Missouri Firefighter Keeps Cancer Suit Against 3M in State Court

A federal judge in Missouri has sent a firefighter cancer suit against 3M back to state court after concluding that 3M could not have the case removed to federal court and sent to South Carolina where the AFFF mass tort litigation cases are being heard, because the firefighter expressly denied that foam exposure was part of his claim.

The case was filed by Jason Crady, a St. Louis-area firefighter, EMT, and paramedic who has worked in emergency services since 2005 and was diagnosed with thyroid cancer in March 2024. Crady and his wife sued 3M and other manufacturers in the 22nd Judicial Circuit Court of Missouri in St. Louis City, alleging that carcinogenic chemicals in firefighting products, gear, and equipment caused his cancer. According to the complaint, Crady claimed he was exposed through materials he inhaled, ingested, absorbed through the skin, or encountered during firefighting work. The suit did not allege exposure to aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF). The complaint was drafted to avoid any federal claims.

3M removed the case to federal court, arguing that any PFAS exposure Crady may have experienced could have come from AFFF that 3M manufactured for the U.S. military under military specifications. That defense has become familiar in firefighter cancer litigation involving PFAS because military-specification AFFF products were developed under federal direction, allowing manufacturers in some circumstances to invoke a government contractor defense.

The government contractor defense applies when a company is sued over a product it manufactured for the federal government according to government-required specifications. The defense comes from a U.S. Supreme Court decision, Boyle v. United Technologies Corp., 487 U.S. 500 (1988), holding that contractors should not be held liable under state law for design choices that the federal government itself required. 3M’s position is that military AFFF formulations are not ordinary commercial products, but products manufactured under federal direction.

To support removal, 3M argued that Crady’s own work history suggested possible contact with foam through training, apparatus inventories, and emergency responses. They also pointed to his involvement in prior multi-district AFFF litigation, although attorneys acknowledged that those claims were erroneously filed and voluntarily withdrawn.

The court focused on what Crady actually testified to during an expedited deposition. Crady said that during one training evolution he was part of a hose crew when foam was discharged, but he was several positions back on the line, did not mix the foam, did not load it, did not touch it, and did not enter the foam. He also described another training session where he learned how foam would be loaded into apparatus but said he never personally handled it. When shown photographs from incidents, he could not identify whether visible material was foam or simply melted debris. Most importantly, he testified repeatedly that he did not believe he had ever been exposed to foam.

Judge John A. Ross concluded that those facts did not support 3M’s claim that a federal defense was even plausibly in play. The court wrote that 3M could not “just assert MilSpec AFFF exposure into any factual scenario,” warning that such a theory would effectively allow removal of nearly any case involving 3M simply because the company manufactured military foam.

The judge also found that Crady’s lawyers had effectively disclaimed any claim based on AFFF exposure. Throughout the litigation they repeatedly stated that Crady was not claiming injury from firefighting foam, had no evidence of exposure to 3M-manufactured AFFF, and was not seeking damages arising from military-specification foam products. The court held those statements, together with Crady’s sworn testimony, bound the plaintiffs and removed the federal issue from the case.

Because the claimed injuries were no longer tied to any product supplied under military specifications, the court ruled that 3M’s federal contractor defense had no application and ordered the case remanded to the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis. 

Here is a copy of the decision.