A. The occupational diseases as defined by section 23-901, paragraph 13, subdivision (c) shall be deemed to arise out of the employment only if all of the following six requirements exist:
1. There is a direct causal connection between the conditions under which the work is performed and the occupational disease.
2. The disease can be seen to have followed as a natural incident of the work as a result of the exposure occasioned by the nature of the employment.
3. The disease can be fairly traced to the employment as the proximate cause.
4. The disease does not come from a hazard to which workers would have been equally exposed outside of the employment.
5. The disease is incidental to the character of the business and not independent of the relation of employer and employee.
6. The disease after its contraction appears to have had its origin in a risk connected with the employment, and to have flowed from that source as a natural consequence, although it need not have been foreseen or expected.
B. Notwithstanding subsection A of this section and section 23-1043.01, any disease, infirmity or impairment of a peace officer's health that is caused by brain, bladder, rectal or colon cancer, lymphoma, leukemia or adenocarcinoma or mesothelioma of the respiratory tract and that results in disability or death is presumed to be an occupational disease as defined in section 23-901, paragraph 13, subdivision (c) and is deemed to arise out of employment.
C. The presumption provided in subsection B of this section is granted if all of the following apply:
1. The peace officer passed a physical examination before employment and the examination did not indicate evidence of cancer.
2. The peace officer was assigned to hazardous duty for at least five years.
D. Subsection B of this section applies to both of the following:
1. Peace officers currently in service.
2. Former peace officers who are sixty-five years of age or younger and who are diagnosed with a cancer that is listed in subsection B of this section not more than fifteen years after the peace officer's last date of employment as a peace officer.
E. Subsection B of this section does not apply to cancers of the respiratory tract if there is evidence that the peace officer's exposure to cigarettes or tobacco products outside of the scope of the peace officer's official duties is a substantial contributing cause in the development of the cancer.
F. The presumption provided in subsection B of this section may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence that there is a specific cause of the cancer other than an occupational exposure to a carcinogen as defined by the international agency for research on cancer.
G. For the purposes of this section, "peace officer" means a full-time peace officer who was regularly assigned to hazardous duty as a part of a special operations, special weapons and tactics, explosive ordinance disposal or hazardous materials response unit.
Notes of Decisions
Ford v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 703 P.2d 453 (Ariz. 1985).
· cites it 20× “This question, which would seem to answer itself has vexed Arizona courts for over fifty years.”
Grammatico v. Indus. Comm'n, 90 P.3d 211 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 10× “2d at 462 (holding A.R.S. § 23-901.01 (1995), which listed factors concerning whether employment caused occupational disease, cannot be constitutionally interpreted to require proof that industrial exposure was sole or exclusive cause of disease).”
Aguirre v. Indus. Comm'n of Ariz., 445 P.3d 1040 (Ariz. 2019).
· cites it 8× “¶3 After Aguirre's claim was denied by the City's workers' compensation carrier, CopperPoint American Insurance Company ("CopperPoint"), he requested a hearing before the ICA.”
Phoenix Pest Control v. Indus. Comm'n, 655 P.2d 39 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982).
· cites it 17× “As indicated in the administrative law judge’s ruling, he rejected that premise, ruling instead that a claimant alone has the sole option to determine whether “he wishes to proceed under A.R.S. § 23-901.01 [the provisions governing an occupational disease claim] or whether he…”
Ford v. Indus. Comm'n, 703 P.2d 537 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 26× “In his award, the AU held that claimant’s claim for compensability due to a pulmonary condition must be considered under the occupational disease provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, A.R.S. § 23-901.01. The AU found that there was a conflict in medical evidence and…”
McCreary v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 835 P.2d 469 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 7× “Further, A.R.S. § 23-901.01 provides that an occupational disease shall be deemed to arise out of employment only if all of the following six requirements exist: 1.”
Grammatico v. Indus. Comm'n, 117 P.3d 786 (Ariz. 2005).
· cites it 2× “2d at 462 (holding that A.R.S. § 23-901.01 (1985), which lists factors that indicate whether employment caused an occupational disease, cannot be constitutionally interpreted to require proof that the disease was solely or exclusively caused by the industrial exposure).”
Hahn v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 252 P.3d 1036 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 21× “¶ 3 At the hearing, the parties disputed the application of A.R.S. § 23-901.01, which defines occupational diseases and provides a statutory presumption that a disease "arise[s] out of employment" if certain provisions are met.”
Aguirre v. goodyear/copperpoint, 432 P.3d 946 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 12× “§ 23-901(13)(c), which is compensable only if the claimant meets six requirements, including proof of a “direct causal connection between the conditions under which the work is performed and the occupational disease,” A.R.S. § 23-901.01(A). The compensability of certain…”
Lorentzen v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 790 P.2d 765 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 4× “01(4), and because the disease was not incidental to the character of the business and was independent of both the character of the business and the relation of employer and employee. See A.R.S. § 23-901.01(5).”
City of Littleton v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 370 P.3d 157 (Colo. 2016).
“, Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 23-901.01(B) (2016). The statutes vary considerably with respect to the quantum and level of proof required to rebut or overcome the presumption.”
Nelson v. Indus. Comm'n, 585 P.2d 887 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1978).
· cites it 2× “§ 23-901(9)(c), but places special restrictions on claims arising out of conditions determined to be occupational disease, A.R.S. § 23-901.01—901.05. 2 . A.R.S. § 23-901.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-901.01(1) — 1 case
Ford v. Indus. Comm'n, 703 P.2d 537 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984).
“In his award, the AU held that claimant’s claim for compensability due to a pulmonary condition must be considered under the occupational disease provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, A.R.S. § 23-901.01. The AU found that there was a conflict in medical evidence and…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-901.01(3) — 3 cases
Ford v. Indus. Comm'n, 703 P.2d 537 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984).
“In his award, the AU held that claimant’s claim for compensability due to a pulmonary condition must be considered under the occupational disease provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, A.R.S. § 23-901.01. The AU found that there was a conflict in medical evidence and…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-901.01(4) — 2 cases
McCreary v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 835 P.2d 469 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992).
“Further, A.R.S. § 23-901.01 provides that an occupational disease shall be deemed to arise out of employment only if all of the following six requirements exist: 1.”
Lorentzen v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 790 P.2d 765 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).
“01(4), and because the disease was not incidental to the character of the business and was independent of both the character of the business and the relation of employer and employee. See A.R.S. § 23-901.01(5).”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-901.01(5) — 1 case
Lorentzen v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 790 P.2d 765 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).
“01(4), and because the disease was not incidental to the character of the business and was independent of both the character of the business and the relation of employer and employee. See A.R.S. § 23-901.01(5).”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-901.01(A) — 6 cases
Aguirre v. goodyear/copperpoint, 432 P.3d 946 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
“§ 23-901(13)(c), which is compensable only if the claimant meets six requirements, including proof of a “direct causal connection between the conditions under which the work is performed and the occupational disease,” A.R.S. § 23-901.01(A). The compensability of certain…”
Hahn v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 252 P.3d 1036 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
“¶ 3 At the hearing, the parties disputed the application of A.R.S. § 23-901.01, which defines occupational diseases and provides a statutory presumption that a disease "arise[s] out of employment" if certain provisions are met.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-901.01(A)(1) — 3 cases
Hahn v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 252 P.3d 1036 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
“¶ 3 At the hearing, the parties disputed the application of A.R.S. § 23-901.01, which defines occupational diseases and provides a statutory presumption that a disease "arise[s] out of employment" if certain provisions are met.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-901.01(A)(3) — 2 cases
Hahn v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 252 P.3d 1036 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
“¶ 3 At the hearing, the parties disputed the application of A.R.S. § 23-901.01, which defines occupational diseases and provides a statutory presumption that a disease "arise[s] out of employment" if certain provisions are met.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-901.01(B) — 9 cases
Aguirre v. Indus. Comm'n of Ariz., 445 P.3d 1040 (Ariz. 2019).
“¶3 After Aguirre's claim was denied by the City's workers' compensation carrier, CopperPoint American Insurance Company ("CopperPoint"), he requested a hearing before the ICA.”
City of Littleton v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 370 P.3d 157 (Colo. 2016).
“, Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 23-901.01(B) (2016). The statutes vary considerably with respect to the quantum and level of proof required to rebut or overcome the presumption.”
Hahn v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 252 P.3d 1036 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
“¶ 3 At the hearing, the parties disputed the application of A.R.S. § 23-901.01, which defines occupational diseases and provides a statutory presumption that a disease "arise[s] out of employment" if certain provisions are met.”
Aguirre v. goodyear/copperpoint, 432 P.3d 946 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
“§ 23-901(13)(c), which is compensable only if the claimant meets six requirements, including proof of a “direct causal connection between the conditions under which the work is performed and the occupational disease,” A.R.S. § 23-901.01(A). The compensability of certain…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-901.01(B)(1) — 4 cases
Aguirre v. Indus. Comm'n of Ariz., 445 P.3d 1040 (Ariz. 2019).
“¶3 After Aguirre's claim was denied by the City's workers' compensation carrier, CopperPoint American Insurance Company ("CopperPoint"), he requested a hearing before the ICA.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-901.01(B)(3) — 1 case
Aguirre v. goodyear/copperpoint, 432 P.3d 946 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
“§ 23-901(13)(c), which is compensable only if the claimant meets six requirements, including proof of a “direct causal connection between the conditions under which the work is performed and the occupational disease,” A.R.S. § 23-901.01(A). The compensability of certain…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-901.01(C) — 4 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-901.01(C)(1) — 2 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-901.01(C)(3) — 5 cases
Aguirre v. Indus. Comm'n of Ariz., 445 P.3d 1040 (Ariz. 2019).
“¶3 After Aguirre's claim was denied by the City's workers' compensation carrier, CopperPoint American Insurance Company ("CopperPoint"), he requested a hearing before the ICA.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-901.01(C)(4) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-901.01(D) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-901.01(E) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-901.01(F) — 3 cases
Aguirre v. goodyear/copperpoint, 432 P.3d 946 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
“§ 23-901(13)(c), which is compensable only if the claimant meets six requirements, including proof of a “direct causal connection between the conditions under which the work is performed and the occupational disease,” A.R.S. § 23-901.01(A). The compensability of certain…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.