In Minnesota there is actually a presumption between firefighters and certain types of cancer based on research that is being done. The authority on this is the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and as we learn more about the different types of cancers and carcinogens, it has an effect on the law and the ability for injured firefighters to bring a claim. This can also have effect on the statute of limitations. If the firefighter has been diagnosed with cancer, it’s important that they reach out and talk to someone who specializes in this area of the law. That way they can get the latest information on their ability to bring a claim.

When a work-related injury or condition is a substantial factor in causing an employee’s death, the employee’s dependents are entitled to certain benefits under the Workers’ Compensation Act. This is referred to as a “dependency claim.” If an injured worker dies due to a work injury, the injured worker’s spouse, children, or other dependent family members may be entitled to benefits.

Minnesota has a long history of protecting workers. In fact, Minnesota and New York were the first states to adopt “occupational disease presumptions” into the law. Prior to the adoption of these presumptions of causation, an injured party had the burden of proving that the injury or disease arose out of the course and scope of his or her employment.

At first glance, it makes sense to require the injured party to “connect the dots” between the injury or condition and the activities he or she performed as a part of the job; however, as a practical matter, this requirement precluded injured workers from obtaining a remedy under the Workers’ Compensation Act. For example, if a worker contracted lung cancer from his contact with dangerous work-place fumes, proving that the fumes he was exposed to at work caused the cancer would be difficult, if not impossible. Causation is difficult in these cases because the cancer could have been caused by many different things, such as a genetic predisposition or exposure to cigarette smoke, and doctors are unable (or unwilling) to state to a reasonable degree of medical certainty what the “true” cause of the condition is.

That’s a tough question. While skin cancer, in some instances, could arguably be an occupational disease that was substantially caused by a workers’ sun exposure while on the job, the difficulty is in proving the medical causal relationship between the skin cancer and the work activities.

Sun cancer is the most common form of cancer in the United States and sun exposure is, without question, a cause of skin cancer. But, whether that exposure is during work hours or outside of work hours would be hard to determine. Because it would be so difficult to pinpoint the exact cause of skin cancer in terms of which period of sun exposure actually caused the cancer to develop, workers who develop skin cancer are probably going to have a difficult time in establishing these occupational disease claims for purposes of Minnesota workers’ compensation coverage.