First responders have an advantage-- if you want to call it that-- in cancer claims because of the "presumptive law" that requires the workers compensation division or a court to presume that a cancer is work related if the first responder meets certain requirements (in terms of responding to fires or otherwise being exposed to carcinogens) and developing a cancer that is acknowledged by the IARC to be related to carcinogens that would be encountered in the course of firefighting (to put it very broadly).
However, the jurisdictions affected by this on the insurance and coverage side are not precluded from litigating these matters in court if they disagree with the liability decision reached by the Division of Workers' Compensation. In one such recent case it was reported that a Baytown firefighter was sued by the city of Baytown to overturn the compensation decision by the DWC.
July 14--A firefighter battling cancer is being sued by the City of Baytown in order to deny paying him insurance coverage for his treatment over the last 18 months.
Patrick Mahoney, a battalion chief for the Baytown Fire Department, was diagnosed with thyroid cancer in December 2016, forcing him to have half of his thyroid removed and undergo continued treatment, including thyroid hormone supplements and regular blood work.
Immediately after his diagnosis, Mahoney, 36, filed a workers compensation claim, seeking insurance coverage for his treatment, which he is currently paying out of pocket. Mahoney believes he was exposed to carcinogens as part of the hazards of his work as a firefighter, and Chapter 607 of the Texas Government Code, known as the "presumptive statute," ensures treatment of job-related illnesses.
"The law is on our side with that," Mahoney said in a phone interview. "It's impossible to trace something directly, that's why we have the presumptive law because (firefighters) are exposed to so many different things on such a regular basis, it's impossible to trace it to any one thing. But I'm a longtime non-tobacco user, it's a reasonable belief, I think."
The issue that cities around the state are pursuing is whether the DWC is accurately understanding the scope of cancers covered as firefighter-related by the IARC. The cities are claiming that a proper interpretation of the IARC monograph is that only a handful of cancers are covered. These issues will ultimately be decided by the courts of appeals and perhaps by the Texas Supreme Court.
Comments