Texas Supreme Court Refuses to Overturn Appellate Court Interpretation of Chapter 607
The attorneys of FOL have achieved an important victory in the state’s highest court in a case involving cancer and the presumption statute.
The Eastland Court of Appeals previously issued an opinion on March 7, 2024, that interpreted Chapter 607 of the Texas Government Code, which is commonly known as the “First Responders Presumption Statute.” In City of Stephenville v. Belew, the court specifically addressed Texas Government Code Section 607.055 to determine which cancers fell within the purview of the presumption and which party bore the burden to prove the elements that triggered the presumption. As part of its detailed analysis of the statute and the evidence presented, the court explicitly rejected the Division of Workers’ Compensation’s construction of the statute that applied to pre-2019 injury dates.
The prior version of 607.055 stated that a firefighter who suffered from cancer was presumed to have developed said cancer during the course and scope of their employment if they met certain criteria regarding their job duties and the cancer “may be caused by exposure to heat, smoke, radiation, or a known suspected carcinogen as determined by the International Agency for Research on Caner (IARC).” The crux of the City’s argument was that pancreatic cancer did not fall within the parameters of 607.055 because the IARC had not affirmatively determined that there may be a causal link between firefighting and that specific cancer.
The appellate court concluded that it was incumbent upon a claimant to show that, as determined by the IARC, the cancer from which they suffer can be produced by the specific exposures listed in the statute. It also acknowledged that its decision stood “in stark contrast to the appeals panel decisions relied upon” by the claimant beneficiaries and the administrative law judge in the portion of the dispute before the Division. The court specifically noted that the “appeals panel simply misapplied the effect of the statutory presumption” in previous decisions it had issued.
The court then determined that based on a review of the evidence presented to the trial court, the claimant beneficiaries failed to meet their burden that pancreatic cancer was a type of cancer that triggered the presumption under 607.055. As a result, the Eastland court reversed the judgment of the trial court and rendered judgment in favor of the City.
The claimant beneficiaries appealed the decision to the Texas Supreme Court by submitting a petition for review. The Court ordered the City to file a response, then issued notice on December 20, 2024 that the petition for review was denied. A subsequent request for rehearing was also denied on March 7, 2025. The Supreme Court therefore determined that the claimant beneficiaries’ petition failed to present an error that required reversal by the Court, and thus the appellate decision was left undisturbed.
The Texas Supreme Court’s decision to deny the petition allows system participants to rely upon the Eastland court’s analysis as to how and when presumption statutes found in Chapter 607 are triggered. The appellate court’s determination that it is the claimant who must prove they are entitled to the benefit of the presumption is particularly important as it is a critical component of all presumption cases, not just those that involve cancer.
Should you have any questions about this case’s applicability to claims you are currently handling, please reach out to Jessica MacCarty (jmm@fol.com) or Roy Leatherberry (rjl@fol.com) with the firm.
FOLIO
