Federal lawmakers and advocates are still fighting to add PFAS exposure to the VA’s Presumptive List.
The list currently does not give disability benefits to veterans, who were potentially exposed to the toxic “forever chemicals” on contaminated military sites - like Camp Grayling or the former Wurtsmith Air Force Base in Oscoda.
But some veterans are taking up the legal fight the against manufacturers like 3M, which produced PFAS-containing firefighting foam used on military installations.
Representatives from 3M have repeatedly opposed claims of the connection between PFAS and adverse human health effects stating, "the weight of scientific evidence has not been established."
WCMU's Teresa Homsi spoke to Stan Gottfredson about the legal playing field for veterans who were exposed to PFAS. He’s with Atraxia Media, a law firm marketing company. Gottfredson is not an attorney representing veterans filing claims.
Editor's note: This story was produced for the ear and designed to be heard. If you're able, WCMU encourages you to listen to the audio. The transcript has been lightly edited for length and clarity.
Homsi: What sort of legal arguments can be made given that it's very difficult to prove this causal link between some of those diseases that you had mentioned and PFAS? How do you say that's causative and not just correlation?
Gottfredson: That's the argument that we're hearing from the defense, 3M, DuPont. The reality is there's a bunch of peer-reviewed medical papers out there with these links. Those injuries that I told you (kidney cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid disease, Hashimoto's disease, ulcerative colitis) - those are the ones with the highest probability of being linked directly to PFAS.
If you look at that recent settlement of $10.3 billion with 3M, where they targeted municipalities with water systems that had high elevations of PFAS in them. The reason for that suit is to get money, so they can clean it up. It's a little bit different, but those arguments sustained through that trial, so our feeling is it's going to work the same way when we go to individual plaintiffs. Same experts, same testimonies, same everything.
Homsi: Why are the claims being filed against the manufacturer and not the Department of Defense?
Gottfredson: You can't sue the Department of Defense. Because the private sector was the one that developed this and is responsible for the broad distribution of it, that's exactly who you go after. The DOD is that really kind of secondary on it. Certainly, the DOD approved the use of those products and probably share in some liability. But you can’t sue the government, not like that.
Homsi: Veterans- they want to see PFAS exposure be added to the VA Presumptive List. I know that that's not necessarily what your role in all of this is, but where do you stand on that?
Gottfredson: Yeah, we hear that all the time. We hear that, ‘hey, we've been to the VA. They're not doing anything for us. It's just not on our list.’ That's kind of the way it is until we get legislation passed that will allow it.
Five years ago, when we first started this, nobody had a clue what PFAS was. I think what's going to happen is the public pressure is going to get to the DOD, and they're going to be forced to make some changes with the VA.
Homsi: Your firm has helped file 10,000 PFAS exposure claims. I'm just curious what the results of those has been? How many of them have been successful, how many have received some sort of compensation?
Gottfredson: None yet. We haven't filed that many. So, we've signed that many. I think it's only like 500-600. Behind that, there's, yeah, 10,000 cases ready to come forward. They're just being worked up, and then we're kind of seeing how these first few go, bellwether, what are the arguments going to be, you know, that type of thing? Nobody has got paid one penny on this yet.
Homsi: Do you think that chemical manufacturing can be done ethically?
Gottfredson: Man, that's a great question. I think, as a society, I think we need it. Right. I mean, in some variation, what we need these companies to do is just be a little more forthcoming. That's a big ask. I don't think we'll get that because there's so much money involved in it and so much power. I think the real question is how do we live with it, and how do we keep it safer for others? And the answer is if these manufacturers would be more transparent about things. It’s something I’d have to think about.
