By Don Stacom
The Hartford Courant
MANCHESTER, Conn. — As cancer survivors who still work as firefighters, Russell Donovan of Meriden and Jeffrey Sneller of Manchester say House Bill 5629 offers desperately needed protection for emergency service workers who suffer heart attacks, infectious diseases or cancer because of their jobs.
Town Managers Steve Werbner of Tolland and John Weichsel of Southington take a very different view, warning that 5629 would create a horrific burden for taxpayers if it’s turned into law.
Both sides lined up a series of speakers to pitch their cases at a legislative committee hearing Tuesday afternoon, and each insisted that fairness is on their side.
Firefighters argued that they’re endangered by airborne carcinogens at fire scenes, and deserve workers’ compensation in case they get cancer.
About 30 firefighters in dress uniforms jammed into the hearing room at the Legislative Office Building in Hartford and more than 100 others stood just outside the entryways, eager to show the labor and public employees committee their support for the proposed legislation. Many of them nodded vigorously when speakers praised the bill, which would restore some of the heart and hypertension protections that the General Assembly removed 12 years ago.
“What cost is too much to protect the lives and families of those who protect our lives and families?” asked Tom Carusello, political director of the AFL-CIO in Connecticut, drawing nods of assent from firefighters.
Although their numbers were far smaller, municipal officials and their lobbyists lined up for a turn at the microphone, where each of them insisted the bill is needless, unreasonable and a potential budget-buster.
“This bill is fiscally irresponsible,” Werbner warned the committee. “The real-world impacts would be devastating to local budgets and taxpayers.”
At issue is what happens when a firefighter comes down with one of several types of cancer that might be job-related. Currently, they must demonstrate their work triggered the disease before they get workers’ compensation benefits. The union-supported House Bill 5629 would award those benefits automatically unless a town or city could prove that the job wasn’t the cause.
Sneller, a 31-year-old father of three who was diagnosed with testicular cancer two years ago, testified that the current system isn’t fair.
“There’s a medical study showing firefighters have 102 percent higher risk of testicular cancer than the average person, and another one saying we’re four times more likely to get it,” Sneller said. “But my oncologist said I probably couldn’t tie my cancer to a specific [firefighting] incident, so I couldn’t get workers’ comp.”
Donovan, a Meriden firefighter who developed a rare form of leukemia two years ago, said his situation was simpler: The disease could be caused only by exposure to heavy amounts of benzene, a chemical in smoke at fires.
The Connecticut Conference of Municipalities presented a conflicting report, maintaining that medical studies haven’t conclusively demonstrated a link between firefighting and cancer or infectious diseases such as hepatitis C.
The lobbying group warned that passing the bill would add millions of dollars of liability to cash-strapped cities, and would undo the reforms of 1996, when Connecticut’s previous heart and hypertension law was repealed. At that time, city leaders were bitterly complaining that the benefit was being abused, and cited cases of obese, heavy-smoking workers who won years of payouts without ever proving their job had anything to do with their disabilities.
Firefighters on Tuesday insisted that the new bill wouldn’t bring back the old system. The pre-1996 law, for instance, provided benefits any time a firefighter or police officer suffered a heart attack; the new bill would cover only on-duty heart attacks.