HB 4764 amends Michigan’s Worker’s Disability Compensation Act to expand the list of public safety personnel covered by certain workers’ compensation presumptions and access to the Christopher R. Slezak first responder presumed coverage fund. The bill adds full-time, part-time, and on-call county medical examiners, deputy medical examiners, and medical examiner investigators to the statute’s existing presumptions for respiratory and heart disease, and it creates a new cancer-claim pathway for those medical examiner roles beginning January 1, 2026 if they have at least 60 months of active service and were exposed to hazards associated with fire suppression, rescue, emergency medical services, or incident investigation.
The bill also preserves and clarifies the existing cancer presumptions for firefighters, public fire authority members, forest fire officers, and fire/crash rescue officers, including the list of covered cancers and the requirement that claims be pursued through the fund rather than directly against the employer while benefits are being paid. It maintains the rule that claimants generally must first seek pension benefits or show ineligibility, and it keeps the presumption rebuttable in limited circumstances, including scientific evidence of substantial tobacco use as a significant factor in the cancer.
In addition to expanding eligibility, HB 4764 strengthens the administrative framework for the fund. It requires the fund to be housed in the state treasury, directs the Department of Treasury and the workers’ compensation director to manage claims and payments, and sets procedures for application review, employer notice, public posting of forms and guidelines, annual reporting, and legislative notice if the fund may become insolvent. The bill also provides that unpaid approved claims must be paid later if revenues become available, with priority over subsequently approved claims.
The general sentiment reflected by the bill text and caption is supportive of first responders and related public safety personnel, especially by extending presumed coverage to medical examiners who face occupational hazards tied to emergency response and death-scene investigation. No committee transcript or vote record was provided, so there is no direct evidence of floor or committee debate, but the structure of the bill suggests a policy goal of broadening occupational disease protections while preserving fiscal oversight of the fund.
The main point of potential contention is cost and fund solvency, since the bill expands the class of eligible claimants and requires the state to monitor and report shortfalls. Another likely issue is the scope of the presumption itself, including which cancers are covered, the 60-month service threshold, and the rebuttal standard involving tobacco use. Employers and carriers retain notice and information rights, but the bill shifts payment responsibility for covered claims to the special fund, which may affect state budgeting and workers’ compensation administration.
HB 4764 amends MCL 418.405 in the Worker’s Disability Compensation Act to add county medical examiners, deputy medical examiners, and medical examiner investigators to the statute’s occupational disease presumptions and to extend fund-based cancer benefits to those roles beginning in 2026. It also formalizes and expands the operation of the Christopher R. Slezak first responder presumed coverage fund, including claim processing, payment priority, reporting, and insolvency-notice requirements. The bill affects public employers, the workers’ compensation agency, the Department of Treasury, and eligible first responders and medical examiner personnel by shifting certain covered claims to the state-administered fund rather than directly against employers while benefits are being paid.
The bill appears generally favorable toward first responders and related public safety workers, with a clear intent to broaden presumptive coverage for occupational diseases and cancers. The absence of recorded committee testimony or votes limits direct evidence of political debate, but the bill’s design indicates support for expanded benefits paired with administrative controls. The overall tone is protective of workers while also attentive to fiscal management through reporting and shortfall procedures.
The most likely areas of contention are fiscal exposure, fund adequacy, and the breadth of the presumptions. Expanding eligibility to additional medical examiner personnel and maintaining broad cancer presumptions could increase claims against the fund, raising concerns for budget writers and administrators. Another possible dispute is the evidentiary standard for rebutting the presumption, especially the limited role of preexisting conditions and the specific tobacco-use rebuttal language. Employers and carriers may also focus on the shift of liability to the fund and the administrative burden of claim notice and information sharing.