This appeal arises pursuant to the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, Tex. Lab. Code Ann. § 401.001 et seq. (1989 Act). A contested case hearing was held on October 21, 2025, in (city), Texas, with (administrative law judge) presiding as the administrative law judge (ALJ). The ALJ resolved the disputed issue by deciding that the respondent (claimant) sustained a compensable injury, in the form of an occupational disease, with a date of injury of (date of injury). The appellant (self-insured) appealed. The claimant responded, urging affirmance.
DECISION
Reversed and remanded.
The parties stipulated, in part, that on (date of injury), the claimant was employed by the self-insured as a firefighter. The claimant testified he was 48 years old on (date of injury), and that he had been a firefighter for the self-insured for over 16 years. The claimant also testified he regularly responded on the scene to fires and events involving known carcinogens while working as a firefighter, had not been diagnosed with any type of cancer prior to (date of injury), neither he nor his spouse were smokers, and that he was diagnosed with prostate cancer on (date of injury).
The ALJ made the following findings of fact: upon becoming a firefighter the claimant had a physical examination that failed to reveal evidence of prostate cancer; the claimant was diagnosed with prostate cancer on (date of injury); at the time the claimant was diagnosed with prostate cancer he had been employed as a firefighter for more than five years; the claimant was seeking benefits for prostate cancer discovered during his employment as a firefighter; during his career as a firefighter for the employer the claimant regularly responded on the scene to calls involving fires or firefighting; and prostate cancer is listed in Texas Government Code Section 607.055(b). None of these findings were appealed. The ALJ also found that the presumption of Government Code Section 607.055 applies in this case. This finding is supported by the evidence.
The self-insured contends on appeal that once the ALJ determined Government Code Section 607.055 applied in this case he was required by Government Code Section 607.058(c) to make a specific finding of fact and conclusion of law regarding the expert report in evidence to rebut the presumption.
Government Code Section 607.058 provides the following:
(a) A presumption under Section 607.053, 607.054, 607.0545, 607.055, or 607.056 may be rebutted through a showing by a preponderance of the evidence that a risk factor, accident, hazard, or other cause not associated with the individual’s service as a detention officer, custodial officer, firefighter, peace officer, or emergency medical technician was a substantial factor in bringing about the individual’s disease or illness, without which the disease or illness would not have occurred.
(b) A rebuttal offered under this section must include a statement by the person offering the rebuttal that describes, in detail, the evidence that the person reviewed before making the determination that a cause not associated with the individual’s service as a detention officer, custodial officer, firefighter, peace officer, or emergency medical technician was a substantial factor in bringing about the individual’s disease or illness, without which the disease or illness would not have occurred.
(c) In addressing an argument based on a rebuttal offered under this section, an [ALJ] shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law that consider whether a qualified expert, relying on evidence-based medicine, stated the opinion that, based on reasonable medical probability, an identified risk factor, accident, hazard, or other cause not associated with the individual’s service as a detention officer, custodial officer, firefighter, peace officer, or emergency medical technician was a substantial factor in bringing about the individual’s disease or illness, without which the disease or illness would not have occurred.
The self-insured presented evidence as required under Government Code Section 607.058(b) to rebut the presumption under Government Code Section 607.055. The ALJ did make a finding of fact that the self-insured did not persuasively establish by a preponderance of the evidence that, based upon reasonable medical probability, an identified risk factor, accident, hazard, or other cause not associated with the claimant’s employment was a substantial factor in bringing about the claimant’s prostate cancer, without which prostate cancer would not have occurred. The ALJ also made a conclusion of law that the self-insured did not persuasively rebut the presumption of compensability provided by Government Code Section 607.055. However, the ALJ did not make a finding of fact or conclusion of law that considers whether a qualified expert, relying on evidence-based-medicine, stated the opinion that, based on reasonable medical probability, an identified risk factor, accident, hazard, or other cause not associated with the claimant’s service as a firefighter was a substantial factor in bringing about the claimant’s disease or illness, without which the disease or illness would not have occurred, which is required under Government Code Section 607.058(c). We therefore reverse the ALJ’s determination that the claimant sustained a compensable injury, in the form of an occupational disease, with a date of injury of (date of injury), and remand this issue to the ALJ for further action consistent with this decision.
REMAND INSTRUCTIONS
On remand the ALJ is to make findings of fact and conclusions of law as to whether a qualified expert, relying on evidence-based-medicine, stated the opinion that, based on reasonable medical probability, an identified risk factor, accident, hazard, or other cause not associated with the claimant’s service as a firefighter was a substantial factor in bringing about the claimant’s disease or illness, without which the disease or illness would not have occurred. The ALJ is then to make findings of fact and conclusions of law as to whether the self-insured rebutted the presumption pursuant to Government Code Section 607.058. Finally, the ALJ is to determine whether the claimant sustained a compensable injury, in the form of an occupational disease, with a date of injury of (date of injury).
The true corporate name of the insurance carrier is (a self-insured governmental entity) and the name and address of its registered agent for service of process is
(NAME)
(ADDRESS)
(CITY), TEXAS (ZIP CODE).
Carisa Space-Beam
Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Cristina Beceiro
Appeals Judge
Margaret L. Turner
Appeals Judge