Roundup Intake: How to Qualify Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma Cases on the First Call

What This Article Is Actually About

Roundup litigation is not winding down. The Bayer settlement fund distributed over $10 billion, and new cases keep filing. If your firm handles personal injury or mass tort work, callers are going to ask about Roundup. The question is whether your intake process is built to qualify them quickly or whether you are losing viable cases to attrition.

This is not a primer on glyphosate science. You can read the IARC monograph if you want the full epidemiology. This is a field guide for the person picking up the phone: what to ask, in what order, and how to know within five minutes whether you have a case worth opening a file on.

The Core Elements You Need to Establish

Roundup litigation centers on non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) and its subtypes. Every intake call needs to establish five things before anything else:

1. Was the caller exposed to Roundup or another glyphosate-based herbicide?
2. Was the exposure substantial and repeated, not incidental?
3. Did the caller receive a diagnosis of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (or a qualifying subtype)?
4. When was the diagnosis, and is the statute of limitations still open?
5. Is there a nexus between the exposure and the diagnosis that can be supported medically?

Every other question branches from these five. If any of them fails, you do not have a case. If all five hold, you have the foundation of a file worth sending to the attorney.

Exposure: What Counts and What Does Not

This is where most intakes go wrong. People assume that because a caller used Roundup, they qualify. Not necessarily. The litigation has always been about sustained occupational or agricultural exposure, not the occasional weekend spraying of a backyard garden.

Questions that establish qualifying exposure

• “How long did you use Roundup or a similar weed killer?” (Looking for years, not months)
• “Did you use it as part of your job, or at home?”
• “How often were you using it? Once a week? Every day during certain seasons?”
• “Did you mix it yourself, or use it pre-mixed?”
• “Did you spray it directly, or operate equipment that applied it?”
• “Did you wear gloves or a mask when you used it?”

The people who tend to qualify are farmworkers, landscapers, groundskeepers, golf course maintenance workers, nursery workers, and agricultural employees who worked with the product for multiple seasons. A homeowner who used it four times a year for three years faces a much harder road. That does not mean automatic disqualification, but your attorney will want to know the exposure profile before deciding.

Exposure red flags (note but do not automatically disqualify)

• Less than one year of use
• Purely incidental contact (working near someone else who was spraying)
• Single-season use
• Use of a different glyphosate product that was not Roundup-branded

The last one is worth flagging specifically. Bayer acquired the Roundup brand from Monsanto, and litigation has primarily focused on Roundup-branded products. Other glyphosate herbicides exist, and their litigation status varies. Note the exact product name if you can get it.

The Diagnosis: Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma and Its Subtypes

Ask for the exact diagnosis. Do not let the caller summarize it as “a type of blood cancer” or “something with my lymph nodes.” You need the specific name because not all lymphomas qualify equally.

Qualifying diagnoses that have been at the center of Roundup litigation

• Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL)
• Follicular lymphoma
• Mantle cell lymphoma
• Marginal zone lymphoma
• Chronic lymphocytic leukemia / small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL)
• T-cell lymphomas (certain subtypes)
• Burkitt lymphoma

Diagnoses that require attorney review before proceeding

• Hodgkin lymphoma (different disease, different litigation profile)
• Multiple myeloma (separate mass tort, different causal theory)
• Leukemia that is not CLL/SLL

If the caller says they have Hodgkin lymphoma, do not hang up, but flag it for attorney review rather than treating it as a standard Roundup file. The IARC classification that drove this litigation specifically identified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen based on NHL data.

Getting the diagnosis on the record

“Do you have documentation of your diagnosis? A pathology report, a letter from your oncologist, or records from when you were treated?” If they have paper, great. If not, ask if they are willing to sign a medical records release so the firm can retrieve the records. That release is often the first step toward building the file.

Timing: Statute of Limitations Is the Silent Case-Killer

This varies by state. In most jurisdictions, the SOL for personal injury runs two to three years from the date of diagnosis or the date the caller knew or should have known their illness was linked to Roundup. Some states have discovery rules that can extend that window; others do not.

Ask two questions:

1. “When were you first diagnosed?”
2. “When did you first connect your diagnosis to your Roundup use?”

If the diagnosis was more than three years ago and the caller is in a strict-limitations state, flag it for the attorney before proceeding further. A case that dies on limitations wastes everyone’s time, and a thorough intake process catches it at the front door.

If the caller is in a jurisdiction with a discovery rule and they only recently learned about the Roundup-cancer connection, the window may still be open even if the diagnosis is several years old. Do not make that call yourself. Flag it for the attorney with the relevant dates and let them evaluate.

The Nexus Question: Bridging Exposure to Diagnosis

You cannot establish causation on an intake call, and you should not try to. But you can establish whether the facts are arranged in a way that supports further investigation.

The key question is sequencing:

• Did the exposure come before the diagnosis? (It must.)
• Is there a plausible latency period? (NHL typically develops years after exposure, not weeks.)
• Did the caller have any other significant risk factors that the attorney needs to know about?

Other risk factors to document

These do not disqualify a case, but they will come up in litigation and your attorney will want the full picture now rather than discovering it in discovery:

• Family history of lymphoma or blood cancers
• History of HIV or other immunosuppressive conditions
• Prior chemotherapy or radiation for an unrelated cancer
• Long-term use of immunosuppressant drugs
• Significant exposure to other known carcinogens (benzene, Agent Orange, etc.)

Document what the caller tells you. Do not interpret it. Let the attorney weigh the risk factors against the exposure profile.

A Sample Intake Flow

This is not a script to read verbatim. It is the logical sequence of questions, in order, that moves a Roundup intake call from opening to decision-point in approximately five to eight minutes.

Opening: “Tell me a little about why you are calling today. What happened?”

(Let them talk. You are listening for the keywords: Roundup, weed killer, lymphoma, cancer. If they mention those, you are in the right call.)

Exposure block:

• “About how long did you use Roundup or a similar product?”
• “Was this for work, at home, or both?”
• “How often were you using it?”
• “Do you remember roughly when you first started using it and when you stopped?”

Diagnosis block:

• “What was the exact name of the diagnosis your doctor gave you?”
• “When were you first diagnosed?”
• “Were you treated? Surgery, chemotherapy, radiation?”
• “Do you have any documentation from your oncologist or the hospital?”

Timing check:

• “When did you first start thinking there might be a connection between your illness and the Roundup you used?”

Risk factor sweep:

• “Has anyone else in your family had lymphoma or a similar blood cancer?”
• “Were you ever treated with chemotherapy or radiation for anything else before this diagnosis?”

Closing: “Thank you for sharing all of this. Based on what you have told me, I want to make sure one of our attorneys reviews your situation. I am going to pass this information along and someone will be back in touch with you within [timeframe]. Do you have any questions for me before we wrap up?”

The Cases That Tend to Be Strongest

After the intake basics are established, attorneys evaluating Roundup files tend to prioritize cases with these characteristics:

• Long, heavy exposure: Farmworkers or landscapers who used Roundup for five or more years, mixing and applying it regularly
• DLBCL diagnosis: Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma has been at the center of most expert testimony in this litigation
• Diagnosis within the statute of limitations window
• Medical documentation available
• No prior malignancy (though prior cancers treated by chemo can complicate the causation argument, not eliminate it)
• Identifiable employer or land owner who directed the use of Roundup (relevant for third-party liability theories)

Weaker cases are not necessarily no-go, but they require more attorney judgment. A caller with a marginal zone lymphoma who used Roundup for two years may still have a viable case depending on the jurisdiction and the exposure details. Surface-level screening is not enough to make that call, which is exactly why the intake handoff exists.

What to Send to the Attorney

Every Roundup intake should result in a written summary that includes:

1. Caller name, contact information, and preferred callback time
2. Exposure summary: product, duration, frequency, setting (occupational vs. residential)
3. Diagnosis: exact name, date, treating physician and facility if known
4. Documentation status: what records exist and whether the caller has them or can get them
5. Statute of limitations flags: diagnosis date, state of residence, any discovery rule considerations
6. Risk factor notes: family history, prior treatment, other carcinogen exposures
7. Intake screener’s assessment: does this warrant immediate attorney callback or routine review?

The point of the summary is not to make a case determination. It is to give the attorney everything they need to make that determination without having to call the client back for basic information.

Common Mistakes in Roundup Intake

Disqualifying cases that should not be disqualified

Whoever picks up the phone may be tempted to say “You only used it a few times, I do not think we can help you.” That is not an intake decision to make. Document the exposure, note that it was limited, and pass it to the attorney. Let them decide.

Skipping the diagnosis specificity

Allowing a caller to say “I had a form of cancer” without pinning down the diagnosis creates downstream problems. You will need to recontact them, or the attorney will be evaluating a file with a blank where the diagnosis should be. Push for specificity every time.

Missing the statute of limitations window

This is the silent case-killer. A caller with a strong exposure profile and a confirmed DLBCL diagnosis has no case if the statute ran six months ago. Build the timing questions into every single intake call, without exception.

Over-promising on the call

The intake function is to gather information and get the file to the attorney. It is not to tell a caller they have a great case, they will get a settlement, or that the firm will take their matter. Those representations create problems. Stick to: “I am going to pass this to one of our attorneys and they will be in touch to let you know next steps.”

Where eNZeTi Fits in This Process

The intake call is the first link in the chain. eNZeTi is built to make sure that call is handled the way it should be handled: structured, documented, and handed off cleanly. The five-minute window after a caller first makes contact is where most mass tort cases are won or lost at the intake level. Callers who get voicemail, who wait on hold, or who talk to someone who cannot answer their basic questions often do not call back.

Roundup callers, specifically, often have been thinking about calling for months. They read a settlement notice, saw an ad, talked to a friend. By the time they dial, they want to be heard and they want to know quickly whether there is something here. Your intake process either meets that moment or it does not.

What to Do Next

1. Audit your current intake form against the five-element checklist above: exposure, diagnosis specificity, timing, nexus, risk factors. If any element is missing, add it.
2. Train whoever picks up on NHL subtypes. They do not need to be oncologists, but they need to know the difference between non-Hodgkin and Hodgkin, and they need to know why it matters.
3. Build a statute of limitations cheat sheet by state for the jurisdictions where your firm takes cases. Post it at the intake station.
4. Create a standard Roundup intake summary template that every screener uses when writing up the call for attorney review. Consistent format, every time.
5. Set a callback standard. Roundup callers should hear from an attorney or senior intake coordinator within 24 hours, not three days. The mass tort market is competitive and callers are not waiting.