Job to Blame for Firefighter’s Fatal Disease, Judge Decides

A Ventura County Superior Court judge has found strong evidence to support a widow’s claim that her firefighter husband died of leukemia after being exposed to deadly carcinogens while battling fires over three decades.

The ruling ends a three-year struggle for Carin Dalton-Morgan who sued the county’s Board of Retirement after it refused to pay her survivor death benefits in 1994.

“We are very pleased,” said her lawyer, Terrence C. Gorman. “I think we will all benefit from this decision.”

But county officials said the decision could force firefighters and sheriff’s deputies to contribute a slightly higher amount toward their pensions, depending on how much money must be paid to the widow of former Field Battalion Chief Patrick Dalton, who retired two years before his death.

Dalton-Morgan sued the county after her husband of 33 years died in March 1994. She argued that he developed chronic lymphocytic leukemia after being exposed to smoke-borne carcinogens during his 30-year career.

The retirement board twice denied Dalton-Morgan’s request for her husband’s service-connected disability retirement, arguing that a direct link could not be shown between his death and exposure to carcinogens while working for the Ventura County Fire Department.

But in a 28-page ruling released last week, Judge Barbara A. Lane determined that medical evidence strongly suggests that Dalton’s death could have been caused by exposure to smoke laden with cancer-causing materials, particularly the chemical benzene.

And she sharply criticized the retirement board for relying on inaccurate medical information when reaching its decision three years ago to deny Dalton-Morgan survivor benefits.

“Where members of a quasi-judicial body, such as the Retirement Board, abandon their role as impartial judges of the credibility of the medical experts in the case . . . then the fairness of the proceeding must be called into question,” Lane wrote.

In her ruling, the judge specifically pointed to fires Dalton fought in the 1960s, when fire crews were not equipped with respirators and other safety gear that are now required.

“During the years before the early 1970s when respirators were not worn, Mr. Dalton fought brush fires, and many of the brush fires were in oil fields,” the judge wrote.

Dalton had “substantial and heavy exposure from smoke” during his work as a firefighter between 1960 to 1977, she said.

In her ruling, Lane also cited the testimony of one medical expert who reported that firefighters, particularly those with more than 30 years of service, faced an increased risk of developing cancer and leukemia.

She referred to a Seattle study which showed that the cancer rate for firefighters in the United States doubled between 1950 and 1980, while the cancer rate for the general population increased by just 20% over the same period.

“There was just an overwhelming amount of circumstantial evidence that Patrick Dalton was exposed to any number of causes,” said Gorman, adding that the case could set a standard for other lawsuits in the area of fire safety.

“Now we have formal opinion as to the nature of proof in cases like this,” he said.

Deputy County Counsel Lawrence L. Matheney agreed that the case appears to be precedent-setting.

“It is a novel case,” Matheney said. “I have not found any reported opinions or decisions from other appellate courts in the state that provide us with any guidance in this.’

Matheney said the case presented difficult issues, which on their face could warrant review by a higher court.

“In this case, it was a very difficult question presented. Science knows that smoke is linked to cancer, and certainly years ago firefighters had much less protection from smoke than they do now.”

But Matheney said there were other factors to be considered in this case, such as the fact that Dalton was a cigarette smoker.

“I guess, truthfully, I was surprised,” he said of the ruling. “I thought that we had presented a case that the Board of Retirement had ruled correctly, but I certainly respect Judge Lane’s ability to thoroughly review evidence.”

For the county and Dalton’s widow, the ruling essentially means that she is now entitled to 100% of her late husband’s retirement benefits compared with the 60% she is now receiving, county officials said.

County officials would not provide specific information about what the new monetary amount could be, and Dalton-Morgan’s attorney would not speculate.

“It has been a moving target,” Gorman said. “It really is too soon to tell.”

But if the salary scale and retirement practices of the county are any indication, Dalton-Morgan, who has since remarried, could receive nearly twice what she is earning now as a result of the judgment.

Today, a 52-year-old battalion chief with 29 years experience, like Dalton had, would be entitled to 64% of his annual $79,000 income, or approximately $4,200 a month at retirement. When he died, his spouse would receive 60% of that amount. But if the death was determined to be job-related his spouse would receive the full 100% annually for the rest of her life.

Matheney said he was unsure just how much money Dalton-Morgan is now entitled to as a result of the decision, which the retirement board may decide to appeal.

Depending on that amount, he said, firefighters and sheriff’s deputies may have to pay a higher rate for their portion of the pension plan.

“It could result in an increase in safety member contribution rates,” he said. “But it would not be a significant increase.”