Arizona—Applicability of First Responder Cancer Presumption Statute
On March 26, 2025, the Supreme Court of Arizona, in Krol v. The Industrial Commission of Arizona, clarified the application of a 2021 amendment to the state's first responder cancer presumption statute to a workers compensation (WC) claim filed by a firefighter diagnosed with brain cancer prior to the amendment's effective date.
The 2021 amendment, codified in Arizona statute 23-901.01, heightened the employer's burden to rebut the presumption and eliminated the requirement that to be entitled to the benefit of the presumption, the firefighter produce evidence of exposure to a known carcinogen. The supreme court held that the 2021 amendment could not be applied retroactively. The court reasoned that the statute lacked express retroactive language or other language indicating that the legislature intended for it to apply to pending claims. Moreover, the court added, the 2021 amendment could not apply retroactively because it was a substantive statute that altered the elements needed to establish or defend against the presumption, and the retroactive application would violate the substantive rights of the firefighter's employer.
With this decision, the court reversed an appellate ruling finding that the 2021 amendment applied to the firefighter's claim.
Maryland—Attorney Fees
On April 24, 2025, the Supreme Court of Maryland, in Zukowski v. Anne Arundel County, held that a workers compensation (WC) attorney fees lien attaches to a claimant's WC benefits award after the application of statutory offsets.
In this case, the court reviewed attorney fee awards for two claimants who worked as police officers and received service-connected disability benefits due to work-related injuries. Those benefits, pursuant to Maryland statute 9-610, were then offset against the WC benefits awarded to both claimants. The claimants sought to have their attorney fees calculated from the entire WC award before the application of the statutory offset.
In its analysis, the court noted that Maryland statute 9-731, governing attorney fees in WC cases, provides that attorney fees constitute a lien on the compensation awarded. The term "compensation" means money that is payable to a covered employee. The court determined that the term "benefits," as it appears in Maryland statute 9-610, is interchangeable with the term "compensation" in the attorney fee statute. The court thus concluded that attorney fees are to be calculated based on the actual amount due to claimants after the application of the statutory offset.
Minnesota—Standard to Rebut Presumption of Retirement
On April 16, 2025, the Supreme Court of Minnesota, in Simonson v. Douglas County, clarified the standard that applies when rebutting the statutory presumption of retirement for a worker who is receiving permanent total disability (PTD) benefits.
In this case, an employer stopped paying PTD benefits to an employee who was permanently and totally disabled because of a work injury that occurred in 1996. The employer alleged that the version of Minnesota statute 176.101 that was in effect when the employee was injured, presumed that an employee retires from the labor market at age 67 unless otherwise rebutted by the employee. The employee alleged that she rebutted the presumption by introducing evidence that she would have worked past age 67.
The court, in its review of the standard to rebut the retirement presumption, concluded that trial judges should consider whether retirement would have happened even if the employee had not been disabled, and that the burden is on the employee to rebut the presumption by a preponderance of the evidence. The court added that additional evidence such as, for example, the availability of the type of work the employee was performing, the employee’s age and work history, and the presence or absence of a retirement plan should also be considered. The court clarified that no single factor is dispositive, and judges should assess how each factor interacts with each other in a difficult and sensitive balancing process.
With this decision, the court remanded the case to the workers compensation judge for an application of the correct standard.
For more information on other cases monitored by NCCI's Legal Division, visit previous Court Case Updates and
Court Case Insights under the
Legal section of
INSIGHTS on
ncci.com.
This article is provided solely as a reference tool to be used for informational purposes only. The information in this article shall not be construed or interpreted as providing legal or any other advice. Use of this article for any purpose other than as set forth herein is strictly prohibited.
