Legal counsel reviews expanded disability presumptions for safety members

Vivian Schultz, the retirement system’s disability retirement counsel, spent the board’s March 19 meeting reviewing disability retirement presumptions that apply to ISERS members under the 1937 Act and more recent statutory additions.

Schultz told trustees that the system’s longstanding “legacy” presumptions — heart trouble, cancer, bloodborne infectious disease and biochemical substance exposure — remain in place and are supported by case law. She also walked the board through a set of newer presumptions added by recent legislation, including post‑traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), low‑back impairment (the “duty‑belt” presumption), skin cancer, Lyme disease, meningitis, tuberculosis and certain hernia/pneumonia claims.

Schultz emphasized that presumptions operate only if an applicant is permanently incapacitated and otherwise meets the statutory prerequisites (for example, holding a covered safety classification or specified occupation and satisfying minimum service requirements). She described how a presumption shifts the initial burden of proof: once a claimant establishes the prerequisite facts by a preponderance of the evidence, service connection is presumed and the association must rebut that presumption with substantial contrary evidence.

On heart and cancer presumptions, Schultz said the board should expect fact‑specific litigation and medical evidence challenges. For cancer cases she noted benzene and other workplace carcinogens are commonly alleged exposures; employers and boards may rebut by showing latency periods inconsistent with the claimant’s exposure, insufficient exposure or medical studies that do not support a causal link. For heart trouble she described the presumption’s “non‑attribution” drafting, which limits attribution to preexisting disease, making rebuttal difficult in many cases.

On PTSD, Schultz said the statute applies to active firefighters and peace officers engaged in active law enforcement and noted the diagnosis and case law continue to develop. She said courts and medical examiners are increasingly recognizing cumulative PTSD, where repeated traumatic incidents across a career combine to produce a disabling condition. The board discussed credibility issues in psychiatric evaluations and the growing use of psychological testing to detect symptom magnification or malingering; Schultz said such testing is one tool, but not determinative, and medical examiners must explain how test results inform an overall clinical diagnosis.

Schultz also addressed the low‑back (duty‑belt) presumption, which applies to peace officers required to wear a duty belt as a condition of employment; she noted practical questions remain about what constitutes a duty belt or equivalent equipment and whether some modern load‑bearing configurations (vests, thigh holsters) map to the statute’s wording. The board asked staff to confirm statutory coverage for particular county peace officers where necessary.

Trustees asked several procedural and evidentiary questions during the presentation, including how to compute filing deadlines that the new statutes sometimes extend; Schultz recommended staff and counsel apply the statutory language and case law when calculating precise filing windows and cautioned trustees not to treat the presumptions as automatic approvals. She closed by warning the board that adding many presumptions can make service‑connection determinations more complex and that each case will require careful fact‑finding and medical analysis.

The presentation was educational; no board action was required or taken on the presumptions during the meeting.