Are dual-role public safety officers (who serve as both firefighters and law enforcement officers) eligible for Florida's firefighter cancer benefits?

Plain-English summary

The City of Daytona Beach Shores employs Public Safety Officers who serve as both firefighters and law enforcement officers. The City has a Public Safety Department but not separate Police or Fire Departments. The City Attorney told the AG that the law-enforcement function is 'predominant' for these dual-role officers, although some are working full-time as firefighters until they complete law-enforcement certification.

Section 112.1816, Florida Statutes (effective July 1, 2019), gives firefighters diagnosed with certain cancers a choice between disability or death benefits and pursuing workers' compensation. The statute defines 'firefighter' as 'an individual employed as a full-time firefighter within the fire department or public safety department of an employer whose primary responsibilities are the prevention and extinguishing of fires.'

The AG read 'primary responsibilities' as the controlling phrase. A Public Safety Officer whose primary responsibilities are law enforcement rather than firefighting is not within the statute's definition, even if the officer fights fires regularly. The City confirmed the law-enforcement function is predominant, so most Public Safety Officers are not eligible. The narrow subset working full-time as firefighters pending law-enforcement certification might be eligible during that period; the opinion did not separately resolve that scenario.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2020. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Background and statutory framework

Chapter 2019-21, Laws of Florida (2019), enacted section 112.1816 to address occupational cancer exposure among firefighters. The statute lists specific cancers (bladder, breast, colon, kidney, leukemia, lung, malignant melanoma, mesothelioma, multiple myeloma, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, pancreatic, prostate, testicular, thyroid) presumed to be occupational and provides covered firefighters access to disability or death benefits without proof of causation under workers' compensation.

The definition of 'firefighter' is the gateway. The statute requires:
- Full-time employment
- Within a fire department or public safety department
- Primary responsibilities are prevention and extinguishing fires

The AG's opinion turns on the third prong. Local governments that combine police and fire functions into a single Public Safety Department can be tempted to claim full firefighter cancer benefits for all officers. The AG closed that door: the test is the officer's primary responsibilities, not the department name or general job description.

Common questions

What about a Public Safety Officer who fights fires more often than they make arrests?
The statute is keyed to 'primary responsibilities' as a job-design matter, not call-volume statistics. A primary-responsibility analysis looks at the officer's job description, certification, training, and assigned duties. Day-to-day variation in calls does not change the categorical analysis.

Are Public Safety Officers eligible for the standard workers' compensation cancer presumption (separate from section 112.1816)?
That is a different statute and not addressed here. Workers' compensation eligibility for occupational cancer is its own analysis under the Florida Workers' Compensation Law.

What about an officer who is provisionally working full-time as a firefighter pending law enforcement certification?
The opinion notes some Daytona Beach Shores officers fall in this category but does not resolve their eligibility. Arguably during the firefighter-only period their primary responsibilities are firefighting, so they might be eligible. The opinion is silent.

Should cities that have hybrid public safety departments revisit their classifications?
Yes, especially if they want to extend the cancer benefit to their officers. One option: designate a subset of officers whose primary role is firefighting. Another: split the department into Police and Fire. The City should consult counsel and consider workers' compensation, civil service, and pension implications.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.myfloridalegal.com/ag-opinions/firefighters-public-safety-officers-cancer-benefits
• Original PDF: https://www.myfloridalegal.com/print/pdf/node/1461

Original opinion text

June 5, 2020

Lonnie N. Groot

City of Attorney, City of Daytona Beach Shores

300 International Parkway, Suite 100

Lake Mary, Florida 32746

Dear Mr. Groot:

On behalf of the City Council of the City of Daytona Beach Shores, you have asked Attorney General Ashley Moody for an opinion on the following question:

Are the City’s Public Safety Officers, who serve both as firefighters and law-enforcement officers, eligible for the benefits provided in section 112.1816, Florida Statutes?

In sum:

The City’s Public Safety Officers whose primary responsibilities are law enforcement rather than firefighting are not eligible for benefits provided to firefighters under section 112.1816, Florida Statutes.

The City of Daytona Shores employs Public Safety Officers who serve as both firefighters and law enforcement officers. The City has a Public Safety Department but not a Police Department or a Fire Department. You state that their law enforcement function is “predominant.” The Public Safety Officers do not serve as full-time firefighters and their primary responsibilities are not the prevention and extinguishing of fires. Some of the Public Safety Officers are not yet certified as law enforcement officers and are working full-time as firefighters until such certification.
Effective July 1, 2019, the Legislature enacted section 112.1816, which makes firefighters diagnosed with certain cancers eligible to receive disability or death benefits in lieu of pursuing workers’ compensation coverage. Chapter 2019-21, Laws of Fla. (2019). Section 112.1816(1)(c) defines “firefighter” as:

an individual employed as a full-time firefighter within the fire department or public safety department of an employer whose primary responsibilities are the prevention and extinguishing of fires; the protection of life and property; and the enforcement of municipal, county, and state fire prevention codes and laws pertaining to the prevention and control of fires.

Terms in a statute that are not defined therein must be given their plain and ordinary meaning. See Nehme v. Smithkline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, 863 So. 2d 201, 204 (Fla. 2003).
The statutory definition as drafted sets forth a two-part test. The employee must: (1) be “employed as a full-time firefighter”; and (2) be employed “within the fire department or public safety department of an employer whose primary responsibilities are the prevention and extinguishing of fires; the protection of life and property; and the enforcement of municipal, county, and state fire prevention codes and laws pertaining to the prevention and control of fires.” The first part of the test looks at the employee’s duties. The second part of the test looks at the employer’s primary responsibilities. A primary purpose of the City’s Public Safety Department is firefighting and prevention. Thus, the employing agency appears to meet the second part of the test.
Public Safety Officers whose full-time duties are firefighting, fire safety, and fire code enforcement would satisfy the definition in section 112.1816(1)(c). If, however, the duties of public safety officers are law enforcement, and their firefighting duties are not full-time, by using the term “full-time firefighter”, the legislature appears to have excluded those employees from coverage under section 112.1816. The factual determination of a Public Safety Officer’s full-time, primary responsibilities must be made by the employing agency.
The definition in section 112.1816(1)(c) does not affect the benefits available to firefighters under sections 112.18, Florida Statutes (conditions caused by tuberculosis, heart disease, or hypertension suffered in the line of duty), 112.18, Florida Statutes (conditions caused by hepatitis, meningococcal meningitis, or tuberculosis suffered in the line of duty), or 112.1815, Florida Statutes (diseases arising out of employment as a first responder).

I hope this opinion is helpful to the City Council.

Sincerely,

Ashley Moody

Attorney General