AN ACT Relating to removing qualifiers related to the presumption of occupational disease for heart problems;
SB 6180 expands and clarifies Washington workers’ compensation presumptions for certain occupational diseases affecting firefighters, fire investigators, and law enforcement officers. The bill removes or relaxes several existing qualifiers tied to the presumption for heart problems and other conditions, and it establishes that specified respiratory disease, heart problems, cancer, infectious diseases, and posttraumatic stress disorder may be treated as occupational diseases under the workers’ compensation system when the statutory conditions are met.
The bill also creates a new advisory committee on occupational disease presumptions. That committee would review scientific evidence and make recommendations to the Legislature on additional diseases, disorders, or occupations that should be added in the future. The measure includes detailed rules for committee membership, conflict-of-interest limits, scientific review standards, and timelines for recommendations. It also adds provisions for appeal-related cost shifting when a claimant prevails, and it names the act the Erik Shouse Memorial Act.
SB 6180 would amend Washington’s workers’ compensation statutes, particularly the provisions governing presumptions of occupational disease for firefighters, fire investigators, and law enforcement officers. It broadens access to presumptive coverage for heart conditions and other listed illnesses, extends some presumptions after service ends, and adds or refines rebuttal standards and exclusions, including a tobacco-use limitation for certain heart and lung conditions beginning July 1, 2027. It also requires the creation of a standing advisory process that could influence future statutory expansions of occupational disease coverage.
The available vote history suggests generally favorable committee sentiment: the Senate Committee on Labor & Commerce advanced the bill on a 5-2 do pass vote. The bill’s structure and findings indicate a policy direction supportive of first responders and their access to workers’ compensation benefits, especially for conditions linked to job exposure. No committee transcript was provided, so the record here reflects the vote and the bill’s text rather than detailed debate.
The main points of contention are likely to be the scope of the presumptions and the evidentiary burden on employers and insurers. The bill allows rebuttal with evidence such as tobacco use, fitness, weight, heredity, and non-work exposures, and it also creates a future tobacco-use exclusion for certain heart and lung claims, which may be viewed as either a necessary limitation or an added barrier depending on the stakeholder. Employers, insurers, and state fund administrators may be concerned about claim costs and expanded liability, while firefighters, fire investigators, and law enforcement advocates are likely to support the broader presumptions and fee-shifting provisions for successful appeals.