Paraquat Intake: How to Qualify Parkinson’s Disease Herbicide Cases on the First Call

Paraquat litigation is one of the most significant mass tort developments of the past five years. Plaintiffs’ firms that understand how to qualify these cases at intake — and how to distinguish a strong case from a weak one — are signing more clients and working cleaner files. Firms that are improvising on the intake call are signing the wrong cases and missing the right ones.

Here is what you need to know about paraquat intake before the next call comes in.

What Is the Paraquat Litigation?

Paraquat dichloride is a herbicide that has been used in commercial agriculture across the United States for decades. It kills weeds on contact and remains in use despite being banned in the European Union and dozens of other countries.

The litigation is based on peer-reviewed research linking paraquat exposure to Parkinson’s disease. Studies from the National Institutes of Health and the Parkinson’s Institute have found that paraquat exposure increases the risk of developing Parkinson’s disease by approximately 150 percent. The causal mechanism — oxidative stress in dopaminergic neurons — is documented in the scientific literature.

As of 2026, Syngenta and Chevron Phillips Chemical face thousands of pending cases in multidistrict litigation in the Southern District of Illinois. Bellwether trials are moving, which means the litigation is active and firm sign-ups are meaningful. This is not a speculative docket. It is a mature mass tort with defined plaintiff criteria and a litigation pathway that is well established.

Who Qualifies as a Paraquat Plaintiff?

This is where intake gets specific. Not every person who was near a farm qualifies. You are looking for a narrow but identifiable plaintiff profile.

Exposure window. The strongest cases involve exposure to paraquat during the period when it was in active use on the plaintiff’s property or in their working environment. This typically means 1970s through the present, with the heaviest use period being 1980s through 2000s in agricultural states. Exposure needs to be meaningful — regular, proximate contact — not incidental.

Occupation or residential proximity. The primary plaintiff pool includes farm workers, agricultural laborers, landscapers, golf course maintenance workers, highway crews, and people who lived near heavily treated fields. Spouses and family members of agricultural workers with documented secondhand exposure have also been included in some filings.

Parkinson’s diagnosis. The plaintiff must have a confirmed Parkinson’s disease diagnosis from a neurologist or movement disorder specialist. This is a hard requirement. Parkinsonism, Parkinson-like symptoms without formal diagnosis, or other movement disorders do not qualify under the current litigation theory.

Age and timing. Parkinson’s typically manifests 5 to 20 years after exposure begins. Strong cases show documented exposure followed by a Parkinson’s diagnosis within that window. A plaintiff who was exposed heavily in the 1990s and received a Parkinson’s diagnosis in 2015 fits the pattern well.

The Five Questions That Determine Qualification at Intake

When a paraquat call comes in, your goal is to qualify the case as quickly as possible and gather enough detail that the attorney reviewing the file can make a retention decision in under five minutes.

1. Do You Have a Parkinson’s Disease Diagnosis?

This is the threshold question. Ask it directly:

“Have you been diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease by a neurologist or specialist?”

If the answer is no, the call can end quickly. Without a Parkinson’s diagnosis, there is no case in the current litigation. You can note the contact and ask them to call back if a diagnosis is received, but do not spend 20 minutes on a qualification call for a plaintiff who does not have the core injury confirmed.

If the answer is yes, confirm the diagnosing physician and year of diagnosis before continuing.

2. Were You Exposed to Paraquat — and How?

Most callers will not know the name “paraquat.” They may know they worked around herbicides or pesticides. Whoever picks up your phone needs to ask questions that surface paraquat exposure even when the caller does not know the product name.

Effective follow-up questions:

• “Did you work in agriculture, farming, landscaping, or any outdoor chemical application job?”
• “Did you or your family live near or on farmland that used commercial herbicides or pesticides?”
• “Do you remember the name of any products that were sprayed — or do you still have any old containers or product records?”
• “Did you work on a golf course, highway maintenance crew, or any job where you applied weed killers?”

If any of these point to potential paraquat exposure, note it and flag for attorney follow-up. Your intake coordinator does not need to be a toxicologist. They need to capture enough facts that the attorney can determine whether requesting exposure records is worthwhile.

3. When Did the Exposure Occur?

Get a date range. Even an approximate one.

“When did you work in that environment? What years are we talking about?”

You are looking for exposure that predates the Parkinson’s diagnosis by at least a few years. An exposure window that ended in 2005 and a Parkinson’s diagnosis in 2015 fits. Exposure that began in 2022 and a diagnosis that same year does not fit the scientific literature. Note both the start and end of the exposure period.

4. Do You Have Documentation?

This does not have to be resolved on the intake call, but ask what is available:

• Employment records or pay stubs showing agricultural or landscaping work
• Medical records confirming the Parkinson’s diagnosis
• Any pesticide application records or product invoices from the farm or employer
• Records of any previous disability claims or VA benefits related to the diagnosis

Callers often have more documentation than they realize. Ask them to start gathering what they have. It speeds up the case evaluation significantly after retention.

5. Have You Signed With Another Firm?

Paraquat has been heavily marketed. Many potential plaintiffs have already been contacted by mass tort advertising or have already retained representation elsewhere. Ask directly:

“Have you been in contact with any other law firm about this?”

If they have already retained representation, end the call respectfully. If they are evaluating firms, this is the moment to differentiate your intake process and explain your firm’s specific experience with paraquat litigation.

Red Flags That Signal a Weak Case

Not every paraquat call is worth taking. These factors significantly reduce case value or viability:

No confirmed Parkinson’s diagnosis. Some callers have tremors, balance issues, or other symptoms but have not seen a specialist. These may eventually become cases, but they are not cases today. Offer to have them call back after getting a neurological evaluation and provide them the name of what kind of specialist to seek out.

No identifiable exposure. A plaintiff who cannot describe any job, location, or activity involving pesticide or herbicide application will be difficult to connect to paraquat. “I think I was near farms sometimes” is not sufficient. The exposure needs to be documentable through employment history or residential records.

Very recent exposure onset. The litigation is focused on long-term exposure and the latency period before Parkinson’s develops. A plaintiff exposed in 2023 who developed symptoms in 2024 does not fit the established biological timeline.

Diagnosis of something other than Parkinson’s. Lewy body dementia, multiple system atrophy, and other parkinsonism conditions are distinct diagnoses. The current litigation is specifically for idiopathic Parkinson’s disease. Confirm the exact diagnosis language before proceeding.

Prior resolution of related claims. If the plaintiff previously settled a workers’ compensation or personal injury claim that involved exposure to agricultural chemicals, that settlement may affect their ability to bring a new claim. Flag this for attorney review immediately.

What the Attorney Needs in the Handoff Note

Your intake coordinator should not be making the retention decision. That is the attorney’s job. But the attorney can only make that decision quickly if the intake note is structured and complete.

A clean paraquat handoff note includes:

1. Plaintiff name, age, and contact information
2. Parkinson’s diagnosis: confirmed or not confirmed, diagnosing physician, year of diagnosis
3. Exposure description: job type, location, approximate years, duration and frequency
4. Documentation available or expected
5. Whether any other firm has been contacted
6. Red flags identified during the call
7. One-line recommendation: “Appears to meet threshold criteria — recommend attorney evaluation” or “Missing diagnosis confirmation — suggest follow-up after neurological visit”

This note takes five minutes to write and saves the attorney 20 minutes of digging through an incomplete intake form.

The Intake Conversation: Tone and Approach

Paraquat plaintiffs often carry a heavy burden. Many have been living with Parkinson’s for years. Some are calling on behalf of a parent or spouse who can no longer manage the call themselves. The disease is progressive and the callers are often frightened, exhausted, or managing a caregiver role alongside their regular life.

Whoever picks up your phone needs to lead with humanity before they lead with qualification questions. A strong opening:

“Thank you for calling. I’m sorry to hear what you and your family have been dealing with. I want to make sure we can help — can I ask you a few questions about your situation?”

This is not wasted time. It signals that the person on the other end of the line is listening, which increases the caller’s willingness to provide detailed, accurate information. A caller who feels rushed or processed will give you incomplete answers. A caller who feels heard will give you the facts you need.

Volume Management: Paraquat Intake at Scale

If your firm runs television, digital, or direct mail advertising targeting paraquat plaintiffs, you are likely receiving more calls than your team can thoughtfully manage one at a time. This is where intake infrastructure matters more than intake instinct.

At scale, paraquat intake requires:

A written qualification checklist that any member of your intake team can follow consistently. The five questions above, formatted as a checklist, take the guesswork out of the call and ensure you are capturing the same data points across every caller regardless of who picks up the phone.

A triage protocol that separates confirmed-diagnosis callers from symptom-only callers and handles them differently. Confirmed diagnoses move immediately to attorney review. Symptom-only callers get routed to a follow-up sequence after specialist evaluation.

A follow-up system for callers who are strong candidates but missing documentation. A plaintiff who confirms agricultural exposure and a Parkinson’s diagnosis but says their medical records are with a previous physician needs a structured follow-up sequence, not a mental note.

Real-time intake support can flag gaps during the call itself — if the coordinator forgets to ask the diagnosis year or skips the exposure timeline question, the system surfaces it before the call ends. This matters more in mass tort intake than in single-plaintiff practice because volume creates inconsistency. For more on how firms use AI to improve call quality at scale, see our breakdown of real-time AI coaching vs post-call analytics.

For a broader look at how to structure mass tort intake processes, see our guide on mass tort intake screening and qualification.

The Numbers Behind Paraquat Litigation

For firms evaluating whether to invest intake infrastructure in paraquat cases, a few benchmarks worth understanding:

The MDL in the Southern District of Illinois had over 5,000 active cases as of early 2026, with new cases continuing to be filed. Case values in comparable agricultural chemical litigation with similar neurological injury profiles have settled in ranges that make individual case economics attractive at volume. The litigation is funded, active, and moving — which signals that the major defendants are evaluating their settlement posture rather than litigating to trial indefinitely.

These are mass tort cases, which means your firm needs volume of qualified cases, not just any case. That makes intake quality — specifically the ability to quickly identify strong versus weak plaintiffs — the lever that determines whether your investment in paraquat case acquisition produces a return.

Building Your Paraquat Intake Protocol

If your firm handles or is considering paraquat cases, here is the minimum viable intake setup:

1. Train whoever picks up the phone on the five qualification questions. Write them on a card and post it at every intake station.
2. Create a separate intake form for paraquat that captures the specific fields: diagnosis confirmation, exposure timeline, occupation history, and documentation availability.
3. Establish a triage path for callers without a confirmed diagnosis: collect contact information, explain what kind of specialist evaluation they need, and set a follow-up date.
4. Review the first 10 completed intake forms with your attorney team to calibrate your threshold and identify any question gaps.
5. Audit one call per coordinator per week to ensure the questions are being asked in the right sequence and that tone is appropriate for the emotional weight these callers carry.

This setup requires no new technology and takes a half day of training. It significantly improves the quality of cases that reach attorney review and reduces the rate of signed cases that later get screened out of the MDL for qualification failures.

For a broader framework on how to evaluate and improve your intake team’s call performance, see our post on how to build a call scoring program that actually improves performance.

See How eNZeTi Works in a Real Law Firm

Law firms handling mass tort intake at volume use eNZeTi to surface missed qualification questions in real time, score calls against custom criteria specific to each tort, and identify where coordinators are losing qualified plaintiffs mid-call. See how your current paraquat intake process compares to top-performing firms — book a free call analysis at enzeti.com.