By Matthew T. Marin, Esq., member of the American Association for Justice and Mass Torts Made Perfect (MTMP) speaker
Contact Us for a Free Coventry, RI EtO Cancer Claim Evaluation
Boston Scientific Coventry, RI — Free Case Review
The Question Is Your Address, Not Your Town.
Two streets in one neighborhood can fall on opposite sides of the line. We check your actual address against EPA’s own model — and tell you either way.
The figures on this page come from EPA’s air-toxics modeling and the facility’s own reported releases, not from us. No claim is decided by a map — it turns on the address, the years, the diagnosis and the law of the state.
Did you live or work near an ethylene oxide plant?
Answered 24/7 · Free and confidential · No fee unless there is a recovery. Court costs and litigation expenses are advanced by counsel and repaid from the recovery. You are not responsible for court costs or litigation expenses if there is no recovery.
Partners
Matthew T. Marin & Stefanie A. Murphy
Super Lawyers® honorees · American Association for Justice members
Every ethylene oxide inquiry gets a personal review — and an honest answer either way, free and without obligation.
This page is attorney advertising and legal information, not legal advice, and it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Marin & Murphy Law Firm is licensed in Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Connecticut and South Carolina; a matter in another state would be handled with, or referred to, a lawyer licensed there. Prior results do not guarantee, warrant, or predict a similar outcome in any future case. Every claim is evaluated case by case, on its own facts.
If you’re a resident of Coventry, Rhode Island, or have family ties to the area, and you’ve been searching for information about the Coventry RI cancer lawsuit or EtO exposure in Coventry, you may be concerned about potential health and cancer risks from ethylene oxide (EtO) emissions at the Boston Scientific facility located at 8 Industrial Drive. As a local Rhode Island-based law firm headquartered in East Greenwich, Marin & Murphy Law Firm is here to provide educational information on EtO exposure and its possible links to cancers including Leukemia, non-Hodgkins Lymphoma, Multiple Myeloma, Liver Cancer, Lung Cancer, and Breast Cancer.
What EPA’s own records show about ethylene oxide at 8 Industrial Drive
EPA’s Toxics Release Inventory holds 14 reporting years of ethylene oxide filings from the Boston Scientific facility in Coventry, from 1994 through 2024, totalling about 19,200 pounds released to air. The largest reported years were 1998 at 4,500 pounds, 2000 at 4,400 and 1995 at 3,800; reported releases fall to under 10 pounds by 2024. In EPA’s 2019 AirToxScreen assessment, the census tract containing the facility carries a modelled lifetime cancer risk from ethylene oxide of about 46 in one million, and EPA attributes essentially all of that tract’s point-source cancer risk to a stationary industrial source.
That elevated tract is tightly drawn around the facility. Three miles away the modelled figure falls to about 0.5 per million — roughly a hundredfold difference — which is why exposure in this litigation is assessed street by street rather than by town or ZIP code.
| Location | Modelled EtO cancer risk (per million) |
|---|---|
| The tract containing the facility | 46.2 |
| About 3 miles | 0.5 |
| About 6 miles | 1.1 |
The two sets of figures come from different EPA programs — AirToxScreen is built from the National Emissions Inventory, the pounds above are what the facility itself reported to the Toxics Release Inventory — and are set out side by side rather than as one deriving from the other. EPA classifies ethylene oxide as carcinogenic to humans.
Sources: EPA Toxics Release Inventory, facility ID 02816CSMDF8INDU, reporting years 1994–2024, release quantities as reported by the facility. EPA AirToxScreen 2019, census-tract cancer risk by air toxic and by source type. Modelled risk figures are EPA estimates for a census tract, not measurements at any individual address, and do not establish the cause of any person’s illness.
The other facilities on the federal record
We pulled EPA’s release history and modelled tract cancer risk for every facility below, one at a time, from EPA’s own databases. The first column is the plant’s own census tract. The second is the highest tract whose centre lies within four miles — because at several of these sites the model does not peak at the plant. It peaks in a neighbourhood nearby, and the difference is not small. They are not close to each other, and that is the point: the same litigation covers plants whose records differ by three orders of magnitude.
| Facility | The plant’s own census tract | Highest tract within four miles | Where that tract is | Ethylene oxide’s share of it |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Becton Dickinson, Covington GA | 347.9 | 347.9 | the plant’s own tract | 90.9% |
| Sterigenics, Vernon CA | 21.1 | 172.8 | 0.3 mi away | 84.9% |
| Sterilization Services of Virginia, Henrico VA | 57.9 | 161.9 | 1.6 mi away | 84.0% |
| B. Braun, Allentown PA | 46.7 | 46.7 | the plant’s own tract | 62.7% |
| Boston Scientific, Coventry RI | 46.2 | 46.2 | the plant’s own tract | 71.8% |
| Steris-Isomedix, Spartanburg SC | 43.1 | 43.1 | the plant’s own tract | 57.2% |
| Covidien, North Haven CT | 4.8 | 12.5 | 1.0 mi away | 36.8% |
| Professional Contract Sterilization, Taunton MA | 1.8 | 2.1 | 2.2 mi away | 9.8% |
| Steris-Isomedix, Northborough MA | 0.4 | 1.2 | 2.1 mi away | 5.3% |
Both columns are EPA AirToxScreen 2019. The first is a point query at the facility address; the second is the highest value among tracts whose published centroid lies within four miles, each confirmed by a second query against EPA’s service by feature id. A modelled tract figure is not a measurement of what any person breathed, and it does not establish that any facility caused any illness.
Covidien’s North Haven plant is the one site here whose two records diverge most: 77,492 pounds reported released to air across 38 filing years since 1987, against a modelled tract figure in the single digits. The release record and the modelled risk are different measures and they do not have to agree.
If the plant nearest you is not on this list, it may still be one we are looking at — the list of facilities being accepted changes, and we track more than we have written pages for.
Was your address inside the area?
How recent does the diagnosis have to be?
More recent than most people expect, and this is the single most common reason a file that looks strong on the map goes nowhere. The cases currently being accepted in this litigation weigh how recently the diagnosis was made, not only what the diagnosis was. If yours is an older one, say so at the start rather than at the end — it changes which lane a claim belongs in, and you are better served knowing that on the first call.
Most people who lived near a sterilizing plant never knew it was there. There is nothing to see from the road, ethylene oxide has no smell at the concentrations that matter, and the emissions numbers sit in a federal database almost nobody reads. So the honest starting point is not do I have a case. It is: was my home inside the area, and is my diagnosis one of the ones being accepted?
Three things decide that.
- Where you lived. Distance is measured street to street from 8 Industrial Drive in Coventry, not by town or ZIP code. EPA models the plant’s own census tract at about 46 in a million for ethylene oxide and the area three miles away at about 0.5 — two streets can sit on opposite sides of that line.
- How long. The cases currently being accepted in this litigation generally require about a year of living in the area, after the plant began operating. Every claim is evaluated case by case, on its own facts and on the evidence available to pursue a claim at that particular site. The emissions figures on this page are the public record; they are not a list of which years count, and at some sites the two do not line up. Tell us the years you lived there and we will tell you where they fall.
- Your diagnosis. Leukemia and lymphoma are the diagnoses most consistently accepted. Others are assessed individually, and some are not being accepted at all — we will tell you which category yours falls into rather than leave you guessing.
If your address is outside the area, we will say so plainly. We keep the details on file either way, because the facilities and diagnoses being accepted change over time and a claim can be revisited — but you will not be chased.
You do not need medical records, an address history, or anything else to ask. One call or one form is enough to find out which side of the line you were on, and roughly how long a claim of this kind takes. Free case review, and there is no fee unless there is a recovery.
Cancers Linked to Ethylene Oxide Exposure
Leukemia (all types), non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma, Multiple Myeloma, Liver Cancer, Lung Cancer, Breast Cancer
We offer free consultations to discuss your situation, with no obligation. Our firm has experience in environmental mass tort cases. We handle cases on a contingency fee basis, meaning no upfront costs and no fee unless there is a recovery. Court costs and litigation expenses are advanced by counsel and repaid from the recovery. You are not responsible for court costs or litigation expenses if there is no recovery, unless a court directs otherwise. The attorney’s fee is a percentage of the gross recovery, calculated before expenses are deducted. Contact us today for a free, no-obligation consultation to explore your ethylene oxide lawsuit options. We are available 24/7 at 888-348-2735 to take your call and discuss your potential EtO cancer claim.
This page provides factual information based on EPA data, Rhode Island health statistics, and community demographics to help you understand potential risks. Remember, this is for educational purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship or guarantee any outcomes. Results vary, and we make no guarantees. As ethylene oxide lawyers with a focus on corporate accountability, we’re here to guide you through the process.
EPA Data Summary on EtO Emissions at the Coventry Facility
The Boston Scientific facility at 8 Industrial Drive in Coventry, RI (ZIP 02816), has been operational since approximately 1998, initially under operators like Cosmed Group and later STERIS before Boston Scientific’s acquisition in 2009. This site uses ethylene oxide (EtO) for sterilizing medical devices, a process regulated by the EPA due to EtO’s classification as a human carcinogen via inhalation.
Key EPA insights include
- Historical Emissions and Violations: From 1998–2003 under Cosmed, the facility was involved in Clean Air Act violations, resulting in excess EtO emissions and a $1.5 million settlement in 2005. Emissions were reported until 2005 under STERIS, with a 2010 permit allowing increases post-acquisition.
- Current Regulations: As of 2025, the Rhode Island DEM permit caps EtO emissions at 67 pounds per day and 1,298 pounds annually, with usage limited to under 1,500 pounds daily. The facility is listed in the EPA’s Ethylene Oxide Commercial Sterilization Facilities and subject to Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) reporting since January 2022, one of 29 such sites nationwide.
- Health Risk Assessments: EPA’s 2020 Draft Risk Assessment links long-term EtO exposure to increased risks of cancers like leukemias, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, multiple myeloma, and breast cancer. No site-specific shutdowns have occurred, unlike other EtO facilities (e.g., Sterigenics in Illinois).
For more details, visit official EPA sources. If you’ve lived or worked near this site, understanding your exposure history is key.
Latency Periods Reported in Published Studies (For Educational Purposes Only)
EtO is genotoxic, meaning it can damage DNA and potentially lead to cancer after prolonged exposure. Based on scientific data and case criteria, the table below summarises latency periods reported in the published literature. Latency must be reasonable and aligned with exposure duration.
| Diagnosis | Latency Reported in Published Studies | Additional Filters |
|---|---|---|
| Leukemias (all types) | 5 years | None specific; higher risk with chronic exposure |
| Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma | 2 years | None |
| Multiple Myeloma | 2 years | None |
| Liver Cancer | 2 years | Limited to non/light drinkers and younger ages (<60) |
| Lung Cancer | 2 years | Limited to non-smokers |
| Breast Cancer | 5 years | None |
We are taking on three different types of EtO claims
- Type 1: Lived near the facility for a sustained period after it began operating.
- Type 2: Family members of Type 1 individuals.
- Type 3: Worked at the facility for a sustained period after it began operating.
Rhode Island cancer incidence rates (per 100,000, 2021–2025 trends from RI Health Dept and CDC) include breast ~130 (females), lung ~65, leukemias ~14, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma ~19, multiple myeloma ~6, and liver ~9. Kent County, including Coventry (population ~35,747, median age 44), shows slightly elevated rates for environmental-linked cancers, though no confirmed Coventry-specific EtO clusters.
No statute of limitations issues for living claimants; for deceased, it’s state-specific (typically 3 years from death or discovery in RI).
Understanding EtO Risks and Diagnoses in Rhode Island
Ethylene oxide (EtO) is a colorless gas used to sterilize medical equipment at facilities like Boston Scientific’s Coventry site. While essential for healthcare, long-term inhalation exposure—even at low levels—has been linked by the EPA to increased cancer risks, particularly white blood cell cancers (e.g., leukemias, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, multiple myeloma) and breast cancer. Limited evidence also suggests risks for liver and lung cancers under specific conditions.
In Coventry (Kent County), with a population of ~35,747, community concerns include potential cancer clusters near industrial sites, as discussed in local forums (e.g., Reddit r/RhodeIsland threads on environmental toxics). No direct EtO cluster is confirmed, but parallels to national cases (e.g., Sterigenics $363M verdict for breast cancer in 2022, $408M+ settlements in Georgia 2025 trends) highlight viability.
Our firm, led by Attorney Matthew Marin (J.D. from Roger Williams University School of Law, admitted in RI since 2008), has deep experience in environmental exposure cases. This experience positions us to educate and assist Rhode Island residents on EtO matters.
Common psychographics among affected individuals
- Worried Parents: Ages 35-50, concerned about family leukemias linked to proximity (e.g., near schools in ZIP 02816).
- Former Workers: Ages 50-65, with multiple myeloma after facility employment.
- Family Advocates: Ages 40-60, seeking answers for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in loved ones.
If you match these profiles and have qualifying exposure/diagnosis, learning more could be beneficial. We emphasize environmental justice, especially for vulnerable groups in areas like the Pawtuxet River vicinity.
Boston Scientific Ethylene Oxide Lawsuits in Coventry, RI – FAQ
Click the questions below for more information on the Coventry, RI EtO lawsuits:
What proof do I need for a Boston Scientific ethylene oxide lawsuit?
To build a strong ethylene oxide lawsuit in Rhode Island, you’ll need medical records confirming your cancer diagnosis (e.g., leukemia, breast cancer, or other qualifying types), proof of residency near the Boston Scientific facility at 8 Industrial Drive, or of employment there (such as utility bills, lease agreements, or payroll stubs), and evidence of reasonable latency from first exposure (supported by timelines and expert testimony). EPA Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) data can corroborate emissions levels, and our lawyers can help gather environmental reports or biomarkers (e.g., DNA adducts) to link your case to EtO. Without this, claims may be challenging, but we offer free consultations to assess your documentation and strengthen your Coventry RI ethylene oxide lawsuit.
How long do I have to file in RI?
In Rhode Island, the statute of limitations for a Boston Scientific EtO personal injury lawsuit is generally 3 years from the date of diagnosis or discovery of the harm (when you reasonably knew or should have known about the EtO link). For wrongful death claims involving deceased claimants, it’s 3 years from the date of death or discovery. However, exceptions like the discovery rule can extend timelines if the connection to Boston Scientific Coventry emissions wasn’t immediately apparent. As of August 2025, no major changes have affected these limits, but delays can bar your case—consult us for free to ensure you’re within deadlines and understand how individual lawsuits proceed.
Is EtO still emitted at Boston Scientific Coventry?
Yes, EtO is still emitted at the Boston Scientific facility at 8 Industrial Drive in Coventry, RI, but under stricter 2024 EPA National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) rules aiming for 90% reductions by 2026. Status as of September 2026: on 17 March 2026 EPA proposed to repeal the 2024 commercial-sterilizer rule, citing legal, scientific and medical-supply concerns. That proposal has not been finalised, so the 2024 standards remain in effect while the reconsideration is pending. Historical exposures from 1998 (EtO start) through acquisitions in 2009 remain key for claims, as TRI data shows annual usage limited to under 1,500 pounds daily, with ongoing emissions flagged for cancer risks despite compliance. As of July 2025 submissions, reductions are noted, but legacy air pollution affects ~50,000 residents within 5 miles. If you’ve been exposed, our lawyers can use this data for your lawsuit.
How does your PFAS experience apply to EtO?
Our extensive PFAS experience directly applies to EtO cases, as both involve environmental carcinogens from corporate negligence. We focus on genotoxic risks like those in EtO emissions causing cancers. This equips us to gather EPA data, prove latency, and negotiate settlements, emphasizing corporate accountability for health harms in similar exposure claims. Our contingency approach means no upfront costs for your Coventry RI EtO lawsuit.
What is a Boston Scientific cancer lawsuit?
A Boston Scientific cancer lawsuit is a legal action against companies or facilities responsible for EtO emissions that allegedly caused cancer through prolonged air exposure. These suits typically claim negligence in controlling emissions or failing to warn communities, seeking compensation for medical expenses, lost wages, and pain. Based on EPA and IARC evidence showing EtO as a genotoxic carcinogen inducing tumors in animals, with extrapolation to humans, lawsuits like those against Sterigenics (e.g., $31 million settlement in 2025 for Illinois exposures) highlight corporate liability. For qualifying individuals with a, our Boston Scientific cancer lawyers can evaluate if your case qualifies, using TRI data from sites like Boston Scientific Coventry to prove causation.
How to find a Boston Scientific cancer lawyer?
To find a Boston Scientific cancer lawyer, look for firms with experience in environmental mass torts, like Marin & Murphy Law Firm, handling EtO exposure claims. Check for relevant experience, local presence (our East Greenwich, RI office near Coventry), and contingency fees (no upfront costs). Search for “Boston Scientific cancer lawyer Rhode Island” or review bar association directories for highly rated attorneys like Matthew Marin. Read client testimonials and ensure they offer free consultations to assess your case, including documentation of your exposure timeline. Contact us at 401-228-8271 for experienced guidance on your potential Boston Scientific Coventry claim.
What is ethylene oxide exposure cancer?
Ethylene oxide exposure cancer refers to malignancies, like leukemia or breast cancer, linked to inhaling EtO, a genotoxic gas from sterilization facilities. EPA’s 2016 IRIS assessment shows EtO causes tumors in animals via inhalation, with human risks at community levels (0.1–1 µg/m³). Limited to qualifying individuals, this exposure damages DNA, leading to mutations. Studies like NTP TR 326 confirm dose-dependent effects, supporting lawsuits against emitters like Boston Scientific. If exposed near Coventry, RI, consult our lawyers for a free evaluation of your claim.
What are EtO emissions cancer risk factors?
EtO emissions cancer risk factors include prolonged inhalation near facilities (sustained exposure near a facility), with EPA estimating increased risk at 0.1–1 µg/m³. Key factors include age at exposure and the time between first exposure and diagnosis. IARC and EPA cite genotoxic DNA damage leading to cancers. Vulnerable groups near Boston Scientific Coventry (affecting 50,000 residents) face higher risks, per 2025 EPA updates. Our lawyers use TRI data to assess your exposure and build a strong case for compensation.
What is the ethylene oxide cancer risk?
The ethylene oxide cancer risk is elevated from chronic air exposure, with EPA’s unit risk of 3 × 10⁻³ per µg/m³ indicating a 3 in 1,000 lifetime increase at 1 µg/m³. Animal studies (e.g., Dunkelberg 1982) show tumors from inhalation, extrapolating to humans. Limited to qualifying individuals, community levels near facilities like Boston Scientific pose hazards. 2025 delays in EPA rules heighten risks—contact our Boston Scientific cancer lawyers for a free risk assessment.
What is a Boston Scientific EtO cancer lawsuit?
A Boston Scientific EtO cancer lawsuit is a claim against facilities emitting ethylene oxide, alleging negligence caused cancer through air pollution. With evidence from EPA showing genotoxic risks and tumors in animals, suits seek compensation for medical costs and suffering. 2025 cases like Sterigenics’ $31 million for 97 claims highlight payouts. For qualifying individuals near Boston Scientific Coventry, our lawyers can file your suit—free consultation available.
What is Boston Scientific ethylene oxide lawyer cancer experience?
Boston Scientific ethylene oxide lawyer cancer experience involves proving causation using EPA/IARC data on EtO’s genotoxic effects leading to tumors. Our firm applies similar strategies: gathering TRI reports, medical evidence for, and expert testimony. We handle nationwide claims, including Coventry, RI, on contingency—no upfront costs. Contact us for tailored guidance.
What is EtO sterilization cancer connection?
The EtO sterilization cancer connection stems from inhaling emissions during medical device processing, with EPA classifying EtO as a carcinogen causing neoplasms in animals (NTP TR 326). Human risks, though limited, extrapolate from occupational data showing elevated cancer mortality. For communities near facilities like Boston Scientific, chronic exposure increases hazards—backing lawsuits for negligence.
What is community EtO exposure cancer?
Community EtO exposure cancer occurs from inhaling low-level emissions dispersing within 4–10 miles of facilities, leading to genotoxic DNA damage and tumors. EPA estimates risks at 0.1–1 µg/m³, affecting ~50,000 near Boston Scientific Coventry. Limited to qualifying individuals, studies like Valdez-Flores et al. (2010) show RR 1.2–1.5, supporting claims for compensation in affected areas.
What is EtO air pollution cancer impact?
EtO air pollution cancer impact involves chronic inhalation causing DNA alkylation and mutations, per IARC animal evidence of tumors. Community levels near facilities increase risks for qualifying individuals, with EPA flagging environmental justice concerns for 50,000 residents around Boston Scientific Coventry. 2025 delays in emission rules exacerbate harms, fueling lawsuits for medical and economic damages.
What is ethylene oxide compensation cancer amount?
Ethylene oxide compensation cancer amounts varies by diagnosis, exposure history and governing state law, covering medical bills, lost wages, and pain, based on 2025 precedents like Sterigenics’ $31 million settlement. Our contingency lawyers advance costs—contact for a free evaluation of your Coventry claim.
What is EtO facility cancer claim process?
The EtO facility cancer claim process starts with a free consultation to assess eligibility (qualifying individual, proximity proof). We gather evidence (medical records, EPA TRI data), file the lawsuit alleging negligence, engage in discovery, and negotiate settlements or go to trial. For Boston Scientific Coventry claims, our RI lawyers handle everything on contingency.
What are EtO cancer settlement trends?
EtO cancer settlement trends in 2025 show increases, with payouts like Sterigenics’ $31 million for 97 claims (many multi-site cancers) and Eastman’s Texas suit alleging emissions caused cancers. Outcomes vary by diagnosis and exposure history—our firm negotiates similar outcomes using EPA evidence.
What is ethylene oxide attorney cancer role?
An ethylene oxide attorney handling cancer cases proves causation using EPA/IARC data on EtO’s tumor induction, gathers evidence for qualifying individuals, and seeks settlements. Our firm, with PFAS experience ($14M settlements), handles Coventry claims on contingency—free consultations to evaluate your case against facilities like Boston Scientific.
Can I file a Boston Scientific EtO lawsuit in Coventry, RI?
If you lived near Boston Scientific at 8 Industrial Drive for a sustained period after it began operating, or worked at the facility, and have a qualifying cancer with reasonable latency, you may have a Boston Scientific EtO claim in Rhode Island. Our lawyers assess statute of limitations (3 years from discovery) and use EPA TRI data for proof—contact for free review.
What cancers are linked to EtO at Boston Scientific Coventry?
Cancers linked to EtO at Boston Scientific Coventry include leukemias, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma/multiple myeloma, liver cancer (non/light drinkers, younger ages), lung cancer (non-smokers), and breast cancer, per EPA/NIOSH studies. Community exposure within 5 miles (~50,000 residents) heightens risks—our lawyers evaluate claims.
CONTACT OUR COVENTRY RI ETO EXPOSURE LAWYERS TODAY
If EtO exposure from the Boston Scientific facility in Coventry has left you or a loved one facing cancers like leukemia, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, or breast cancer, you don’t have to face it alone. At the Marin & Murphy Law Firm, our lawyers are investigating cases and plan on filing lawsuits on behalf of those suffering from health issues linked to ethylene oxide emissions at 8 Industrial Drive. We understand how overwhelming these situations can be, and we’re here to fight for accountability and the compensation available under the law.
Why Choose the Marin & Murphy Law Firm?
- Experience in Environmental Litigation – We’ve built a strong reputation taking on polluters when their emissions harm communities. Right now, we’re digging deep into EtO exposure cases in Coventry RI, focusing on serious issues like latency-linked cancers and genotoxic risks. Our experience in PFAS water-contamination litigation, means we know how to build a case that gets results (source: https://marinmurphylaw.com/pfas-lawsuit-2025-update-11m-settlements-water-contamination-claims).
- Personalized Support for You – Your case isn’t just a number to us. We’ll listen to what you’ve been through—whether you lived nearby after the facility began operating, have a family member affected, or worked at the facility—and tailor our approach to fit your needs. If you meet the criteria for diagnoses like multiple myeloma or liver cancer with reasonable latency, our firm is ready to answer your questions and guide you every step of the way.
- Local Rhode Island Representation – As a firm headquartered in East Greenwich RI, we’re deeply familiar with local regulations like DEM permits and EPA TRI reporting. We bring our experience to Coventry residents and workers, ensuring you have trusted advocates who understand the community impacts in ZIP codes like 02816 and 02827.
- No Risk to You – Worried about costs? Don’t be. We work on a contingency basis, meaning there are no upfront fees—we advance all costs, and there is no fee unless there is a recovery (contingency based on recovery; learn more here: https://marinmurphylaw.com/fee-structure-mass-tort-cases).
Our Contingency Fee Structure: No fee unless there is a recovery
At Marin & Murphy, we believe that everyone deserves access to justice, regardless of their financial situation. The firm advances court costs and litigation expenses, and those expenses are repaid from the recovery. You are not responsible for court costs or litigation expenses if there is no recovery, unless a court directs otherwise. The attorney’s fee is a percentage of the gross recovery, calculated before expenses are deducted. That’s why we offer our services on a contingency fee basis for mass tort cases like EtO exposure lawsuits. This means you pay no upfront fees, and there is no fee unless there is a recovery compensation for you. For a detailed explanation of our fee structure, please visit our Mass Tort Fee Structure page.
For Coventry families and workers, this isn’t business as usual. It’s personal. We’ve seen the toll toxic emissions take—on health, on families, on entire Rhode Island communities. That’s why we’re in this EtO lawsuit fight against Boston Scientific, bringing everything we’ve got. No upfront costs, no risk—just a local RI team that doesn’t get paid unless you do. Years of standing up to polluters in cases like PFAS mean we know their playbook. Let us use that to your advantage.
Other ethylene oxide plants on the federal record
Ethylene oxide is reported to EPA at plants across the country, and the federal record is not the same at any two of them. A claim turns on the plant a person actually lived near, so if your address was closer to one of these, start there instead:
- Steris, South Plainfield NJ
- Covidien, North Haven CT
- Steris, Northborough MA
- Professional Contract Sterilization, Taunton MA
You can read EPA’s modelled risk for every census tract around these plants, side by side, in our EtO census-tract risk index.
Naming an operator is not an allegation that it caused any individual’s illness. Whether a person has a claim depends on their address, their years there, their diagnosis and the law of their state.
Deadlines Apply to EtO Claims
Dealing with EtO-related health issues is hard enough without wondering what to do next. Contact the Marin & Murphy Law Firm today for a free, no-obligation consultation. We’ll sit down with you, hear your story, and explain your options in a way that makes sense. Claims can have deadlines, especially for deceased claimants, so you can call us at 401-228-8271 or contact us online.
Disclaimer The case results described above, including settlements in PFAS contamination claims, are provided for informational purposes only and reflect outcomes achieved in specific matters handled by Marin & Murphy. This page is legal information, not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Prior results do not guarantee, warrant, or predict a similar outcome in any future case, including EtO exposure lawsuits. Each legal matter is unique, and the success of any case depends on its specific factual and legal circumstances, which may differ significantly from those in the cases referenced. No representation is made that the quality of legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers. For a comprehensive evaluation of your potential claim, please contact our firm directly.
While this firm maintains joint responsibility, most cases of this type are referred to other attorneys for principal responsibility.