Committee advances ordinance to create cancer presumption for San Francisco police and firefighters

The Government Audit and Oversight Committee on Tuesday moved with a positive recommendation to the full Board of Supervisors an ordinance to amend the San Francisco Administrative Code to create a cancer presumption for police officers and firefighters who apply for industrial disability or death-as-a-result-of-duty retirement benefits.

The measure would create a rebuttable presumption that cancer suffered by a qualifying police officer or firefighter is industrial if the applicant can demonstrate work exposure to a carcinogen as defined by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). President David Chiu, the ordinance sponsor, said the change is intended to ease the burden on first responders and their families when illness appears linked to job exposures. "Our heroes should not have to prove cancer is job related while they are disabled and struggling," Chiu said.

Why it matters: supporters said the change would align San Francisco with state presumptions in workers' compensation and provide financial protection to families denied retirement benefits under current local rules. Multiple current and retired first responders described cancer diagnoses, workplace exposures and hardship during public comment. Tony Stefani, president of the San Francisco Firefighters Cancer Prevention Foundation, summarized published and local data: "Firefighters have higher rates of cancer due to toxic exposures," he told the committee.

Fiscal and technical details: Jay Hueyce, executive director of the San Francisco Retirement System, presented the consulting actuary's report required by the city charter. Hueyce said the actuary estimated that applying the presumption retrospectively to a set of past cases would have increased the system liability by about $900,000 — "less than half of a basis point" on an approximately $20 billion liability — and that even accounting for some pending applications the projected impact would remain small (on the order of one to one-and-a-half basis points). Hueyce cautioned that projecting future caseloads is difficult and that the report modeled several scenarios, but judged the short-term fiscal effect to be minor. "So the report basically says the impact will be minor," he said.

Support and testimony: the San Francisco Fire Department's chief, Joanne Hayes White, said the department supports the ordinance and noted participation in research with UCSF and UC Berkeley and new equipment and training to reduce exposures. Union leaders from San Francisco Firefighters Local 798 and the San Francisco Police Officers Association urged the committee to act, describing cases in which state or workers' compensation systems recognized job-related cancer while local retirement pension requests were denied. Tom O'Connor, president of Local 798, said the measure — which members have called "Ami's Law" in testimony — "will ensure that every firefighter or police officer...won't have to fight for a check." Retired Captain Mike Hebel described differences among California retirement systems and framed the ordinance as a fairness issue for city employees.

Next steps: Committee members moved the ordinance to the Board of Supervisors with a positive recommendation and no recorded objection; the clerk noted items acted on that day will appear on the Board agenda on July 22 for further consideration.

Clarifying notes: the ordinance mirrors the state's workers' compensation cancer presumption concept but applies specifically to the city's administrative code governing industrial disability and death retirement benefits. The consulting actuary report provided a scenario-based estimate of liability impact; the committee heard that exact future fiscal exposure depends on caseload and other variables.