Esther E. Berezofsky
PFAS, Lead-Contaminated Water, Toxic Exposure, and Environmental Mass Torts
“While nothing can undo the long term harm caused by the egregious conduct which caused the exposure of Flint’s children to lead contaminated water, this settlement is a first step in providing relief from the harm caused to the Flint community.
The Water Under Toms River
Toms River Chemical Company began making dyes and resins west of the New Jersey town in 1952. Later renamed Ciba-Geigy, the plant produced pigments and epoxy additives until 1990, and its sludge and process waste went into disposal areas, lagoons, and thousands of drums while groundwater flowed toward the Toms River and its wetlands. Dyes and nitrobenzene turned up in Holly Street well-field samples in 1965 and 1966. Later releases left a groundwater plume and extensive soil contamination, and in 1983 EPA listed the site for Superfund cleanup.
Then came the numbers no town wants counted. New Jersey identified eighty-seven childhood-cancer diagnoses in Dover Township — now Toms River Township — from 1979 through 1995. All childhood cancers combined, all cancers among girls, and acute lymphocytic leukemia among girls were statistically elevated against state rates. In the Toms River section itself, investigators counted twenty-four diagnoses where roughly fourteen should have been expected.
Esther E. Berezofsky served as lead counsel for the families pursuing claims that industrial pollution from the former Ciba-Geigy site and other sources caused childhood disease. The litigation wove together site history, groundwater movement, environmental sampling, exposure analysis, and medical evidence, and Ciba-Geigy and two other companies paid approximately $13.2 million to resolve claims for sixty-nine families.
The ground itself was eventually made to answer. Between December 2003 and November 2004, contractors pulled 47,055 drums from the Stacked Drum Area. More than seventeen billion gallons of groundwater have been treated. The plume contracted, residential irrigation wells were sealed, and continuing treatment addressed the waste still buried.
Before the Law, the Mind
Berezofsky came to environmental litigation already fluent in what disasters do to communities. Before entering law, she practiced as a clinical psychologist and consulted on community trauma after Three Mile Island and Times Beach. While at Rutgers Law, she published a 1987 article on post-traumatic stress after technological disasters — years before she would spend a career representing towns living through them.
The $626.25 Million Flint Settlement
When Flint's municipal-water crisis reached the courts, Berezofsky became class counsel and joined the plaintiffs' executive committee. The claims addressed corrosion control, lead released from service lines and plumbing, public-health effects, property loss, and programs for schoolchildren.
Michigan agreed in August 2020 to contribute $600 million. The district court granted final approval on November 10, 2021, and additional settling defendants brought the approved amount to $626.25 million. The allocation put the children first: 79.5 percent of the fund went to child-claim categories — 64.5 percent for children six and younger when first exposed, 10 percent for ages seven through eleven, and 5 percent for ages twelve through seventeen — with another 2 percent funding programs for Genesee County schoolchildren.
Approval was only the beginning of the work. Claims had to be reviewed, categorized, and valued; releases executed; minors' awards placed under court-supervised protection. Residential-property payments began in December 2025, initial partial payments for approved adult-injury claims began in June 2026, and by July 8, 2026, approximately 12,500 awards had been issued with more than $26.5 million authorized. Children who remain minors generally receive their funds through an approved trust or structured settlement rather than as unrestricted cash — protection built into the remedy itself.
The $54 Million North Kent Settlement
In Zimmerman v. 3M, Berezofsky's team traced PFAS from Scotchgard use at Wolverine Worldwide's Rockford tannery through disposal sites and into residential wells across Kent County — historic waste practices, environmental sampling, property impact, and household exposure joined into a single case. She served as co-lead class counsel and led the negotiations. On March 29, 2023, U.S. District Judge Hala Y. Jarbou approved a $54 million settlement.
The class covered qualifying North Kent Study Area owners who held property on November 1, 2017, and lacked municipal water, with subclasses for homes moved to municipal service, homes offered filtration, and other eligible properties. The relief addressed loss of use, diminished value, inconvenience, emotional distress, and contaminated-property conditions — and the largest recoveries went to owners whose wells tested above Michigan maximum contaminant levels, tying each payment to test results and property circumstances.
PFAS Work in Flanders
Berezofsky's PFAS practice crosses the Atlantic. She represents residents and public entities in the United States, has consulted for the Flemish minister responsible for justice and the environment, and handles matters in the Netherlands. The Belgian engagement concerns PFAS, including PFOS, associated with 3M's plant at Zwijndrecht near Antwerp.
In July 2022, the Flemish government and 3M Belgium entered a €571 million agreement addressing the contamination — treatment technology, soil testing, off-site remediation, support for affected farmers and communities, plant-emission measures, and the Oosterweel project — with the work and spending continuing through the quarter ending June 30, 2026.
After the Approval Order
Each remedy needs proof of its own. A trust must identify the person entitled to payment. A water system must identify the well, the PFAS level, and the treatment it needs. A cleanup order must say what will be removed, how the technology works, and how success will be measured. The lawsuit assigns responsibility; the follow-through determines whether relief actually reaches the household.
Berezofsky's docket honors that distinction without treating a community as a single undifferentiated claimant. A common source makes collective proof possible — but treatment, compensation, and trust administration still depend on the individual file for each child, family, well, and farm.