By JONATHAN SHARP
Chief Financial Officer
Environmental Litigation Group, P.C.,
Firefighting remains one of the most hazardous professions. In addition to visible threats such as collapsing structures, poisonous smoke, and thermal injuries, these first responders face prolonged exposure to toxic substances, including per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
Often dubbed “forever chemicals” – these synthetic compounds were once praised for their exceptional strength and chemical stability, making them integral to various firefighting products, such as turnout gear and firefighting foam. Yet despite their advantages, PFAS have raised public health concerns as they can persist in the environment and accumulate in the human body over time, increasing the risk of developing several types of cancer for those exposed.
To address this deadly occupational illness, state governments nationwide enacted presumptive cancer laws to simplify and expedite the claims process for firefighters seeking compensation and medical support. Although the policy represents a significant step forward, it falls short of resolving the entire issue in New Mexico, as its coverage is limited to full-time and paid personnel.
This means volunteer firefighters—who respond to the same emergencies and face the same toxic exposures as their career counterparts—do not receive the same privilege and are explicitly excluded from the protections the legislation aims to provide.
Tragically, such a limitation is particularly concerning in areas where volunteer responders continue to play a crucial role in emergency response operations.
Disparities in Legal Protections
New Mexico’s Senate Bill 261—known as the presumptive cancer law—was primarily enforced to remove barriers for firefighters diagnosed with certain cancers by eliminating the requirement to prove direct causation of their disease. This legal presumption is vital to secure timely access to treatment and compensation needed by affected personnel to recover from their health struggles. However, the statute is narrowly defined, as it only applies to full-time non-volunteer firefighters employed by the state or a local government entity. Unfortunately, those serving as volunteers—regardless of their years of service or the severity of environmental toxic exposure—are outright excluded.
This disparity in coverage carries significant consequences, mainly since volunteers comprise the majority of the firefighting workforce in New Mexico. Data indicate that 77.5% of firefighters in the state are volunteers, highlighting the heavy reliance of fire departments here on unpaid personnel to meet their emergency response needs. This reality also mirrors a broader national trend, as at least 52%—more than half—of the 1,054,500 active firefighters nationwide serve on a volunteer basis. Many of these first responders operate in rural areas where paid departments are limited or unavailable. And while they respond to emergencies using the same toxic gear and firefighting foam, growing evidence suggests that they also face greater toxic exposure. A 2021 study by Rutgers University found that volunteer firefighters have higher PFAS concentrations in their blood than both career personnel and the general population.
Despite their crucial role in the state and even the country’s fire services, they remain excluded from New Mexico’s presumptive cancer legislation. So, if they develop cancer after years of documented service, they must independently demonstrate that their illness is work-related—a protracted process that often results in financial and healthcare burdens. Essentially, this legal distinction effectively divides the workforce based on employment status rather than occupational risk, leaving most first responders in New Mexico without the same path to care and compensation that is only available to full-time personnel.
The Need for Legislative Reform
New Mexico’s presumptive cancer law fails to protect the very responders it relies on most. By restricting eligibility to full-time and paid personnel, the statute excludes the majority of the state’s firefighting force from critical medical and financial safeguards. This is not a technical gap—it is a legislative failure that places thousands of responders at avoidable risk.
The state government and lawmakers must consider that volunteers face the same occupational hazards as their career counterparts. In many communities, they are also frequently tapped to respond to various emergencies. Yet their employment status disqualifies them from coverage, denying them access to state-backed benefits even when their cancer is a result of workplace exposure. This policy distinction lacks scientific justification and only reflects a flawed approach to occupational health protection.
Other states, such as California and Colorado, have already recognized this gap and amended their laws to include volunteer personnel. New Mexico must do the same by updating its statute to ensure equal coverage for all firefighters, regardless of their employment status. After all, volunteers across the state have served selflessly, dedicating themselves without expecting long-term benefits. As such, when they develop cancer from known toxic exposures in the line of duty, they should not be forced to navigate the system alone. Equal risk warrants equal protection, and the state law must reflect that standard.
About the Author
Jonathan Sharp is the Chief Financial Officer of the Environmental Litigation Group, P.C., a law firm in Birmingham, Alabama, that offers honest and transparent legal assistance to victims of toxic exposure and their families.
