House Bill 97 would expand North Carolina’s Public Safety Employees’ Death Benefits Act by adding certain cancers to the list of conditions that are presumed to have caused a firefighter’s death in the line of duty. Under the bill, if a firefighter dies as a direct and proximate result of an occupationally related cancer, that death would be treated as “killed in the line of duty” for purposes of death benefits. The cancers added are mesothelioma, testicular cancer, cancer of the small intestine, esophageal cancer, oral cavity cancer, pharynx cancer, stomach (gastric) cancer, prostate cancer, and colon cancer.
The bill is limited to qualifying deaths occurring on or after July 1, 2025. By creating this presumption, HB97 would make it easier for eligible firefighter survivors to receive death benefits without having to prove the cancer was caused by firefighting exposure in each individual case. It amends the statutory definition in G.S. 143-166.2, which governs public safety employee death benefits, and would therefore affect benefit determinations for firefighter deaths statewide.
HB97 would directly amend North Carolina General Statutes § 143-166.2(6), expanding the legal definition of “killed in the line of duty” for firefighters under the Public Safety Employees’ Death Benefits Act. The practical effect is to broaden eligibility for death benefits for surviving family members of firefighters whose deaths are tied to specified occupational cancers, shifting the burden away from proving causation in each case and creating a statutory presumption for the listed diseases. The change would apply only prospectively to qualifying deaths on or after July 1, 2025.
The available legislative record shows no recorded committee transcript or vote data, so there is no direct evidence of debate or opposition in the materials provided. The bill’s title and substance suggest a generally supportive policy aimed at assisting firefighters and their families, and its movement through the House and referral in the Senate indicates it was actively considered. Overall, the measure appears to be framed as a benefits expansion for public safety workers rather than a controversial policy change.
No specific points of contention are documented in the provided transcripts or votes. In similar legislation, the main issues typically involve the cost of expanded death benefits, the scope of cancers covered, and whether the presumption should apply automatically or require additional proof of occupational exposure. If any disagreement arose here, it would most likely center on the fiscal impact on the death benefits system and whether the listed cancers are sufficiently linked to firefighting to justify a statutory presumption.