Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the House on March 6, 2007, to establish a presumption for non-volunteer firefighters who have been on the job for at least five years that cases of certain types of cancer arose out of and in the course of employment for purposes of granting workers compensation benefits, unless there is evidence to the contrary, and unless the person has been a consistent cigarette smoker any time during the past five years

The vote was 81 in favor, 27 opposed and 2 not voting

(House Roll Call 622 at House Journal 132)

Click here to view bill details.

Is this a joke? To create legislation which makes such a broad assumption is crazy. Why not exclude people who live near a steel mill, or a chemical processing plant too. Another reason to go to a part time legislature to eliminate stupid bills like this.

These firefighters go into our homes and business without question. The chemicals they are exposed to are extremely dangerous. They contract cancer at many times the normal rate. Taking care of them or their families if they get cancer or die is the least we could do.

Rep. Sheen, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: I voted against this legislation because it creates a rebuttable presumption not available in most other professions. While firefighters do have a very dangerous job, it should not be a given that contracting cancer is a result of their line of work and not the caused by a variety of other factors. This legislation places too great a burden on our townships, cities, villages and counties and opens up yet another avenue for attorney's to sue municipalities. Firefighters already have the ability to present their case and demonstrate that they did in fact obtain cancer while fulfilling their duties. Determinations on workers compensation benefits should continue to be made after viewing the facts of each individual situation. Every job we choose has potentially negative effects over the years. People who work outside many times will develop arthritis, many secretaries get carpo-tunnel, most truck drivers eventually experience back problems, and on and on. Personal responsibility and a healthy or unhealthy life style also play a huge part in determining whether people develop debilitating diseases and afflictions. This legislation has good intentions, but its results are far reaching and it opens the Pandora's to box to start creating similar presumptions for other aliments in other occupations."

Rep. Nitz, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: HB 4401 automatically presumes that firefighters with cancer were exposed to hazardous materials while on the job, and therefore should receive workers compensation. However, this bill does not take other factors into account, such as family history of cancer or smoking habits. Until this legislation is fixed, I cannot support this bill."

Rep. Emmons, having reserved the right to explain her protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: HB 4401 automatically presumes that firefighters with cancer were exposed to hazardous materials while on the job, and therefore should receive workers compensation. However, this bill does not take other factors into account, such as family history of cancer or smoking habits. Until this legislation is fixed, I cannot support this bill. It also fails to address the risks to which volunteer firefighters are exposed. They receive far less compensation yet face comparable risks."

Rep. Hoogendyk, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: I voted against this legislation because it creates a rebuttable presumption not available in most other professions. While firefighters do have a very dangerous job, it should not be a given that contracting cancer is a result of their line of work and not caused by a variety of other factors. This legislation places too great a burden on our townships, cities, villages and counties and opens up yet another avenue for attorney's to sue municipalities. Firefighters already have the ability to present their case and demonstrate that they did in fact obtain cancer while fulfilling their duties. Determinations on workers compensation benefits should continue to be made after viewing the facts of each individual situation. Every job we choose has potentially negative effects over the years. People who work outside often develop arthritis, many secretaries get carpal-tunnel syndrome, truck drivers often experience back problems, and so on. Personal responsibility and a healthy or unhealthy lifestyle also play a part in determining whether people develop debilitating diseases and afflictions. This legislation has good intentions, but its results are far-reaching. It likely will lead to similar presumptions for other aliments in other occupations."

Rep. Hammon, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: Although I agree in concept with H/B 4401 because the bill only pertains to full time fire fighters and bring no relief to part time, on call fire fighters I cannot support this bill. In Michigan over 87% of all fire fighters are considered on call, or part time, with only 13% considered full time. Thus in my mind this bill becomes a special interest, and particularly geared toward large cities that can afford a full time fire department."

Rep. Booher, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: The unknown long term cost, jeopardizing availability of Workers Comp. for firefighters, attempts to solve a problem that doesn't exist, I believe it will be an administrative nightmare."

Rep. Robertson, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: HB 4401 automatically presumes that firefighters with cancer were exposed to hazardous materials while on the job, and therefore should receive workers compensation. However, this bill does not take other factors into account, such as family history of cancer or smoking habits. Until this legislation is fixed, I cannot support this bill. Let me make my position quite clear, I believe firefighters should receive proper compensation for any injury clearly attributable to their work. The language of this bill however is written entirely to loosely. I believe it will lead to unwarranted claims on taxpayer dollars and deprive our workers compensation system of vitally needed dollars to satisfy legitimate claims. Doing so would potentially harm the very workers the bill is intended to help."

Rep. Elsenheimer, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: HB 4401 automatically presumes that firefighters with cancer were exposed to hazardous materials while on the job, and therefore should receive workers compensation. However, this bill does not take other factors into account, such as family history of cancer or smoking habits. Until this legislation is fixed, I cannot support this bill. It is my hope that the legislation will be fixed by the Senate."

Rep. Agema, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: HB 4401 automatically presumes that firefighters with cancer were exposed to hazardous materials while on the job, and therefore should receive workers compensation. However, this bill does not take other factors into account, such as family history of cancer or smoking habits. Until this legislation is fixed, I cannot support this bill. I also have gotten skin cancer from flying at high altitude but there is no way to determine whether I got it from earlier exposure in my life. This opens up pandoras box."

Rep. Meltzer, having reserved the right to explain her protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: HB 4401 automatically presumes that firefighters with cancer were exposed to hazardous materials while on the job, and therefore should receive workers compensation. However, this bill does not take other factors into account, such as family history of cancer or smoking habits. This bill would also increase costs to municipalities at a time when they can least afford it. Existing benefits for firefighters that contract cancer is already covered under workman's compensation. The implementation of this bill as written would put every firefighter in a contested position, possibly forcing the firefighter with cancer to wait for their benefit to be approved. This would be a terrible position to put our men and women in that willingly put their lives on the line for you and me. We can do better. Until this legislation is fixed, Icannot support this bill."

"presumption of stupidity in elected officials"

I would make this presumption rebuttable by evidence of family history, lifestyle choices (example: alcohol or poor diet), or blood pressure. Otherwise, it is a good provision for these brave community heroes.

How about a presumption of mental retardation in Michigan politicians?