Firefighters press lawmakers to clarify compensation rule for hypertension after denials at commission

Representatives of Maryland's career and volunteer fire services urged the House Economic Matters Committee to pass House Bill 217, which would revise the statutory presumption that hypertension among firefighters is an occupational disease so that qualifying elevated blood pressure and treatment would meet the law's disablement requirement for compensation.

"Hypertension affects about three out of four first responders," said Dale Bowen of the Maryland State Firefighters Association, noting that cardiovascular disease accounts for a large share of line-of-duty deaths. Attorney Charlie Schultz, who represents firefighters in compensation cases, said hypertension is "commonly referred to as the silent killer" and that the current requirement that a worker show missed workdays often prevents meritorious claims from proceeding.

Several firefighters described personal episodes and denials at the Workers' Compensation Commission. Firefighter Monte Arrington testified that a recent asymptomatic episode left him home for seven days for treatment but a subsequent claim was denied on disablement grounds.

Opponents including the Maryland Defense Counsel and the American Property Casualty Insurance Association urged the committee to reject or amend the bill. They said the commission already evaluates disablement on a case-by-case basis, that hypertension standards are evaluated under National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) medical standards and that allowing non-physician experts or changing the disablement standard could create legal and evidentiary disputes. MDC said historically most hypertension claims handled by Chesapeake Employers were not denied for lack of disablement and expressed concern about unintended consequences.

The committee did not vote. Members asked proponents and opponents to consider technical revisions to ensure the bill targets only the disability-test issue for hypertension and to avoid broader changes in evidentiary standards for other occupational diseases.

Ending: Sponsors argued the measure would better protect firefighters from a life-threatening condition; opponents warned the statutory change could produce procedural and evidentiary conflicts at adjudication. The committee asked both sides to negotiate narrower language.