C-8 Lawsuit Update: Over Four Dozen Lawsuits Have Been Filed in Ohio Federal Court for Exposure to C-8 Contaminated Water
As of August 15, 2013, there are 46 C8 lawsuits filed in federal court that have been consolidated in the Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) In Re: E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company C-8 Personal Injury Litigation (MDL 2433). The MDL is currently pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio before The Honorable Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. The growing number of lawsuits reflects the serious injuries Ohio and West Virginia residents have sustained from exposure to C8 contaminated water.
For nearly half a century, DuPont used the toxic chemical C8, or ammonium perfluorooctanoate (PFOA), at its Washington Works Plant to manufacture of Teflon and other products. The manufacturing process released significant amounts of C8 into the surrounding air, water, and landfills. In August 2001, a class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of 70,000 West Virginia and Ohio residents living and working near the Washington Works plant who were exposed to C8 contaminated drinking water. In 2005, DuPont reached a settlement with the 70,000 plaintiffs. That settlement said that anyone who had been exposed to C8 contaminated water would be eligible to file a personal injury lawsuit if they developed a disease determined to be associated with C8 exposure. (Leach v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., No. 01-C-608 (W. Va. Cir. Ct.))
In October 2012, a panel of doctors reported several probable links between C8 exposure and certain serious health conditions, including testicular and kidney cancer, thyroid disease, inflammatory bowel disease, and pregnancy-induced hypertension. The findings stemmed from a series of studies, which examined over 70,000 area residents. With these findings, area resident who suffered one of the identifiable health conditions began filing personal injury lawsuits against DuPont seeking compensation for their injuries.
On April 8, 2013, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered that all cases filed in federal court against DuPont for C8 exposure be transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio for consolidated, pretrial proceedings. According to court documents, C8 lawsuits pending in the multidistrict litigation allege that DuPont has known for several decades that worker exposure to C8 contaminated drinking water poses various health risks and that its Washington Works facility was discharging C8 into the Ohio River and local landfills. Plaintiffs allege that DuPont had information that its C8 discharge could be reduced substantially by use of a carbon absorption treatment system.
Individuals who lived or worked in certain Ohio and West Virginia water districts prior to December 3, 2004, or their survivors, may be entitled to file a C-8 lawsuit for personal injury or wrongful death if they or their loved one suffered from an illness that may be linked to C-8 exposure, including:
- Kidney cancer
- Testicular cancer
- Thyroid disease
- Ulcerative Colitis (inflammatory bowel disease)
- High cholesterol
- Preclampsia (high blood pressure during pregnancy)
These individuals must have also lived in one of six of the following contaminated water districts: Little Hocking, Ohio; Belpre, Ohio; Village of Pomeroy, Ohio; Tuppers Plains, Ohio; Lubeck Public Service District, West Virginia; and Mason County Public Service District, West Virginia.
Schlichter, Bogard & Denton, LLP attorneys are experienced in litigating dangerous toxic exposure cases and are leaders in national multidistrict litigations. Partner Roger Denton has been appointed by Judge Sargus to serve on the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee in the federal Multidistrict Litigation involving C8 exposure. If you or a loved one have were injured by exposure to C8, please contact the experienced attorneys at Schlichter, Bogard & Denton, LLP toll-free at 1-800-873-5297 for your confidential and free consultation.
Legal Disclaimer: The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely on advertisements. The cases discussed do not predict outcomes in future cases. Past results afford no guarantee of future results and every case is different and must be judged on its own merits.