biological evidence that connects your body to the contamination. PFAS half-lives in human blood range from two to nine years depending on the compound. Every year you wait to test, the concentration declines. Testing should happen promptly to capture the highest remaining levels before natural decline weakens the evidentiary link. The test is performed by specialized laboratories — your attorney can help coordinate it.
Municipal and private well water sampling data. State environmental agencies and the Department of Defense have sampling records showing PFAS concentrations in water supplies near military installations. These records document the contamination plume, its concentration levels, and the timeline of exposure for surrounding communities. Historical sampling data may be incomplete — some early testing used detection limits that were too high to catch lower concentrations. The DOD has acknowledged that some historical records from the 1970s through 1990s may already be lost. FOIA requests for military base AFFF procurement, usage, and training records should be filed immediately, because records retention schedules vary and older records may already be gone.
3M internal corporate documents. The AFFF MDL discovery process has already produced thousands of internal 3M documents — toxicological studies, internal communications about PFAS health risks, corporate decision-making records, and marketing materials. These documents are produced under protective order in the MDL. Individual plaintiffs must coordinate with MDL leadership counsel to access the document repository. These are the documents that prove what 3M knew and when — the spine of the failure-to-warn theory and the punitive-damages argument.
Hydrogeological and groundwater flow modeling. Expert hydrogeologists build models showing how PFAS migrated from military base AFFF discharge points to private and municipal drinking water sources. This modeling is essential for specific causation — it connects the defendant’s product to the plaintiff’s water supply. Groundwater conditions change over time. Contemporaneous data and expert modeling must be commissioned before evidence of the original plume dynamics degrades further.
Military base AFFF records. Procurement records, usage logs, training exercise documentation, and environmental reports from the specific military installation near where you lived. These establish the volume, frequency, and locations of AFFF discharge, creating the exposure-pathway evidence. DOD records retention schedules vary, and some historical training logs from the 1970s through 1990s may already be lost. FOIA requests should be filed immediately.
What Your Case May Be Worth — An Honest Evaluation
We cannot promise you a specific result. Every case is different, and the value of a PFAS personal-injury claim depends on the severity of the injury, the duration and intensity of exposure, the proximity to the contamination source, the diagnostic certainty, and the strength of the specific-causation evidence. What we can give you is the framework that life-care planners and forensic economists use to value these cases — so you understand what is at stake.
For individual PFAS personal-injury claims, the case-value range from the mass-tort context runs broadly from $250,000 on the low end to $5,000,000 or more on the high end. Cancer cases with clear exposure pathways and strong epidemiological support command the highest values. A plaintiff with kidney cancer who lived for 15 years adjacent to a military base with documented AFFF use and PFAS-contaminated drinking water, and who has elevated blood serum PFAS levels, sits at the top of that range. A plaintiff with thyroid disease and a shorter, less-documented exposure history may sit lower.
Medical monitoring-only cases — where the plaintiff has elevated PFAS levels but no current disease diagnosis — range from approximately $25,000 to $100,000 per plaintiff. These cases seek the cost of lifelong blood testing and surveillance for PFAS-exposed individuals.
Punitive damages are a critical driver of case value in PFAS litigation. 3M’s decades of continued PFAS production despite alleged internal knowledge of health risks creates a strong punitive profile. If the discovery documents show conscious disregard — internal scientists warning leadership about bioaccumulation and toxicity while the company continued production and said nothing to regulators or the public — a jury may award punitive damages that multiply the compensatory figure.
3M has already committed billions to settle related claims with public water providers. That settlement architecture provides a benchmark for individual claim valuation, and the MDL bellwether process continues to inform settlement values as cases move toward resolution.
These ranges reflect the mass-tort context. Your individual case may be worth more or less depending on its specific facts. Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes.
The Adjuster’s Playbook — What the Other Side Will Try
PFAS cases do not have traditional insurance adjusters the way a car crash does. 3M is largely self-insured at its scale, and the claims are managed through corporate legal departments and national defense firms. But the defense playbook follows recognizable patterns. Here are the plays you should expect, and how each is countered.
Play 1: “Your cancer is idiopathic — it came from nowhere.” The defense will argue that kidney cancer, testicular cancer, and thyroid disease have many causes unrelated to PFAS. Smoking, diet, genetics, and other environmental exposures will be offered as alternative explanations. The counter is the dose reconstruction: documented elevated PFAS levels in your blood, a documented contamination plume in your water supply, and the epidemiological literature showing elevated cancer rates in PFAS-exposed populations. The C8 Science Panel’s probable-link findings and IARC’s Group 1 classification of PFOA are the scientific foundation.
Play 2: “You cannot prove which PFAS came from our product.” Because PFAS from military AFFF and from consumer products is chemically indistinguishable once it enters the environment, the defense will argue that 3M cannot be singled out as the source. This is the same argument 3M made in the removal fight, and it cuts both ways. The counter is joint and several liability — under environmental tort principles, any defendant whose PFAS contributed to the contamination can be held responsible for the full harm. The plaintiff does not have to isolate which molecule came from which manufacturer.
Play 3: “The government made us do it.” This is the government-contractor defense. The defense will argue that 3M simply followed military specifications and cannot be held liable for a product the government required. The counter requires proving that 3M exceeded the specifications, possessed hazard information it withheld from the government, or that the alleged defect was not solely attributable to government-directed design. The internal corporate documents from the MDL discovery are the tools for breaking this defense open.
Play 4: Delay through procedural complexity. The defense will use every procedural tool available — motions to dismiss, Daubert challenges to expert witnesses, removal motions, venue disputes — to extend the timeline and increase the plaintiff’s costs. The counter is experienced counsel who knows the MDL process, has access to the discovery repository, and can avoid duplicative motion practice by coordinating with MDL leadership.
How a PFAS Case Is Actually Built — The Proof Story
Here is how an individual PFAS personal-injury case is built, from the first call through resolution.
The process begins with a full intake: your medical history, your residential history (every address where you lived and how long), your water source at each address (municipal supply, private well, bottled water), your military or civilian employment near contaminated sites, and your diagnosis timeline. This intake is the foundation — it establishes the exposure pathway and the temporal connection between exposure and disease.
Next comes the evidence-preservation phase. Blood serum PFAS testing is arranged. FOIA requests are filed with the Department of Defense for base-specific AFFF records. Water sampling data is requested from state environmental agencies. A litigation-hold letter goes out to 3M and any other relevant defendants, ordering them to preserve all documents relating to PFAS production, internal health studies, and communications with the military.
The case is then filed — either directly in the AFFF MDL or in a state or federal court that will likely transfer it to the MDL. Once in the MDL, the case benefits from the consolidated discovery already completed: the internal 3M documents, the expert reports, the Daubert rulings, and the bellwether trial preparations. Individual counsel coordinates with MDL leadership to access the protective-order-governed discovery repository.
Expert witnesses are retained: a board-certified environmental toxicologist to testify on general causation (does PFAS cause this disease), an epidemiologist to testify on the dose-response relationship, a hydrogeologist to build the fate-and-transport model connecting the base’s AFFF discharge to your water supply, and a treating physician or oncologist to testify on specific causation (did PFAS cause your specific cancer). The defense will mount aggressive Daubert challenges to each expert, and the Fourth Circuit’s Daubert jurisprudence requires rigorous foundation — this is not the place for a generalist.
The case proceeds through discovery, depositions, and motion practice. If it does not resolve through the MDL’s settlement processes, it may be remanded to its original court for trial, or selected as a bellwether.
Throughout this process, the number at the end is built from all of it — the documented exposure, the diagnosed disease, the internal corporate documents showing what the company knew, the expert testimony connecting the two, and the life-care plan that prices the lifetime cost of the harm.
What to Do Right Now — The First 72 Hours
If you believe you were exposed to PFAS through contaminated drinking water near a military base, airport, or industrial site, and you have been diagnosed with a PFAS-linked condition, here is what to do — and what not to do — in the immediate term.
Do get blood serum PFAS testing. This is the biological evidence that links your body to the contamination. Every year you wait, the levels decline. Contact a laboratory that performs PFAS blood testing — your attorney can help coordinate this, or your physician can order it.
Do document your residential history. Write down every address where you lived, the dates you lived there, and your water source at each address. Include the names of military installations, airports, or industrial sites near each address. This is the exposure-pathway foundation.
Do gather your medical records. Obtain copies of all records relating to your diagnosis — pathology reports, imaging, treatment records, physician notes. The diagnosis date and the specific diagnosis are critical for the statute-of-limitations analysis.
Do not sign anything from any defendant, insurer, or claims administrator without having an attorney review it. A release signed in haste can extinguish your claim permanently.
Do not give a recorded statement to anyone. Whether it is a claims adjuster, an investigator, or a “researcher” asking about your health history, a recorded statement can be used to undermine your case. Decline politely and refer all communication to your attorney.
Do not delay. The statute of limitations is running, the evidence is degrading, and the MDL settlement process is moving forward. The day you call a lawyer is the day the clock starts working for you instead of against you.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I still file a PFAS lawsuit after the Supreme Court’s decision?
Yes. The Supreme Court’s decision was about where the states’ environmental cases against 3M will be heard — federal court rather than state court. It did not close the door to individual personal-injury claims. Individual PFAS exposure cases are filed through the AFFF multidistrict litigation in the District of South Carolina, and that pathway remains open.
How long do I have to file a PFAS personal injury claim?
Both Maryland and South Carolina have statutes of limitations for personal injury generally in the three-year range, but toxic exposure cases typically invoke the discovery rule — the clock does not start running until you knew or reasonably should have known that your injury was connected to PFAS exposure. For someone diagnosed with cancer who only recently learned their drinking water was contaminated, the limitations period may have started when that connection was discovered. The specific deadline depends on your state, your diagnosis date, and when you learned of the exposure. This is something an attorney must confirm for your specific situation.
What health conditions are linked to PFAS exposure?
The conditions with the strongest epidemiological support are kidney cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid disease, ulcerative colitis, pregnancy-induced hypertension, and elevated cholesterol. The C8 Science Panel found “probable links” between PFOA and all six conditions. IARC has classified PFOA as a Group 1 carcinogen (carcinogenic to humans) and PFOS as Group 2B (possibly carcinogenic). If you have been diagnosed with one of these conditions and have a history of living near a military base, airport, or industrial site where AFFF or PFAS was used, you should discuss your situation with a toxic tort attorney.
How do I know if my drinking water was contaminated with PFAS?
PFAS contamination is invisible, tasteless, and odorless. You cannot see it, smell it, or taste it in your water. State environmental agencies and the EPA have conducted testing near military installations and industrial sites, and much of that data is publicly available. If you lived near a military base, civilian airport, or PFAS manufacturing facility, there may be sampling data for your area. An attorney can help you locate and interpret that data. You can also request a blood serum PFAS test, which will tell you whether elevated PFAS levels are present in your body.
What is the AFFF multidistrict litigation and how do I join it?
The AFFF MDL (MDL No. 2873) is a consolidated federal proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina before Judge Richard M. Gergel. It centralizes pretrial proceedings for thousands of individual PFAS personal-injury and water-contamination claims against 3M and other AFFF manufacturers. You do not “join” the MDL as you would a class action — your individual case is filed and then transferred to the MDL for pretrial purposes. Your case retains its own identity, and you keep your own claim. The MDL handles shared issues — discovery, expert challenges, bellwether trials — so that each plaintiff does not have to litigate those separately.
Will the government-contractor defense prevent me from recovering from 3M?
Not necessarily. The government-contractor defense provides a shield only if 3M can prove three things: the government established precise specifications, the product conformed to those specifications, and 3M warned the government about known dangers not within the government’s knowledge. If 3M possessed internal knowledge of PFAS health risks that it did not share with the military, the warning prong of the defense fails. The internal corporate documents produced in the AFFF MDL discovery are the tools for breaking this defense. Whether the defense applies in your specific case depends on what the evidence shows about what 3M knew and what it told the government.
Is it too late to get blood serum PFAS testing?
No, but there is a clock. PFAS half-lives in human blood range from approximately two to nine years depending on the compound. This means the concentration in your blood is declining over time. The longer you wait, the lower your levels will be, and the harder it becomes to prove a meaningful exposure. If you were exposed decades ago, your current levels may be lower than they were at peak exposure — but they may still be elevated above background levels, which is itself evidence of exposure. Testing now captures what remains before it declines further.
How much is my PFAS case worth?
The value of an individual PFAS personal-injury claim depends on the severity of the injury, the duration and intensity of exposure, the proximity to the contamination source, the diagnostic certainty, and the strength of the specific-causation evidence. In the mass-tort context, individual personal-injury claims range broadly from $250,000 to $5,000,000 or more, with cancer cases commanding the highest values. Medical monitoring-only cases range from $25,000 to $100,000. Punitive damages could multiply these figures if 3M’s alleged concealment of health risks is proven. Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes.
Do I have to live in Maryland or South Carolina to file a PFAS claim?
No. The AFFF MDL in the District of South Carolina accepts cases from individuals nationwide. If you lived near a military base, airport, or industrial site in any state where AFFF was used and you have been diagnosed with a PFAS-linked condition, you may have a claim regardless of where you currently live. The Supreme Court’s decision involved Maryland and South Carolina’s state environmental cases specifically, but the individual personal-injury pathway through the MDL is available to eligible plaintiffs from any state.
Who We Are and Why It Matters
We are Attorney911 — The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC. We are based in Houston, Texas, and we take toxic tort, catastrophic injury, and wrongful death cases in Maryland, South Carolina, and nationwide, working with local counsel and seeking admission pro hac vice where required. We are not admitted to practice in Maryland or South Carolina state courts directly, and we do not claim to be — we bring the knowledge, the resources, and the fight, and we work through the correct procedural channels in each jurisdiction.
Ralph P. Manginello is our Managing Partner. He has been licensed to practice law in Texas since November 6, 1998 — more than 27 years. He is admitted to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, including the federal bankruptcy court. He was a journalist before he was a lawyer, which means he was trained to find the document that proves the point, to ask the question the other side does not want answered, and to tell the story a jury can feel in their bones. He handles the complex litigation, the federal-court practice, and the strategy that turns a procedural maze into a path to recovery. Learn more about Ralph Manginello.
Lupe Peña is our Associate Attorney. He was licensed in Texas in December 2012 and is also admitted to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Before he joined our side of the table, Lupe spent years inside a national insurance-defense firm — the rooms where claims are valued, reserves are set, and decisions are made about how to deny, delay, and devalue people exactly like you. He sat with the software that prices injuries. He watched the plays get designed. Now he uses that knowledge for injured clients. And he conducts full consultations in Spanish, without an interpreter, because the family that prays in Spanish deserves the same depth of representation as anyone else. Learn more about Lupe Peña.
If you are dealing with a PFAS-related cancer diagnosis or other PFAS-linked condition, we handle these cases on a toxic tort basis. For families who have lost a loved one to a PFAS-related cancer, our wrongful death practice can guide you through the survival and wrongful-death claims that may be available. And if you are ready to talk, our contact page is where you start.
What the First Call Costs and What Happens After
The first call costs nothing. The consultation is free, and it is confidential. We do not get paid unless we win your case. Our fee is 33.33% if the case resolves before trial and 40% if it goes to trial. That is the entire fee structure — no hourly billing, no retainer, no upfront cost. If there is no recovery, you owe us nothing for our time.
When you call 1-888-ATTY-911, you will speak to a live person — not an answering service, not a call center, not a chatbot. We have 24/7 live staff because the moment you decide to act is not always between 9 and 5 on a weekday. That call is the day the clock starts working for you instead of against you.
The first thing we do is listen. We want to understand your diagnosis, your residential history, your water source, and your timeline. Then we tell you honestly whether we believe you have a case, what the path looks like, and what the next steps are. If we are not the right fit for your situation, we will tell you — and we will help you find someone who is. That is not generosity. That is what a lawyer is supposed to do.
The Bottom Line
The Supreme Court’s silence on Maryland and South Carolina’s appeal is a procedural ruling, not a verdict on whether 3M is responsible for the PFAS in your water or the cancer in your body. The states’ environmental cases will proceed in federal court. Your individual case can proceed through the AFFF multidistrict litigation. The scientific evidence linking PFAS to specific cancers and diseases is stronger than it has ever been. 3M has already committed billions to settle related claims. The MDL infrastructure provides a proven pathway for individual recovery.
What is at stake is your health, your family’s financial security, and the accountability of a company that allegedly knew for decades that the chemicals it was producing were accumulating in the environment and in human bodies — and said nothing.
The evidence is degrading. The statute of limitations is running. The blood test you have not yet taken is showing lower levels today than it did last year. Every day you wait is a day the proof gets harder to gather and the clock gets closer to running out.
Call 1-888-ATTY-911. The consultation is free. The call is confidential. And we do not get paid unless we win your case.
Hablamos Español.
Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes. This page is legal information, not legal advice. Contacting the firm is free and confidential.