longweekend58 wrote on Sep 26
th, 2011 at 11:33am:
The problem with this legislation is PRECEDENCE. Precedence is one of the powerful builders of common law and to make such assumptions of cause on cancer could wreak havoc in our compensations system. it might be nice to do such a thing but it needs to be funded and managed adn this isnt possible.
It's not precedence unless anyone else trying to get it as well can demonstrate a job-related cancer risk, which is what firefighters have done.
This already occurs for some positions. For example, if you worked in an asbestos mine and you contract mesothelioma, then it's not up to you to prove that it was caused by your employment, it is assumed.
Same goes for this legislation. It has been shown that firefighters have almost double the risk of certain cancers to that of the general population, so this proposed legislation changes swaps the burden of proof from the sick firefighter across to the employer.
If you don't think that's reasonable, what would be your alternative? How would one prove that a particular case of cancer is work-related. Should samples of the smoke from every fire attended during a career be presented as evidence?
case- by-case. Any PRESUMPTION of guilt - which is what it is - isn intrinsically unfair. Any claim for compensation would already take into account the higher risk of firefighters but would not make it a fait accompli. you do understand that cancers are caused from reasons OTHER than your emplyment?
Forum
Pages: 
