Helping Victims Get Justice
Chlorpyrifos Exposure Lawsuits — Farmworkers & Applicators Diagnosed With Parkinson's May Be Entitled to Compensation
Chlorpyrifos, a widely used organophosphate insecticide sold under brand names like Dursban and Lorsban, has been at the center of a long-running scientific and regulatory battle over neurotoxic harm. If you were directly exposed through occupational or residential use and later developed Parkinson’s Disease or Parkinsonism, you may qualify to file a claim.
Did You Work With Chlorpyrifos and Later Develop Parkinson’s?
Chlorpyrifos is an organophosphate insecticide that inhibits acetylcholinesterase, an enzyme essential to normal nervous system function. For decades, it was sprayed on citrus, apples, grapes, corn, soy, golf courses, and ornamental plants — and used in homes under brand names like Dursban.
After years of scientific debate over neurodevelopmental harm, the EPA issued a 2021 rule revoking all food-use tolerances for chlorpyrifos. That rule has since been challenged and partially rolled back, leaving the regulatory landscape unsettled — but the scientific evidence connecting chlorpyrifos to neurologic injury has continued to build, and lawsuits are now moving forward in state courts.
If you had direct, hands-on exposure to chlorpyrifos and were later diagnosed with Parkinson’s Disease or Parkinsonism, you may be able to pursue a claim against the manufacturers.
Also Handled Weed Killers Containing Atrazine?
If you worked with agricultural herbicides, you may have been exposed to more than one chemical linked to cancer. Atrazine — a widely used Syngenta herbicide — was classified by the IARC as a Group 2A probable human carcinogen in November 2025, and is now linked to non-Hodgkin lymphoma and Parkinson’s disease in a growing wave of lawsuits. You may qualify for a separate atrazine claim if you personally mixed, loaded, or sprayed an atrazine-containing product and were diagnosed with NHL or Parkinson’s within 2–15 years of exposure.
DO YOU QUALIFY?
You May Have a Case If:
You had direct exposure to chlorpyrifos — through occupational use (farmwork, application) or residential use
Occupational/agricultural use occurred after 1965 and before 2020
Residential use occurred only prior to the year 2000
You were diagnosed with Parkinson’s Disease or Parkinsonism
Your exposure was direct — indirect exposure cases do not currently qualify
Helpful evidence to support your claim:
- Medical records showing diagnosis and timing of symptoms
- Residence and work history near chlorpyrifos use
- Spray records, application logs, or employer records
- Environmental testing (soil, dust, or water), where available
No Fees, Unless Recovery
Free Claim Review
We help you seek Justice & Compensation Due.
By submitting my request, I confirm that I have read and agree to the Privacy Statement and Terms of Service of this site and that I consent to receive emails, phone calls and/or text message offers and communications from Zeccola & Selinger LLC and at any telephone number or email address provided by me, including my wireless number if provided. I understand there may be a charge by my wireless carrier for such communications.I understand these communications may be generated using an autodialer and may contain pre-recorded messages and that consent is not required to utilize Consumer Help Center. I understand that this authorization overrides any previous registrations on a federal or state Do Not Call registry
WHAT IS CHLORPYRIFOS?
Chlorpyrifos is an organophosphate insecticide best known under the brand names Dursban and Lorsban. It has been used on:
- Citrus, apples, grapes, and other fruit crops
- Corn, soy, and other row crops
- Golf courses and ornamental plants
- Residential pest control (prior to 2000)
Was your exposure to one of these products?
If you're unsure whether the product you used contained chlorpyrifos, contact us for help confirming — but products below may be relevant.
- Chlorpyrifos 1965–present No product literally named this
- Dursban 1965–2001 Residential
- Lorsban 1965–2020 Agricultural
- Cobalt2007–2023
- Duraplex TR1966–2022 · aka Whitmire PT 1920
- Durashield CS1995–2022 · aka Duration
- Bolton2012–2022
- Hatchet1993–2023
- Insecta1981–present
- Drexel Chlorpyrifos1999–present
- Lambdafos2015–present
- Lock-On1989–2023
- Pilot1996–present
- Pyrofos2009–2022
- Stallion2011–2022
- Tundra Supreme2010–2023
- Vesper2013–2022
- Voltage Endurx2012–present
- Vulcan2011–present
- Warhawk2004–present
- Yuma 4E2006–2011
- Govern2020–present
- Andersons Gold Products Insecticide III1974–present
- Chemsico Roach Control1988–present
- MosquitoMist1987–present
Scroll to see all qualifying products
If you don't recognize any of these products, or aren't sure what you used, that may disqualify your claim — but a free case review can help confirm either way.
HEALTH RISKS LINKED TO CHLORPYRIFOS
Primary alleged injury:
- Parkinson’s Disease / Parkinsonism — linked to chronic occupational or residential exposure
Background risk raised in scientific and regulatory review:
- Neurodevelopmental harm in children exposed prenatally or in early life (ADHD, autism spectrum features, IQ loss, motor deficits) — not currently an accepted case type, but under active scientific and regulatory scrutiny
THE LITIGATION: WHERE THINGS STAND
Chlorpyrifos has moved from regulatory controversy into active civil litigation:
- Regulatory history: After years of scientific debate, the EPA issued a final rule in 2021 revoking all food-use tolerances for chlorpyrifos. That rule has since been challenged and partially rolled back, keeping the legal and regulatory landscape fluid.
- Civil litigation: Lawsuits have been filed in state courts in California and New York, with more under investigation in other agricultural states. No large coordinated MDL exists yet — the pattern mirrors other toxic-exposure litigation in its early phase: scattered high-value individual cases, growing scientific consensus, and pressure toward broader coordination.
- Evidence driving these cases: Plaintiffs are relying on long-term epidemiologic cohort studies linking chlorpyrifos exposure to measurable cognitive and neurologic harm — the same evidence that drove the EPA’s own regulatory action.
Discovery in these early cases is focused on manufacturer documents concerning neurotoxicity and developmental risk, communications with the EPA and state regulators, marketing materials that may have downplayed risk to pregnant women and children, and application-rate and drift data near homes and schools.
Legal Theories Being Pursued
- Failure to warn about neurodevelopmental and neurologic risks
- Defective design of an unreasonably dangerous neurotoxic pesticide
- Negligent misrepresentation in marketing and safety communications
- Negligent application or drift (for growers and applicators)
Potential Compensation May Include
- Medical and therapy costs
- Special education and support services (in future case types involving children)
- Lost earning capacity
- Pain and suffering
- Punitive damages, in cases involving reckless disregard
WHY ACT NOW
Every state has a statute of limitations that limits how long you have to file a claim after diagnosis. With the regulatory landscape still unsettled and litigation in its early stages, getting ahead of the case — while records and evidence are still available — can make a meaningful difference. A free case review costs you nothing and helps you understand your options.