(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 administrative law judge 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.

(d) Expired.

Added by Acts 2005, 79th Leg., ch. 695, § 3, eff. Sept. 1, 2005. Amended by Acts 2015, 84th Leg., ch. 224 (H.B. 1388), § 1, eff. May 29, 2015; Acts 2019, 86th Leg., ch. 701 (S.B. 2551), § 2, eff. June 10, 2019; Acts 2019, 86th Leg., ch. 993 (S.B. 1582), § 8, eff. Sept. 1, 2019; Acts 2021, 87th Leg., ch. 505 (S.B. 22), § 7, eff. June 14, 2021.