Non-AFFF Firefighter Turnout Gear
This MDL, formed in August 2026, consolidates claims brought by firefighters alleging that PFAS chemicals present in their protective turnout gear caused cancer and other serious illnesses through prolonged occupational exposure, and that manufacturers failed to adequately warn of these risks despite alleged knowledge of the danger. The JPML deliberately titled this docket "Non-AFFF" to distinguish it from the much larger, longer-running MDL over PFAS-containing firefighting foam, even though both litigations involve related chemical-exposure theories and, according to public reporting, judicial commentary has suggested the two categories of claims share enough common ground that turnout-gear claims may belong alongside the foam litigation as a practical matter. Centralized in the District of Minnesota, the docket carries 8 pending actions at this very early stage.
What will drive resolution risk in this docket, as it develops, mirrors the broader PFAS-litigation landscape: general-causation questions linking specific PFAS compounds in turnout-gear materials to specific cancers, individualized diagnosis and exposure-history proof for each firefighter plaintiff, and now, according to recent filings, an added RICO theory alleging that turnout-gear manufacturers coordinated to conceal known health risks. That RICO overlay, if it proceeds, could meaningfully affect both the litigation's complexity and its potential damages exposure relative to a standard failure-to-warn products-liability theory alone.
For anyone tracking how the broader PFAS-litigation landscape continues to expand into new occupational and product categories beyond firefighting foam, this docket is an early, closely watched example, distinguished from the more mature AFFF litigation but sharing much of its underlying causation science and occupational-exposure fact pattern. Criterica Intelligence's platform tracks this docket's development alongside the broader PFAS litigation family, given the classification distinction from Products Liability despite the fundamentally personal-injury nature of the claims.
That PFAS chemicals present in firefighter protective turnout gear caused cancer and other serious illnesses through prolonged occupational exposure, and that manufacturers failed to adequately warn of the risk despite alleged knowledge of it.
The JPML built the "Non-AFFF" distinction into the docket's title to keep the turnout-gear claims administratively separate from the much larger, longer-running foam MDL, even though both involve related PFAS chemical-exposure theories.
A RICO claim alleging that turnout-gear manufacturers coordinated to conceal known PFAS health risks, layered on top of the underlying failure-to-warn and products-liability theories.
Because it represents the PFAS-litigation landscape expanding into a new occupational-exposure product category, sharing much of its causation science and factual pattern with the more mature firefighting-foam MDL despite its distinct docket classification.
Statistics shown reflect historical or illustrative model outputs derived from real case data. They are not predictions or guarantees of any individual outcome. Litigation results depend on facts, jurisdiction, judge, and counsel, and vary case by case. Model accuracy is subject to selection effects and changing legal dynamics.