For a long time, firefighters in the United States were not covered by presumptive laws. Legislation in this sense began to develop slowly after 1980, but these laws applied at the state level rather than the federal level. Recently, with the introduction of the Federal Firefighters Fairness Act, federal firefighters in the United States now benefit from a long-overdue national standard that acknowledges the unique health risks associated with their profession. On a state level, these professionals relied on a patchwork of presumptive laws that vary significantly in scope and effectiveness. Some states offer robust protections, presuming a wide range of cancers, cardiac events, and respiratory diseases to be job-related, while others maintain narrow eligibility or none at all without definitive proof.
The situation is even more dire for volunteer firefighters, for whom presumptive coverage does not apply at all in 50% of U.S. states, while in the other half, the protections they receive are often limited, inconsistent, or contingent on additional eligibility criteria, including a proof of causality and exposure that must be demonstrated by the claimant. It is essential to note that presumptive coverage also incurs substantial costs to municipalities that may seek to avoid these expenses, as just one sick firefighter can cost these entities hundreds of thousands of dollars. On a parallel line, volunteer firefighters make up 65% of the entire U.S. firefighting workforce, and since 1990, their numbers have decreased by a quarter, while the population they serve has nearly doubled. In this context, failing to provide coverage for volunteer firefighters puts municipalities at risk of a staffing crisis that threatens the stability and responsiveness of emergency services.
Denying Coverage Despite Consistent Evidence of Occupational Hazards for Volunteer Firefighters
One of the main arguments for excluding volunteer firefighters from presumptive coverage is that they work considerably fewer hours compared to career firefighters, and thus, their exposure risk is lower. However, given that more than half of the entire firefighting workforce relies on volunteers, this argument oversimplifies the reality of modern emergency response. In fact, data shows that both categories of professionals are at a significant risk of developing an array of conditions, including cancers.
A consistent factor linked to exposure is firefighting gear, which is known to contain exorbitant levels of PFAS, also known as forever chemicals. These substances also tend to be released at exceedingly high levels when the turnout gear used is old, which is a common scenario in underfunded volunteer fire departments. Currently, PFAS are known to cause 13 serious diseases that can trigger lifelong disability and also impact reproductive capacity. A comparative analysis of blood serum levels of PFAS in career firefighters and volunteer firefighters reveals that both categories exhibit exceedingly high levels of these toxic chemicals, suggesting that exposure is not limited to the number of hours worked.
Volunteer Firefighters in New Mexico and Presumptive Coverage
New Mexico relies almost entirely on volunteer firefighters, with a total of 78% of this workforce serving in unpaid positions. Despite this heavy reliance on volunteer service, New Mexico law does not currently extend presumptive coverage to volunteer firefighters. The statutory protections under NMSA, Chapter 52, Article 3, explicitly define “firefighter” as a full-time, non-volunteer employee, making clear in subsection A that only career firefighters are eligible under the presumptive provisions.
Denying presumptive coverage to preserve municipality funds is not uncommon. In 2009, a review of the evidence assessments linking cancer to firefighting services conducted by the International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC), found that the National League of Cities (NLC), a nonpartisan advocacy group representing nearly 2,800 cities, towns, and villages in the U.S., deliberately excluded and ignored compelling research evidence linking several cancers with firefighting exposure.
Nonetheless, despite a recurring history of denying firefighting disease presumptions, there is a growing body of evidence linking several types of toxins to disease development in firefighters. In this context, volunteers who entered this profession with a clean bill of health and served for at least five years, monitoring their exposure patterns, may still have a chance to file claims. However, in the absence of presumptive laws, the path to compensation remains uncertain and often burdensome. Policymakers should therefore address these gaps to prevent a future staffing crisis in the firefighting force.
About the Author
Jonathan Sharp serves as the Director of Finance at Environmental Litigation Group, P.C., a Birmingham-based law firm focused on toxic exposure cases. In addition to overseeing the firm's financial operations, he plays a key role in case assessment, supporting advocacy efforts for individuals affected by occupational and environmental hazards.
