Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Occupational Health topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears bill to extend Nevada 'heart and lung' occupational protections to school police, marshals and juvenile probation officers
Summary
At a hearing of the Assembly Commerce and Labor Committee, sponsors and public-safety groups urged support for Assembly Bill 93, which would expand presumptive workers'-compensation coverage under Nevada's occupational disease rules to additional categories of peace officers; lawmakers asked about scope, tribal coverage and fiscal timing.
Assembly Bill 93, introduced in the Assembly Commerce and Labor Committee by Assemblyman Brian Hibbett, would expand Nevada's existing presumptions for certain heart and lung diseases to include additional categories of peace officers—specifically school police officers employed by school districts, juvenile probation officers, municipal court bailiffs and deputy marshals, city or town marshals and deputy marshals, and “any other category 1 peace officer that has unrestricted duties throughout the state,” the bill text states.
Supporters told the committee that the bill aims to provide parity with personnel already covered under the Nevada Occupational Diseases Act and related Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS). "There is absolutely no credible reason why they do not qualify as much as the other categories that are currently set forth in NRS 617.135," said Richard (Rick) McCann, representing the Nevada Association of Public Safety Officers and the Nevada Law Enforcement Coalition. McCann summarized current statutory coverage as including NRS 617.455 (lung diseases) and NRS 617.457 (heart diseases), which create a presumption that certain diseases are work related for covered officers.
Why it matters: testimony from current and former officers emphasized on-the-job exposures, chronic stress and repeated emergency responses as causes of elevated cardiac and respiratory risk. Juvenile probation officers, school district police and city marshals said they perform many of the same duties as other covered officers—carrying weapons, making arrests, transporting detainees and responding to dangerous calls—and therefore should be eligible for the same long-term benefit protections. "We are the first responders inside the walls of detention," said Jerrell Roberts, a juvenile probation officer and attorney. "This is my reality every day… the science tells us, the data shows us that staying at that state of heightened alertness day in and day out takes a serious toll on your body."
Who testified for the bill: the sponsor, Assemblyman Brian Hibbett (Assembly District 13), and Rick McCann opened the presentation. Dozens of public-safety representatives and local government officials spoke in support, including Nathaniel Waugh (Clark County School District), Spencer Flanders (Tri Strategies, reading a Nevada Police Union statement), Randy Robinson (City of Las Vegas director of government affairs), Sean McVickers (Washoe County District Attorney Investigators Association), Zach Bucher (North Las Vegas), Kevin Eppinger (Juvenile Justice Probation Officers Association), Justin Houston (caller), Tina Koehl (Juvenile Justice Supervisors Association), Jeff Allen (North Las Vegas Police Officers Association), Andrew Regenbaum (Nevada Association of Public Safety Officers) and Matthew Caldwell (Police Officers Association, caller). Several juvenile-probation officers and marshals described past exposures to infectious disease, narcotics environments and repeated high-adrenaline incidents.
Questions from lawmakers and sponsor response: committee members pressed the sponsor on several scope and implementation issues. Assemblymember Monroe Moreno asked why the bill stalled last session; Hibbett said AB301 (identical language last session) passed the Assembly late and did not receive a Senate hearing before sine die. Lawmakers also asked whether tribal officers are covered; Hibbett said tribal officers, though certified, are typically employed by tribes and "he did not believe" they would be covered under the bill absent additional language. Vice Chair Houdegui asked how many people would be newly covered if the bill passed; Hibbett and witnesses said they did not have a single statewide tally and several jurisdictions had incomplete counts. Regarding statutory definitions, Assemblymember Yurek and other members discussed the difficulty of varying job titles; McCann and the sponsor pointed to NRS 289.47 and the bill's approach to listing classifications and adding "category 1" language so that changes in agency titles do not leave personnel uncovered.
Fiscal and timing notes: Hibbett said he planned to file an amendment to set the bill's effective date to July 1, 2026, so jurisdictions could budget for any cost. Witnesses and the sponsor described the bill as a cost that jurisdictions must plan for but argued it was an equity and safety issue.
No committee vote was taken at the hearing. The sponsor closed the record after public testimony and the committee moved on to its next agenda item, Assembly Bill 169.
