Firefighter PFAS and AFFF Lawsuits: What Texas Firefighters Should Know

For decades, firefighters trusted aqueous film-forming foam, commonly called AFFF, to help control dangerous fuel fires. Now, firefighters across the country are pursuing claims alleging that long-term exposure to PFAS chemicals contained in firefighting foam contributed to serious illnesses, including certain cancers and other diseases. The federal litigation is actively moving forward, and firefighters with qualifying diagnoses may have legal options worth investigating.

For The Burkett Law Firm, these cases fit squarely within the work the firm has done for injured Texans for generations: investigating complex injuries, identifying responsible companies, developing evidence, and pursuing compensation when a dangerous product may have caused serious harm.

Firefighters exposed to AFFF firefighting foam who later developed certain illnesses may qualify to pursue a PFAS product liability claim against manufacturers of the chemicals and foam products. The federal AFFF litigation currently focuses on six conditions: kidney cancer, testicular cancer, ulcerative colitis, thyroid disease, thyroid cancer, and liver cancer. The scientific evidence is not equally strong for every condition, so eligibility and the strength of an individual claim depend on the person’s diagnosis, exposure history, available documentation, and applicable filing deadline.

The Burkett Law Firm is evaluating these claims for firefighters in Corpus Christi, throughout Texas, and potentially in other states through appropriate associations. The firm handles these matters on a contingency-fee basis, with no attorney’s fee unless it recovers.

Why Firefighters Are Concerned About PFAS Exposure

PFAS stands for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, a large family of synthetic chemicals valued for their resistance to heat, oil, and water.

Those properties made PFAS particularly useful in AFFF. The foam was designed to suppress fuel fires by creating a film across the burning surface. Firefighters could encounter the chemicals during training exercises, emergency responses, cleanup, equipment handling, and other routine activities.

For many firefighters, exposure was not a single event. It could happen repeatedly throughout a career.

Potential exposure situations described in the current litigation include live-burn training, aircraft fires, fuel fires, refinery and industrial incidents, foam cleanup, hose washdown, and contaminated water near military bases and training facilities.

PFAS exposure has also raised concerns involving firefighter turnout gear. The materials used in structural turnout gear have historically been treated with PFAS for water and oil resistance. However, turnout-gear-only claims are developing separately, and they should not automatically be treated as equivalent to established AFFF exposure claims.

That distinction matters. At The Burkett Law Firm, we believe firefighters deserve an honest assessment of what the available evidence supports rather than promises about claims that remain scientifically or legally unsettled.

What Diseases Are Involved in the AFFF Litigation?

The federal court’s current personal-injury track identifies six conditions.

Kidney cancer and testicular cancer currently have some of the strongest scientific support identified in the litigation. Ulcerative colitis and thyroid disease are also included in the court’s expert-discovery process, while causation issues involving thyroid and liver cancer continue to be litigated.

Having one of these conditions does not automatically establish a successful lawsuit. A claim must connect the diagnosis with a legally sufficient history of PFAS exposure and satisfy other requirements.

Who May Qualify for a Firefighter PFAS Claim?

A potential claim generally involves three major pieces: a qualifying medical diagnosis, evidence of PFAS or AFFF exposure, and a claim filed within the applicable deadline.

Potential claimants may include career firefighters, volunteer firefighters, military firefighters, airport rescue and firefighting personnel, and refinery or industrial firefighters.

You don’t necessarily need decades of personal employment records at home before speaking with an attorney. Department records, military service records, personnel files, medical documentation, and other historical materials may help reconstruct an exposure history.

That investigative work matters most when exposure occurred years or even decades ago.

Military and Volunteer Firefighters May Have Claims Too

A firefighter did not have to work for a large municipal department to encounter AFFF.

Volunteer firefighters may have participated in the same training exercises and handled the same firefighting foams as paid personnel. What matters is the evidence of exposure and the individual’s diagnosis, not simply whether firefighting was a paid full-time position.

Military firefighters may also have additional considerations. A VA disability claim and an AFFF product liability lawsuit are different proceedings. The firm’s materials explain that a VA claim seeks government benefits, while the AFFF litigation involves claims against chemical and foam manufacturers.

The AFFF Lawsuits Are Product Liability Claims

These cases are fundamentally different from a typical workplace injury claim.

The allegations focus on companies that manufacture PFAS chemicals and firefighting foam products. Thousands of cases have been consolidated for coordinated federal pretrial proceedings in In re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2873, in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina.

An MDL is not the same as a class action. Individual claims remain separate while common discovery and pretrial issues are coordinated.

As of September 2026, the firm’s materials report approximately 15,000 pending cases. No global personal-injury settlement exists yet, and prior multibillion-dollar settlements involving public water systems did not compensate individual injured firefighters.

For that reason, firefighters should be cautious about anyone promising a particular settlement amount or guaranteed outcome.

Why These Cases Fit The Burkett Law Firm

PFAS litigation involves much more than filling out paperwork and joining a mass tort.

A viable claim may require investigating where someone served, which foam products were used, how frequently exposure occurred, what medical diagnosis followed, and whether historical records can establish the necessary connection.

That type of evidence-driven litigation aligns with The Burkett Law Firm’s personal injury and civil trial practice.

The firm has represented injured Texans since 1960. David Burkett is board certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization in both Personal Injury Trial Law and Civil Trial Law. Clients work with a law firm focused on individual representation rather than simply being processed through a national intake operation.

The firm is based at 538 S. Tancahua Street in Corpus Christi and serves communities throughout the Coastal Bend, including Nueces, San Patricio, Aransas, Kleberg, Jim Wells, Bee, and Refugio counties. For PFAS matters, the firm evaluates claims throughout Texas and may handle claims elsewhere with appropriate associations.

Why Firefighters Should Not Wait to Investigate a Claim

PFAS-related illnesses can appear long after the original exposure. That does not mean there is unlimited time to bring a lawsuit.

Texas generally has a two-year limitations period for personal injury claims, but latent-disease cases can involve additional questions concerning when an illness and its possible cause became reasonably discoverable. Other states have different rules, and some have statutes of repose. The applicable deadline therefore depends on the facts of the individual case.

Time also affects evidence.

Departments change recordkeeping systems. Foam purchasing records can disappear. Former colleagues and training officers retire. Memories fade. Someone who remembers exactly which foam was used during training decades ago may become difficult to locate.

Starting an investigation early can help preserve evidence before it is gone.

What If a Firefighter Has Died?

Families may also have legal options.

Depending on the circumstances, surviving spouses, children, or an estate may be able to pursue wrongful death or survival claims when a firefighter died from a potentially PFAS-related disease. The deadline for a wrongful death claim can differ from the deadline that applied to the firefighter’s original personal injury claim.

Families should not assume they have no claim simply because the firefighter never filed a lawsuit while alive.

Even limited records can provide a starting point. A death certificate, pathology report, military DD-214, employment history, or old photographs may help attorneys begin reconstructing the person’s service and exposure history.

What Should You Have Before Calling an Attorney?

You do not need to assemble an entire case yourself.

If possible, be prepared to explain where you served, approximately how long you served, whether you remember using AFFF or responding to fuel-related fires, and your diagnosis.

From there, attorneys can determine which additional medical, employment, military, departmental, or product records may be necessary. The Burkett Law Firm specifically advises potential clients that gathering those records is part of the firm’s job.

Talk to The Burkett Law Firm About a Firefighter PFAS Claim

Firefighters spent their careers running toward dangers most people instinctively run away from. They should not have to navigate a complicated national product liability case alone when the equipment used to perform that work may have exposed them to another risk.

If you are a current or former firefighter who handled AFFF and have been diagnosed with kidney cancer, testicular cancer, ulcerative colitis, thyroid disease, thyroid cancer, or liver cancer, the Burkett Law Firm can review your service history, diagnosis, and potential exposure to determine whether you may have a claim.

The consultation is free and confidential. We handle these cases on a contingency-fee basis, subject to the terms of the firm’s written agreement.