Paraquat Lawsuits: Understanding the Claims and Potential Compensation
Numerous agricultural workers and individuals who worked in proximity to oil storage facilities and railway lines have initiated legal actions, asserting that their occupational exposure to the industrial herbicide paraquat (marketed as Gramoxone) directly caused or significantly contributed to their development of Parkinson’s disease.
The multidistrict litigation (MDL) now encompasses nearly 6,000
Paraquat lawsuits, with additional cases being filed in state courts (refer to the
June 13, 2024 update mentioned earlier). A dedicated MDL for Parkinson’s disease claims related to Paraquat exposure has been established to manage these cases. In this section, we will explore the potential value of a Paraquat lawsuit by drawing comparisons to settlements in previous large-scale product liability cases involving similar allegations and in
prior tort lawsuits where the plaintiff developed Parkinson’s disease.
About the Paraquat Litigation
Paraquat, a potent industrial-strength herbicide, has been in use since the 1960s. Its primary application is to control unwanted vegetation in agricultural settings. It also functions as a defoliant, causing the shedding of leaves from trees and plants. Some farmers also utilize Paraquat as a desiccant to maintain crop dryness and stability. Chevron began marketing Paraquat in the United States in 1964.
This chemical exhibits high toxicity; even a small amount can be fatal. This level of danger has prompted the majority of European nations to implement outright bans. However, in the United States, Paraquat remains unbanned and is extensively used by large-scale commercial agricultural operations.
Evidence has emerged suggesting a link between prolonged Paraquat exposure and the onset of early Parkinson’s disease. Studies have indicated that agricultural workers with long-term exposure to Paraquat have a significantly elevated risk of developing Parkinson’s disease. Furthermore, individuals residing near farms where Paraquat is applied have also shown increased rates of this neurological disorder.
Paraquat is manufactured by Syngenta, a Swiss agrochemical corporation. Evidence suggests that Syngenta was aware of the causal relationship between paraquat and Parkinson’s for an extended period but deliberately concealed this information. Consequently, farmworkers exposed to Paraquat who have subsequently been diagnosed with Parkinson’s are filing product liability lawsuits against Syngenta and its U.S. distributors.
Thousands of Paraquat-related Parkinson’s lawsuits have been initiated, leading to the creation of a Paraquat MDL (Paraquat Prod. Liab. Lit., MDL 3004) in the Southern District of Illinois for the purpose of consolidating the handling of these claims. There have also been
new calls for a ban on Paraquat in the UK due to the identified risk of Parkinson’s disease.
Anticipating a “Global Settlement” in the Paraquat Litigation
At this initial stage of the Paraquat Parkinson’s disease litigation, it is not yet possible to definitively determine the potential value of Paraquat lawsuit settlements. Given the establishment of an MDL for these claims, our Paraquat legal team anticipates that this litigation will likely follow a similar trajectory to other mass tort class action lawsuits we have observed.
The Parkinson’s Disease Paraquat exposure MDL oversees a unified process for fact discovery. This will primarily focus on the scientific evidence presented by both the plaintiffs and the defendants. During this phase, newly filed paraquat cases will be incorporated into the MDL.
Following the conclusion of the consolidated civil discovery phase, the MDL judge will collaborate with legal representatives from both sides to select a limited number of representative cases for jury trials.
These trials are known as “bellwether trials,” and their outcomes typically serve as a basis for facilitating global settlement negotiations with the defendant companies.
Should the bellwether trials result in significant victories for the plaintiffs, Syngenta may be compelled to agree to substantial settlement amounts for the remaining Paraquat claims. In consolidated mass torts, this type of comprehensive resolution is referred to as a “global settlement.”
Key Factors Influencing a Paraquat Lawsuit Settlement
The central point of contention in the Paraquat Parkinson’s disease lawsuits revolves around the appropriate amount of settlement compensation. Syngenta, Chevron, and other co-defendants are actively working to minimize the eventual settlement payouts.
The individual settlement amounts in Paraquat cases will be influenced by several factors, including:
- the total number of Paraquat claims filed and consolidated within the MDL,
- the strength of the scientific evidence establishing a causal link between Paraquat exposure and Parkinson’s disease in the plaintiffs’ cases, and
- the results of the initial bellwether trials.
Estimated Paraquat Lawsuit Settlement Payout Amount
Despite the various factors that will ultimately determine the payout value in Paraquat cases, our legal team can offer an estimate—or at least attempt to do so—of reasonable individual settlement amounts for Parkinson’s disease claims. Our attorneys base these estimations on settlement payouts in prior mass torts and an assessment of the likelihood of a jury finding the Paraquat defendants liable. We also consider the general settlement compensation awarded for Parkinson’s disease in tort cases.
Based on these points of comparison, our Paraquat lawyers anticipate that the likely settlement payouts for Paraquat claims will fall within the following ranges:
| Settlement Tier |
Estimated Settlement |
| Tier I |
$400,000 – $1,000,000+ |
| Tier II |
$150,000 – $300,000 |
| Tier III |
$20,000 – $150,000 |
It is important to remember that these figures represent expected Paraquat settlement amounts, not potential trial values. The average successful verdict in an individual Paraquat lawsuit would likely exceed $10 million, with the possibility of significantly higher amounts in punitive damages. Does this seem excessively high?
Consider that the average successful verdict in the Roundup lawsuits was well over $500 million. In the 3M earplug litigation, where the primary claim involves hearing-related injuries, the average individual jury payout is well over $10 million. Parkinson’s disease is a far more debilitating and life-altering condition. Therefore, an estimated average jury compensation payout of $10 million might even be conservative.
What is our expectation for the average Paraquat settlement? We believe the average settlement will likely fall within the range of $600,000 to $900,000. Our attorneys’ assessment of where the final average will land within this range largely depends on the minimum criteria for a viable claim. The defendants may aim for a settlement that encompasses all plaintiffs, or they may prefer to settle only the strongest cases. Our current best estimate is that they will opt for the latter, which would tend to lower the overall average payout.
Looking ahead to 2025, we anticipate that victims will secure more substantial Paraquat settlements than our current predictions suggest. We expect that many cases will surpass the million-dollar settlement threshold.
Settlement Amounts in Mass Torts Similar to Paraquat
Our primary basis for comparison in estimating the settlement values above is the settlement payouts observed in prior consolidated mass torts that share similarities with the Paraquat litigation. The most recent relevant example is the
Roundup settlement.
In the Roundup litigation, Bayer is allocating approximately $10 billion to settle around 100,000 cases and has earmarked an additional $6 billion for potential future Roundup claims. Individual Roundup plaintiffs are receiving payouts ranging from approximately $100,000 to $150,000. However, lawsuits categorized in the highest tier are yielding significantly larger settlement amounts than the average.
The Roundup litigation shares similarities with the Paraquat cases in that both involve herbicide products. However, the alleged injuries differ, with Roundup claims primarily involving cancer, while Paraquat plaintiffs allege Parkinson’s disease.
Generally, cancer is considered a higher-value injury in tort litigation. Despite this distinction, the Roundup settlement likely provides the most relevant comparison for the Paraquat litigation, although our legal team predicts potentially higher settlement amounts for Paraquat claims due to our assessment that the merits of the Paraquat cases are even stronger within the class action context. Furthermore, the smaller number of plaintiffs and the presence of multiple defendants may facilitate larger individual settlements.
Settlement Amounts in Lawsuits Involving Parkinson’s Disease
Our secondary point of comparison for valuing the paraquat cases is the settlement value of other tort cases where Parkinson’s disease was the primary injury to the plaintiff.
Parkinson’s disease is often challenging to value in personal injury claims due to its relative infrequency as the primary injury.
Camp Lejeune Parkinson’s disease lawsuits are also now being filed, but there have been only two reported settlement amounts thus far in that litigation (with an average settlement of $325,000).
Therefore, the question arises whether there is a comparable injury to Parkinson’s disease, despite its uncommon occurrence in tort cases, that we can use as a settlement benchmark. Tardive dyskinesia presents sufficient similarities that settlement amounts in those lawsuits might offer insight into potential Parkinson’s disease settlement values. Our attorneys have some experience in handling tardive dyskinesia cases. Therefore, let’s examine settlement amounts and jury payouts for
tardive dyskinesia as a potentially analogous injury to Parkinson’s disease.
- Watters v Qin (Arizona 2024) $335,669 Verdict: The defendant allegedly stalked the plaintiff (a justice of the peace), slashed her tires, drove by her house shouting threats multiple times daily, trespassed on her property, and engaged in other harassment. The plaintiff claimed the stress of this harassment exacerbated her pre-existing Parkinson’s disease. This case provides some indication of how a jury might value the aggravation of Parkinson’s symptoms.
- Axe v Spring Meadows (Pennsylvania 2018) $215,000 Settlement: The plaintiff, a 73-year-old, alleged that he developed tardive dyskinesia due to medications administered by a nursing home. The relatively low settlement payout is unclear.
- Plaintiff v Defendant (New York 2017) $1,400,000 Settlement: The plaintiff, in her mid-30s, developed tardive dyskinesia as a result of antipsychotic medication used to treat her bipolar disorder and sued the prescribing physician.
- Soref v Agresti (Florida 2017) $569,000 Verdict: A female in her mid-20s with a history of drug abuse claimed that bipolar medications caused her to develop tardive dyskinesia.
- Tamaraz v Lincoln Electric (Ohio 2007) $20,500,000 Verdict: This is a notable jury payout involving a Parkinson’s disease case. The plaintiff filed a welding rod product liability lawsuit, alleging that exposure to manganese in welding rods caused his Parkinson’s disease. A jury awarded him $17.5 million and an additional $3 million to his wife. This verdict highlights the significant potential compensation a jury might award in a Parkinson’s disease case.
These cases (particularly the welding rod case) offer suggestive insights into the type of verdict we might see in Paraquat bellwether trials. These compensation awards support the settlement payout valuation estimates provided earlier.
Paraquat Lawsuits Can Be Filed Decades After the Plaintiff’s Exposure
If you have recently received a diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease that may be linked to Paraquat exposure, you can still pursue a paraquat lawsuit today, even if your exposure occurred many years ago. All states have statutes of limitations that set deadlines for filing civil tort actions, such as product liability claims. The specific statute of limitations period for a tort claim varies by state, ranging from 1 to 7 years.
However, the applicable statute of limitations period typically does not begin until the plaintiff either knew or had reason to know that they had a claim. In the context of a paraquat lawsuit, this means that the SOL period would not start until the plaintiff knew or “should have known” that they had Parkinson’s disease and that it might have been caused by exposure to paraquat.
The connection between paraquat exposure and Parkinson’s disease is not something that a reasonably prudent person would typically be expected to know. This is especially true given that the companies that manufactured and sold paraquat allegedly deliberately failed to warn about the link between paraquat and Parkinson’s. The majority of plaintiffs in the Paraquat and Parkinson’s disease litigation are bringing claims based on exposure that occurred a significant amount of time ago.
Link Between Paraquat and Parkinson’s Disease
Parkinson’s disease is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder affecting the brain, primarily impacting the motor system, which controls movement within the central nervous system.
The hallmark symptoms of Parkinson’s disease are its “primary” motor symptoms: resting tremor; bradykinesia (slowness in voluntary movement and reflexes); rigidity; and postural instability. Currently, there is no cure for Parkinson’s disease. Existing treatments do not halt or slow its progression; they only offer temporary and partial relief of the motor symptoms. These treatments also carry undesirable side effects with prolonged use.
Paraquat is a toxic chemical and a highly effective plant killer. Unfortunately, the same properties that make paraquat toxic to plant cells also render it highly damaging to human nerve cells, posing a substantial risk to anyone who uses it.
Oxidative stress is a major contributing factor—if not the primary cause—in the degeneration and death of dopaminergic neurons, which is the fundamental pathophysiological basis of Parkinson’s disease. Paraquat is designed to harm and kill plants by inducing oxidative stress, which causes or contributes to the degeneration and death of plant cells. Similarly, Paraquat harms and kills animals by creating oxidative stress, leading to the degeneration and death of animal cells.
The causal link between Paraquat and Parkinson’s disease is well-established. Numerous animal studies involving various routes of exposure have found that paraquat induces oxidative stress, resulting in pathophysiology consistent with that observed in human Parkinson’s disease.
Many epidemiological studies have also identified an association between Paraquat exposure and Parkinson’s disease, including multiple studies reporting a two- to five-fold or greater increase in the risk of Parkinson’s disease in populations with occupational exposure to paraquat compared to those without such exposure.
You do not necessarily need to have worked on a farm to have a viable Paraquat lawsuit. Researchers in
an article in the American Journal of Epidemiology found that exposure to Paraquat or Maneb within 1600 feet of your residence causes a 75% increase in the risk of developing Parkinson’s disease.
Here are key articles on Paraquat exposure and Parkinson’s disease with summaries of their findings:
- Berry, C., La Vecchia, C., & Nicotera, P. (2010). Paraquat and Parkinson’s disease. Cell Death & Differentiation, 17(7), 1115-1125. This study examined the role of pesticides in causing Parkinson’s disease, reporting that acute chemical exposure was “sufficient” to cause the condition.
- Costello, S., et al. (2009). Parkinson’s disease and residential exposure to maneb and paraquat from agricultural applications in the central valley of California. American journal of epidemiology, 169(8), 919-926. This study investigated the association between living near pesticide-using farms and Parkinson’s disease, finding that residing within 500 feet of farms using paraquat and maneb increased the risk by 75 percent, with those under 60 at a significantly higher risk.
- Di Monte, D.A. (2003). The environment and Parkinson’s disease: is the nigrostriatal system preferentially targeted by neurotoxins? The Lancet Neurology, 2(9), 531-538. This report suggested that a multidisciplinary approach to understanding Parkinson’s etiology would help determine the role of environmental exposure.
- Firestone, J. A., et al. (2005). Pesticides and Risk of Parkinson’s Disease: a population-based case-control study. Archives of Neurology, 62(1), 91-95. This study found that pesticide workers were more likely to develop Parkinson’s compared to other agricultural workers.
- Mandel, J. S., Adami, H. O., & Cole, P. (2012). Paraquat and Parkinson’s disease: an overview of the epidemiology and a review of two recent studies. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 62(2), 385-392. This report critiqued the design of two studies and found inconsistent results regarding the association between pesticides and Parkinson’s, calling for more rigorous research.
- McCormack, A. L., et al. (2002). Environmental risk factors and Parkinson’s disease: selective degeneration of nigral dopaminergic neurons caused by the herbicide paraquat. Neurobiology of Disease, 10(2), 119-127. This study on mice demonstrated that paraquat exposure caused dopaminergic neuron death, a key feature of Parkinson’s disease.
- Stephenson, J. (2000). Exposure to home pesticides linked to Parkinson’s disease. JAMA, 283(23), 3055-3056. This article reported on the link between home and garden pesticide exposure and Parkinson’s disease.
Getting a Paraquat Lawyer
If you have a potential Paraquat Parkinson’s disease lawsuit, let’s talk about your claim and your options. Contact our toxic exposure lawyers for a free online consultation with us.
