DuPont C8 Lawsuit – Kidney & Testicular Cancer

DuPont C8 Lawsuit Banner

The lawsuit against DuPont involving the chemical C8 states the company released millions of pounds of the chemical into the Ohio River and into the air from its plant in Parkersburg, West Virginia, causing thousands of persons to suffer injuries, including kidney and testicular cancer.

More than 30 years ago DuPont became aware that C8 was in drinking water in Ohio and West Virginia at dangerous levels, yet said nothing to the government or public. In fact, DuPont increased its production, and continued to discharge C8 in a manner to enter the Ohio River and air.

We are no longer accepting these cases.

C8 linked to kidney and testicular cancer and other various ailments. DuPont has known for at least 45 years that C8 has been injuring people, yet did nothing until sued.

Read More

The six water districts in West Virginia and Ohio that became contaminated by C8 include: Little Hocking Water Association, City of Belpre, Tuppers Plains – Chester Water District, and Village of Pomeroy in Ohio; Lubeck Public Service District and Mason County Public Service District in West Virginia; in addition to numerous private water wells located within the geographic boundaries of the six water districts.</.p>

Why is C8 Utilized

DuPont C8 Banner

C8 (also known as Perfluorooctanoic (PFOA)) is a man-made chemical used in the manufacturing of Teflon, fast food wrappers, waterpoof clothing, pizza boxes, microwave popcorn bags, carpet, dental floss, cosmetics, and hundreds of other products. DuPont began using the chemical in 1951 as a means to smooth out the lumps in Teflon, even though its chief toxicologist at the time warned that C8 was toxic.

By 2003, DuPont had dumped almost 2.5 million pounds of C8 from its Washington Works plant into the mid-Ohio River Valley area

Injuries and Diseases Linked to C8

As part of a class action settlement against DuPont, an independent group of public health scientists were chosen to assess whether or not there is a probable link between C8 exposure and various diseases. The science panel consisted of Dr. Tony Fletcher of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine; Dr. David Savitz of Brown University in Providence; and Dr. Kyle Steenland of Emory University in Atlanta.

After conducting eight years of exposure and health studies, the science panel reached the following conclusions:

Injuries Linked to C8 Exposure
High cholesterol (hypercholesterolemia)
Kidney cancer
Pregnancy-induced hypertension (including preeclampsia)
Testicular cancer
Thyroid disease
Ulcerative colitis

Read More

Injuries Not Yet Linked to C8 Exposure

Angina Asthma
Birth defects Chronic kidney disease
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease Coronary artery disease
Coronary bypass surgery Crohn’s disease
Diabetes Hypertension
Infectious disease Liver diseases
Lupus Miscarriage and stillbirths
Multiple sclerosis Myocardial infarction
Neurological disorders in children Osteoarthritis
Parkinson’s disease Preterm birth and low birthweight
Rheumatoid arthritis Stroke
Type1 diabetes

C8 has been so widely used in America for so long that it can be found in the blood of more than 99% of all Americans, newborn human babies, breast milk, and umbilical cord blood according to the Centers for Disease Control. C8 is expected to remain in the environment for thousands of years.

C8 builds up in a person’s blood over time as long as they continue to drink water or breath air that has C8

A medical monitoring program has been established for individuals potentially injured by C8. The program allows you to get a free C8 blood test and free doctor’s visit to determine whether you have suffered any diseases that could be caused by C8 exposure. To determine whether you are qualified for medical testing, click C8 Medical Monitoring Program

Watch DuPont’s Level of C8 Poisoning in Parkersburg


DuPont C8 Lawsuit Videos


Why Choose Us

Our law firm has been in existence for more than 60 years, and is considered a national leader in this type of litigation. We have received well over 150 jury verdicts throughout the country in the amount of $1 million or more, and achieved verdicts and settlements in excess of $3 billion. On October 7, 2015, we became the first law firm in the country to get a jury verdict against DuPont for knowingly contaminating drinking water with C8, and causing kidney cancer to a woman exposed to the chemical. For more information, please visit our About Us section.

in business 60 years – $3 billion in verdicts and settlements – listed in Best Lawyers in America, SuperLawyers and Trial Lawyers Hall of Fame

What Does It Cost

Our lawyers provide absolutely free confidential consultations, and if we are fortunate enough for you to hire us, we never will charge you any fees or costs unless you first recover. To review a summary of our fees and costs, click Fees & Costs.

Contact Information

To contact us for a free confidential consult, you can call us at (800) 277-1193 (toll free). You also can request a confidential consultation by clicking Free & Confidential Consult, which form will be immediately reviewed by one of our attorneys handling the C8 litigation.

Read More

Have There Been Any Significant C8 Settlements

As of this time, there have been no large group settlements providing monetary damages involving the DuPont C8 injuries. However, the trials against DuPont have just begun, and because of the successful jury verdicts and various court rulings against DuPont, we do believe settlements should begin in the near future. This in no way means you can wait to hire an attorney and file a lawsuit. Just the opposite, if you wait, you could permanently lose all of your rights, even if a settlement occurs in the future. This is because every state has time limitations in which you can file a lawsuit for any injuries that you have sustained or could sustain resulting from C8.

DuPont’s Secret Documents Regarding C8

C8 FDA Research Banner

As part of the national litigation involving C8, the following facts and statements were discovered in DuPont internal documents. You can only imagine what has not been turned over and was destroyed.

DuPont Secret Documents & Knowledge

1961, Nov. 9 DuPont Chief of Toxicology says C8 is toxic, causes enlargement of livers in rats, and should be “handled with extreme care”.
1962 DuPont discovers C8 exposure linked to the enlargement of rats’ testes, adrenal glands, and kidneys.
1978, Sept. 28 DuPont determines that employees working around C8 had higher rates of abnormal liver function tests.
1979, Sept. 4 DuPont finds out that monkeys died when exposed to certain levels of C8.
1981, Apr. 6 DuPont requires all female employees out of the Teflon division after 2 of 7 pregnant workers gave birth to children with birth defects, and industry studies found a relationship between C8 and birth defects.
1982, Nov. 23 DuPont medical director writes: “I recommend that available practical steps be taken to reduce this [C-8] exposure. . . . C-8 is retained in the blood for a long time, creating concern in other areas such as blood donations, . . . There is obviously great potential for current or future exposure of members of the local community from emissions leaving the Plant perimeter.”

Read More

2005, Dec. 14DuPont paid the EPA $16.5 million for concealing evidence of the harm of C8 for more than 20 years

1983 DuPont medical director determines C8 is building up in the body rather than breaking down, and says it’s a “serious concern”. No warnings to employees and no additional safety measures.
1983 In a two year feeding study, C8 caused testicular tumors in rats. The mechanism of action was considered to be potentially relevant to humans.
1983, Oct. 28 DuPont scientists concerned with the amount of C8 being discharged into the Ohio River, and the concentrations of C8 being discharged into the atmosphere outside the plant boundaries.
1984, May 23 DuPont meeting called to discuss the continuing production of C8. ”There was a consensus reached that the issue which will decide future action [in regard to C8] is one of corporate image, and corporate liability. Liability was further defined as the incremental liability from this point on if we do nothing as we are already liable for the past 32 years of operation. . . . Currently, none of the options developed are, from a fine powder business standpoint, economically attractive and would essentially put the long term viability of this business segment on the line.”
1984, Aug. 6 DuPont discovers C8 in the drinking water at dangerous level, yet doesn’t tell the government or public, instead increases production and discharge
1986, June 25 DuPont internal memo: “I strongly recommend that we eliminate the supernate ponds on the river bank. I am concerned about possible contamination of the Washington Bottom aquifer, which is used not only by DuPont but also by neighboring industrial sites and the Lubeck Public Service District.”
1986 DuPont internal memo: “Wilmington management is concerned about the possible liability resulting from long term C8 exposure to our employees and to the population in the surrounding communities and those down river from the Plant. Since we don’t know the ultimate effect of C8 on the human body and that the potential liability resulting from C8 exposure is large, it seems prudent to minimize the release of C8 to the environment.”
1988, March 24 DuPont becomes aware of study showing a relationship between C8 and testicular cancer. DuPont internally classifies C8 as ‘c’ which indicates “possible human carcinogen”
1989 DuPont’s internal cancer incidence report showed a statistically significant excess of kidney and other urinary cancers.
1989, Mar. 15 “Due to concern around the persistence of C-8 in blood, Dr. Karrh restated his position that we should continue to place high priority to reduce the general public’s exposure to C-8”
1991 DuPont researchers recommend a study of workers’ liver enzymes. DuPont cites to potential liability with doing it, and decides: “Do the study after we are sued.” DuPont did not perform the study until 2012.
1992, Feb. 20 “Legal thinks toxicity issues associated with C-8 could turn it into the #1 DuPont tort issue.”
1993 “C-8 surfactant is fed as a solution into the polykettle. Since it is shown to be toxic and a carcinogen, part of the global DuPont C-8 strategy is to minimize the exposure risk for our employees.”
1993, Sept. “Ten years of employment in the [C8] Chemical Division was associated with an estimated 3.3-fold increase in prostate cancer mortality.”
1993, Sept. 23 Additional animal studies show C8 causes tumors to form in the testes, liver, and pancreas.
1995, Feb. 21 DuPont internal document: “We are concerned about the potential long term human health effects of these materials considering they all appear to have long biological half lives.”
1998, Oct. 5 DuPont in-house counsel writes: “[C8] seems to get everywhere, to include drinking water, and then want to stay in human blood.”
1999, Aug. 22 DuPont in-house counsel writes: “We really should not let situation arise like this, we should have used a commercial landfill and let them deal with these issues, instead, the plant tries to save some money and apparently did not consider how it might look that this guy’s cows are drinking the rainwater that has percolated through our waste.”
1999, Nov. 15 3M, the manufacturer of C8, performs a study on monkeys and determines that even modest exposure to C8 can have devastating health effects. 3M notifies the EPA and DuPont of its conclusion, and decides to stops producing the chemical.
2000, June 22 DuPont Senior Counsel writes: “Another Achilles heel for us is the issue of water contamination from C-8.”
2000, Nov. 9 “We are going to spend millions to defend these lawsuits and have the additional threat of punitive damages hanging over our head. . . . Our story is not a good one, we continued to increase our emissions into the river in spite of internal commitments to reduce or eliminate the release of this chemical into the community and the environment.”
2000 DuPont in-house counsel writes: “The [expletive] is about to hit the fan in WV. The lawyer for the farmer finally realizes the surfactant [C8] issue . . . [expletive] him”
2001, March 14 DuPont in-house counsel writes: “The attorney in our WV case sent an 18 page letter to all the agencies laying out his version of our sins. . . I can tell my clients [DuPont] ‘I told you so”, but that is small pleasure, pretty sad they are so clueless – guess they think folks like to drink our stuff.”
2001, Apr. 8 DuPont in-house counsel writes: “[C8] is the material 3M sells us that we poop to the river and into drinking water, along the Ohio River”
2001 A DuPont scientist warns that C8 is so hard to deal with that “it might require the public to wear ‘gas masks'”
2001 DuPont in-house counsel writes: “So far DuPont has been saying there are safe levels, we need to have an independent agency agree, we are hoping that it will agree to higher levels than we have been saying. If for no other reason than we are exceeding the levels we say we set as our own guideline, most because no one bothered to do air monitoring until now, and our water test has been completely inadequate.”
2001 DuPont in-house counsel writes: “Too bad the business wants to hunker down as though everything will not come out … god knows how they could be so clueless.”
2001 DuPont in-house counsel writes: “A debacle at best, the business did not want to deal with this issue in the 1990s, and now it is in their face, and some are still clueless. Very poor leadership, the worse I have seen in the face of a serious issue since I have been with DuPont.”
2001, Nov. 13 DuPont in-house counsel writes: “The business finally has decided that there is nowhere to hide so is becoming more aggressively responsible and open, that is a good thing that I have consistently been urging. If they were more savyy they could have figured that out for themselves long ago, better late than never.”
2002 DuPont in-house counsel writes: “EPA better buckle their seat belts. We are exceeding the [C8] levels we set as our guideline.” In fact, C8 levels in the Little Hocking’s water were 37 times DuPont’s safety threshold.
2002, Jan.12 DuPont in-house counsel writes: “We learned late last week that the water supply in Little Hocking, Ohio, across the river from our Parkersburg plant, has levels of our surfactant [C8] 7 times higher than our guideline, so that is bad news.”
2002, Mar. 09 DuPont in-house counsel writes: “Mostly more bad news with the Parkersburg surfactant [C8] in drinking water, the crap is everywhere.”

Scientific Studies Regarding C8

C8 FDA Research Banner

Probable Link Evaluation of Cancer: there is a probable link between exposure to C8 and testicular cancer and kidney cancer. To read more, click C8 Science Panel

Probable Link Evaluation of High Cholesterol: there is a probable link between exposure to C8 and diagnosed high cholesterol (hypercholesterolemia). To read more, click C8 Science Panel

Probable Link Evaluation of Pregnancy Induced Hypertension and Preeclampsia: there is a probable link between exposure to C8 and pregnancy-induced hypertension. To read more, click C8 Science Panel

Probable Link Evaluation of Thyroid disease: there is a probable link between exposure to C8 and thyroid disease. To read more, click C8 Science Panel

Probable Link Evaluation of Ulcerative Colitis: there is a probable link between exposure to C8 and ulcerative colitis. To read more, click C8 Science Panel

Read More

Link Evaluation of Autoimmune Disease: not a probable link between C8 and rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, type1 diabetes, Crohn’s disease, or multiple sclerosis. To read more, click C8 Science Panel

Link Evaluation of Birth Defects: not a probable link between exposure to C8 and birth defects. To read more, click C8 Science Panel

Link Evaluation of Diabetes: not a probable link between exposure to C8 and Type II (adult-onset) diabetes. To read more, click C8 Science Panel

Link Evaluation of Heart Disease: not a probable link between exposure to C8 and diagnosed high blood pressure (hypertension) or coronary artery disease, including its manifestations as myocardial infarction, angina, and coronary bypass surgery. To read more, click C8 Science Panel

Link Evaluation of Infectious Disease: not a probable link between exposure to C8 and common infections, including influenza, in children or adults. To read more, click C8 Science Panel

Link Evaluation for Chronic Kidney Disease: not a probable link between exposure to C8 and chronic kidney disease. To read more, click C8 Science Panel

Link Evaluation for Liver Diseases: not a probable link between exposure to C8 and Liver disease. To read more, click C8 Science Panel

Link Evaluation of Miscarriage and Stillbirths: not a probable link between exposure to C8 and miscarriage or stillbirth. To read more, click C8 Science Panel

Link Evaluation of Neurodevelopmental Disorders in Children: not probable link between exposure to C8 and neurodevelopmental disorders in children, including attention deficit disorders and learning disabilities. To read more, click C8 Science Panel

Link Evaluation for Non-infectious Lung Disease (Asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease – COPD): not a probable link between exposure to C8 and asthma or chronic obstructive airways disease (COPD). To read more, click C8 Science Panel

Link Evaluation for Osteoarthritis: not a probable link between exposure to C8 and osteoarthritis. To read more, click C8 Science Panel

Link Evaluation for Parkinson’s Disease: not a probable link between exposure to C8 and Parkinson’s disease. To read more, click C8 Science Panel

Link Evaluation of Preterm Birth and Low Birthweight: not a probable link between exposure to C8 and preterm birth or low birthweight. To read more, click C8 Science Panel

Link Evaluation of Stroke: not a probable link between exposure to C8 and stroke. To read more, click C8 Science Panel

C8 Recall Information

As of this time, there has not been a recall of C8. However, an independent science panel consisting of three epidemiologists determined that C8 can cause high cholesterol, kidney cancer, pregnancy-induced hypertension, testicular cancer, thyroid disease, and ulcerative colitis.

No recall, but scientists have concluded that C8 is linked to kidney cancer, testicular cancer and other diseases.
C8 News Banner

DuPont C8 Lawsuit News

“For Decades to Come”: Dupont’s C8 Catastrophe Will Persist for Generations

On October 7, 2015, a Columbus, Ohio, federal jury returned a $1.6 million verdict against chemical giant DuPont for plaintiff Carla Bartlett. In that verdict, the jury determined that water pollution of a certain toxin from DuPont’s Washington Works Plant in Parkersburg, West Virginia, caused Bartlett to develop kidney cancer. That toxin is known as “C8”: a surfactant which, until 2014, was used by DuPont in its Teflon® manufacturing process. To read more, click The Ring of Fire Network

Teflon’s Toxic Legacy

Proving that DuPont was legally culpable for Bartlett’s kidney cancer required years of extraordinarily innovative lawyering – and at times some plain dumb luck. The very improbability of that verdict demonstrates much that is flawed about the way this country regulates potentially dangerous chemicals. With no mandatory safety testing for the vast majority of the tens of thousands of chemicals used daily in America, doctors and public health officials have little information to guide them as they seek to identify potential health hazards – including the chemical, called C8, that DuPont knowingly allowed to pollute Bartlett’s drinking water. To read more, click Earth Island Journal

People Are Still Exposed To the Teflon Chemical At Unsafe Levels, Group Says

It’s been more than a decade since investigations revealed that Teflon contained a consumer chemical called PFOA that was linked to birth defects, heart disease and other health issues, but the safety of the chemical is far from settled. PFOA is dangerous at concentrations far lower than previously recognized, according to a recent investigation. To read more, click Time Magazine

Read More

THE TEFLON TOXIN: The Case Against DuPontWhat he received made it clear that even as the company had been pleading ignorance over what might possibly have killed Tennant’s cows, some DuPont employees were very well aware that C8 had seeped into local water. In fact, company scientists had been charting its presence in the Ohio River and nearby drinking water for almost two decades, and had been documenting its health effects since 1954, just three years after DuPont first used the chemical in one of its signature brands: Teflon. To read more, click The Intercept

THE TEFLON TOXIN: How DuPont Slipped Past the EPA

During the five decades in which DuPont used and profited from C8, the company had only infrequently discussed the chemical with environmental authorities, and it kept most of its extensive internal research on the chemical confidential. After Bilott sent out his packages of evidence, however, DuPont’s relationships to government agencies shifted dramatically. Bilott’s revelations had the power to tarnish the company’s reputation and lead to huge legal and cleanup costs, so DuPont focused on weathering the scrutiny of regulators and keeping its name — and profits — unscathed. To read more, click The Intercept

Welcome to Beautiful Parkersburg, West Virginia: Home to one of the most brazen, deadly corporate gambits in U.S. history.

In August 2000, Bilott came across a single paper that mentioned the presence of a little-known substance called perfluorooctanoic acid in Dry Run Creek. Bilott requested more information on the chemical, which is often called C8 and is found in thousands of household products, including carpeting, Teflon pans, waterproof clothes, dental floss, kitty litter and cosmetics. Unbeknownst to Bilott, his inquiry triggered a panic inside DuPont’s Delaware headquarters. “The [expletive] is about to hit the fan in WV,” the company’s in-house counsel, Bernard J. Reilly, wrote in an email to his colleagues. “The lawyer for the farmer finally realizes the surfactant [C8] issue . . .[expletive] him” To read more, click The Huffington Post

THE TEFLON TOXIN: DuPont and the Chemistry of Deception

Several blockbuster discoveries, including nylon, Lycra, and Tyvek, helped transform the E. I. du Pont de Nemours company from a 19th-century gunpowder mill into “one of the most successful and sustained industrial enterprises in the world,” as its corporate website puts it. Indeed, in 2014, the company reaped more than $95 million in sales each day. Perhaps no product is as responsible for its dominance as Teflon, which was introduced in 1946, and for more than 60 years C8 was an essential ingredient of Teflon. To read more, click The Intercept