- Cancer (prostate)
- Exposure (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons)
- Firefighter
- Presumptions (firefighter)
The issue under appeal was initial entitlement to benefits for prostate cancer. The worker's representative submitted that the worker was exposed to hazardous chemicals and known carcinogens when he cleaned bunker gear for many years without any personal protective equipment (PPE).
The appeal was allowed.The Board has a policy specifically dealing with cancer in firefighters. The policy is entitled "Cancer in Firefighters and Investigators" and is set out in OPM Document No. 23-02-01. If a worker with a prescribed cancer meets the prescribed minimum employment duration, the cancer is presumed to have an occupational cause and the worker is entitled to benefits for the disease. However, if the worker does not meet the minimum employment duration, then the presumption does not apply and the case will be determined on its individual merits. The medical articles indicated that firefighters are at higher risk for prostate cancer, in part due to exposure to PAHs. This association between prostate cancer and firefighting work is also recognized in OPM Document No. 23-02-01. The Panel accepted that, in addition to his firefighting duties (which involved putting out house, garage, apartment, pesticide and garbage fires), the worker was involved in cleaning bunker gear. Before 2015 the worker performed this work without PPE and adequate ventilation. The worker testified that there was no way of knowing what had soiled the gear. Approximately 50% of his workday was spent cleaning bunker gear. The Panel found it likely that these duties, performed on a daily basis, would have exposed the worker to the byproducts of firefighting which was on the soiled firefighting gear. While the worker did not meet the 15 year threshold at which his cancer would be presumed to be work-related under that Board's policy, his period of exposure very closely approximated the policy exposure threshold. The worker had worked as a firefighter for 14 years prior to his prostate cancer diagnosis. The fact that the worker's exposure was close to the level at which a causal connection between his work duties and his disease would have been presumed under the Board's policy was a factor which counted strongly in favour of a work-related cause when assessing the individual merits of this appeal (see Decision No. 3451/18). The Panel found it more likely than not that the worker's occupational exposures as a firefighter significantly contributed to the development of his prostate cancer.