A. Respiratory diseases that cause (i) the death of volunteer or salaried firefighters or Department of Emergency Management hazardous materials officers or (ii) any health condition or impairment of such firefighters or Department of Emergency Management hazardous materials officers resulting in total or partial disability shall be presumed to be occupational diseases, suffered in the line of duty, that are covered by this title unless such presumption is overcome by a preponderance of competent evidence to the contrary.
B. Hypertension or heart disease causing the death of, or any health condition or impairment resulting in total or partial disability of any of the following persons who have completed five years of service in their position as (i) salaried or volunteer firefighters, (ii) members of the State Police Officers' Retirement System, (iii) members of county, city or town police departments, (iv) sheriffs and deputy sheriffs, (v) Department of Emergency Management hazardous materials officers, (vi) city sergeants or deputy city sergeants of the City of Richmond, (vii) Virginia Marine Police officers, (viii) conservation police officers who are full-time sworn members of the enforcement division of the Department of Wildlife Resources, (ix) Capitol Police officers, (x) special agents of the Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Control Authority appointed under the provisions of Chapter 1 (§ 4.1-100 et seq.) of Title 4.1, (xi) for such period that the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority voluntarily subjects itself to the provisions of this chapter as provided in § 65.2-305, officers of the police force established and maintained by the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, (xii) officers of the police force established and maintained by the Norfolk Airport Authority, (xiii) sworn officers of the police force established and maintained by the Virginia Port Authority, (xiv) campus police officers appointed under Article 3 (§ 23.1-809 et seq.) of Chapter 8 of Title 23.1 and employed by any public institution of higher education, and (xv) salaried or volunteer emergency medical services personnel, as defined in § 32.1-111.1, when such emergency medical services personnel is operating in a locality that has legally adopted a resolution declaring that it will provide one or more of the presumptions under this subsection, shall be presumed to be occupational diseases, suffered in the line of duty, that are covered by this title unless such presumption is overcome by a preponderance of competent evidence to the contrary.
C. Leukemia or pancreatic, prostate, rectal, throat, ovarian, breast, colon, brain, testicular, bladder, or thyroid cancer causing the death of, or any health condition or impairment resulting in total or partial disability of, any of the following persons who have completed five years of service in their position as (i) salaried or volunteer firefighters; (ii) Department of Emergency Management hazardous materials officers; (iii) commercial vehicle enforcement officers or motor carrier safety troopers employed by the Department of State Police; (iv) arson investigators or bomb investigators employed by the Department of State Police; (v) full-time sworn members of the enforcement division of the Department of Motor Vehicles; or (vi) members of the State Police Officers' Retirement System who collect, analyze, or handle hazardous materials, as defined in § 44-146.34, infectious biological substances and radiological agents, as defined in § 18.2-52.1, fentanyl or fentanyl analogs, or methamphetamine, its salts, isomers, or salts of its isomers shall be presumed to be an occupational disease, suffered in the line of duty, that is covered by this title, unless such presumption is overcome by a preponderance of competent evidence to the contrary. For colon, brain, or testicular cancer, the presumption shall not apply for any individual who was diagnosed with such a condition before July 1, 2020. For bladder or thyroid cancer, the presumption shall not apply for any individual who was diagnosed with such a condition before July 1, 2023. For throat cancer, the presumption shall include cancer that forms in the tissues of the pharynx, larynx, adenoid, tonsil, esophagus, trachea, nasopharynx, oropharynx, or hypopharynx.
D. The presumptions described in subsections A, B, and C shall only apply if persons entitled to invoke them have, if requested by the private employer, appointing authority or governing body employing them, undergone preemployment physical examinations that (i) were conducted prior to the making of any claims under this title that rely on such presumptions, (ii) were performed by physicians whose qualifications are as prescribed by the private employer, appointing authority or governing body employing such persons, (iii) included such appropriate laboratory and other diagnostic studies as the private employer, appointing authorities or governing bodies may have prescribed, and (iv) found such persons free of respiratory diseases, hypertension, cancer or heart disease at the time of such examinations.
E. Persons making claims under this title who rely on such presumptions shall, upon the request of private employers, appointing authorities or governing bodies employing such persons, submit to physical examinations (i) conducted by physicians selected by such employers, authorities, bodies or their representatives and (ii) consisting of such tests and studies as may reasonably be required by such physicians. However, a qualified physician, selected and compensated by the claimant, may, at the election of such claimant, be present at such examination.
F. Whenever a claim for death benefits is made under this title and the presumptions of this section are invoked, any person entitled to make such claim shall, upon the request of the appropriate private employer, appointing authority or governing body that had employed the deceased, submit the body of the deceased to a postmortem examination as may be directed by the Commission. A qualified physician, selected and compensated by the person entitled to make the claim, may, at the election of such claimant, be present at such postmortem examination.
G. Volunteer law-enforcement chaplains, auxiliary and reserve deputy sheriffs, and auxiliary and reserve police are not included within the coverage of this section.
H. For purposes of this section, "firefighter" includes special forest wardens designated pursuant to § 10.1-1135 and any persons who are employed by or contract with private employers primarily to perform firefighting services.
1975, c. 330, § 65.1-4.1; 1976, cc. 187, 772, § 65.1-47.1; 1977, cc. 326, 620; 1978, c. 761; 1983, c. 357; 1987, c. 308; 1991, cc. 354, 355; 1994, cc. 791, 960; 1997, c. 714; 1999, cc. 581, 597, 602, 604, 607; 2000, c. 1013; 2001, cc. 330, 581; 2002, cc. 309, 737, 789; 2007, cc. 143, 616; 2009, c. 515; 2012, c. 776; 2015, cc. 38, 502, 503, 730; 2020, cc. 498, 499, 958; 2021, Sp. Sess. I, cc. 436, 437; 2023, cc. 104, 105, 204, 205; 2025, cc. 392, 404.
Notes of Decisions
Com., Off. of Comptroller v. Barker, 659 S.E.2d 502 (Va. 2008).
· cites it 57× “Therefore, the presumption clauses [of Code § 65.2-402] do not apply and I must deny *504 your request for line of duty benefits.”
City of Hopewell v. Tirpak, 502 S.E.2d 161 (Va. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 141× “In addition, notwithstanding case law construing the meaning of "disease" under the Act, [1] the General Assembly, by enacting Code § 65.2-402, expressly indicated its intent that occupational "heart disease" will be included as a compensable "disease.”
Tomes v. James City (Cnty. Of) Fire, 573 S.E.2d 312 (Va. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 24× “The commission ruled both claims were *427 for the same lung condition, which claimant, because he was not entitled to the benefit of the presumption in Code § 65.2-402, failed to prove was a compensable occupational disease.”
Bass v. City of Richmond Police Dep't, 515 S.E.2d 557 (Va. 1999).
· cites it 25× “All three cases present the question whether the Workers’ Compensation Commission properly concluded that the employers failed to present sufficient evidence to overcome the occupational disease presumption established in Code § 65.2-402(B). The facts in the three cases differ…”
Town of Waverly Law Enf't v. Owens, 657 S.E.2d 161 (Va. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 43× “2-402(B) affords a police officer suffering from heart disease a presumption that his heart disease was caused by his or her employment and is a compensable “occupational disease, suffered in the line of duty.”
George H. Samartino v. Fairfax Cnty. Fire & Rescue, 769 S.E.2d 692 (Va. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 23× “2-402(0 he sought temporary total disability benefits for September 11, 2012, September 13, 2012, September 15-19, 2012, October 3, 2012, October 18, 2012, October 19, 2012, October 30, 2012, December 10, 2012, and March 3, 2013, as well as a lifetime award for medical expenses.…”
Medlin v. Cnty. of Henrico Police, 542 S.E.2d 33 (Va. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 16× “1 The employer responds that the commission properly found the employer rebutted the Code § 65.2-402 presumption and that Medlin and Vass both failed to prove, “by clear and convincing evidence,” that their heart disease arose out of and in the course of their employment.”
Jones v. Commonwealth Ex Rel. Von Moll, 814 S.E.2d 192 (Va. 2018).
· cites it 10× “Jones claims that because his injury is listed within Code § 65.2-402, he should be able to benefit from the five-year look-back provision in Code § 65.”
Waynesboro Police v. Coffey, 544 S.E.2d 860 (Va. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 14× “We find no error in the commission’s decision that employer failed to rebut the statutory presumption of Code § 65.2-402 that Coffey’s heart disease was caused by his employment.”
Larry George Snellings v. Stafford Cnty. Fire & Rescue Dep't, 750 S.E.2d 223 (Va. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 20× “Larry George Snellings (“claimant”) appeals the determination of the Workers’ Compensation Commission (“the commission”) that the presumption in Code § 65.2-402 does not apply to his claim for benefits under the Workers’ Compensation Act (“Act”).”
Com./dept. of State Police v. Haga, 442 S.E.2d 424 (Va. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 12× “SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE TO REBUT THE PRESUMPTION The commission found that VDSP failed to overcome the presumption of Code § 65.2-402 by a preponderance of competent evidence.”
City of Portsmouth Sheriff's Dep't v. Clark, 518 S.E.2d 342 (Va. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 14× “Employer contends the commission erred in holding that employer failed to rebut the statutory presumption of Code § 65.2-402(B) that claimant’s heart condition is an occupational disease covered by the Act.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 65.2-402(13) — 1 case
City of Hopewell v. Tirpak, 502 S.E.2d 161 (Va. Ct. App. 1998).
“In addition, notwithstanding case law construing the meaning of "disease" under the Act, [1] the General Assembly, by enacting Code § 65.2-402, expressly indicated its intent that occupational "heart disease" will be included as a compensable "disease.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 65.2-402(33) — 1 case
Larry George Snellings v. Stafford Cnty. Fire & Rescue Dep't, 750 S.E.2d 223 (Va. Ct. App. 2013).
“Larry George Snellings (“claimant”) appeals the determination of the Workers’ Compensation Commission (“the commission”) that the presumption in Code § 65.2-402 does not apply to his claim for benefits under the Workers’ Compensation Act (“Act”).”
— Va. Code Ann. § 65.2-402(6) — 1 case
Com./dept. of State Police v. Haga, 442 S.E.2d 424 (Va. Ct. App. 1994).
“SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE TO REBUT THE PRESUMPTION The commission found that VDSP failed to overcome the presumption of Code § 65.2-402 by a preponderance of competent evidence.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 65.2-402(A) — 10 cases
Tomes v. James City (Cnty. Of) Fire, 573 S.E.2d 312 (Va. Ct. App. 2002).
“The commission ruled both claims were *427 for the same lung condition, which claimant, because he was not entitled to the benefit of the presumption in Code § 65.2-402, failed to prove was a compensable occupational disease.”
City of Hopewell v. Tirpak, 502 S.E.2d 161 (Va. Ct. App. 1998).
“In addition, notwithstanding case law construing the meaning of "disease" under the Act, [1] the General Assembly, by enacting Code § 65.2-402, expressly indicated its intent that occupational "heart disease" will be included as a compensable "disease.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 65.2-402(B) — 57 cases
City of Hopewell v. Tirpak, 502 S.E.2d 161 (Va. Ct. App. 1998).
“In addition, notwithstanding case law construing the meaning of "disease" under the Act, [1] the General Assembly, by enacting Code § 65.2-402, expressly indicated its intent that occupational "heart disease" will be included as a compensable "disease.”
Bass v. City of Richmond Police Dep't, 515 S.E.2d 557 (Va. 1999).
“All three cases present the question whether the Workers’ Compensation Commission properly concluded that the employers failed to present sufficient evidence to overcome the occupational disease presumption established in Code § 65.2-402(B). The facts in the three cases differ…”
Com., Off. of Comptroller v. Barker, 659 S.E.2d 502 (Va. 2008).
“Therefore, the presumption clauses [of Code § 65.2-402] do not apply and I must deny *504 your request for line of duty benefits.”
Waynesboro Police v. Coffey, 544 S.E.2d 860 (Va. Ct. App. 2001).
“We find no error in the commission’s decision that employer failed to rebut the statutory presumption of Code § 65.2-402 that Coffey’s heart disease was caused by his employment.”
City of Portsmouth Sheriff's Dep't v. Clark, 518 S.E.2d 342 (Va. Ct. App. 1999).
“Employer contends the commission erred in holding that employer failed to rebut the statutory presumption of Code § 65.2-402(B) that claimant’s heart condition is an occupational disease covered by the Act.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 65.2-402(C) — 4 cases
George H. Samartino v. Fairfax Cnty. Fire & Rescue, 769 S.E.2d 692 (Va. Ct. App. 2015).
“2-402(0 he sought temporary total disability benefits for September 11, 2012, September 13, 2012, September 15-19, 2012, October 3, 2012, October 18, 2012, October 19, 2012, October 30, 2012, December 10, 2012, and March 3, 2013, as well as a lifetime award for medical expenses.…”
Jones v. Commonwealth Ex Rel. Von Moll, 814 S.E.2d 192 (Va. 2018).
“Jones claims that because his injury is listed within Code § 65.2-402, he should be able to benefit from the five-year look-back provision in Code § 65.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 65.2-402(D) — 9 cases
Town of Waverly Law Enf't v. Owens, 657 S.E.2d 161 (Va. Ct. App. 2008).
“2-402(B) affords a police officer suffering from heart disease a presumption that his heart disease was caused by his or her employment and is a compensable “occupational disease, suffered in the line of duty.”
Com., Off. of Comptroller v. Barker, 659 S.E.2d 502 (Va. 2008).
“Therefore, the presumption clauses [of Code § 65.2-402] do not apply and I must deny *504 your request for line of duty benefits.”
Medlin v. Cnty. of Henrico Police, 542 S.E.2d 33 (Va. Ct. App. 2001).
“1 The employer responds that the commission properly found the employer rebutted the Code § 65.2-402 presumption and that Medlin and Vass both failed to prove, “by clear and convincing evidence,” that their heart disease arose out of and in the course of their employment.”
City of Hopewell v. Tirpak, 502 S.E.2d 161 (Va. Ct. App. 1998).
“In addition, notwithstanding case law construing the meaning of "disease" under the Act, [1] the General Assembly, by enacting Code § 65.2-402, expressly indicated its intent that occupational "heart disease" will be included as a compensable "disease.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 65.2-402(D)(iv) — 2 cases
Com., Off. of Comptroller v. Barker, 659 S.E.2d 502 (Va. 2008).
“Therefore, the presumption clauses [of Code § 65.2-402] do not apply and I must deny *504 your request for line of duty benefits.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 65.2-402(F) — 1 case
Waynesboro Police v. Coffey, 544 S.E.2d 860 (Va. Ct. App. 2001).
“We find no error in the commission’s decision that employer failed to rebut the statutory presumption of Code § 65.2-402 that Coffey’s heart disease was caused by his employment.”
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.