WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HD 4025

An Act providing equity and fairness to POST-certified police officers disabled by cardiac disease

194th Legislature (2025-2026) Introduced by Jim Arciero and 34 co-sponsors

Massachusetts bill presumes cardiac disease in POST-certified police officers is work-related, granting workers' compensation without proving job causation.

0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HD 4025

Legislative bill overview

HD 4025 would establish presumptive coverage for cardiac disease as a work-related injury for POST-certified (Police Officer Standards and Training) police officers in Massachusetts. This means officers diagnosed with cardiac conditions would be eligible for workers' compensation benefits without having to prove the disease was caused by their job duties, shifting the burden of proof to the employer/insurer to demonstrate the condition was not work-related.

Why is this important

Police officers face documented occupational stressors—irregular schedules, high-stress incidents, exposure to trauma—that research suggests may contribute to cardiovascular disease at higher rates than the general population. This bill would streamline access to workers' compensation for affected officers, reducing litigation costs and ensuring faster medical and financial support for disabled officers and their families.

Potential points of contention

  • Cost implications: Expanding presumptive coverage increases workers' compensation insurance costs for municipalities, which may raise property taxes or strain municipal budgets already under fiscal pressure
  • Scope of coverage: Questions about whether "cardiac disease" is defined broadly enough (e.g., does it include all heart conditions, hypertension, arrhythmias?) and whether the presumption should apply equally to all officers regardless of tenure or assignment
  • Scientific causation: Debate over whether current epidemiological evidence sufficiently establishes a causal link between police work and cardiac disease versus other lifestyle/genetic factors, and whether presumptions should be reserved for diseases with stronger occupational evidence

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.