top of page
Search

Vande Krol v. Superstition/Benchmark - Memorandum Decision - Arizona Court of Appeals - October 31, 2025

  • Writer: Christopher S. Norton, Esq.
    Christopher S. Norton, Esq.
  • Nov 5
  • 2 min read
ree

Facts:

The Arizona Supreme Court remanded the case to the Arizona Court of Appeals to determine whether the ALJ correctly interpreted and applied the 2017 version of A.R.S. § 23-901.01(C)(3).


Robert Vande Krol, a firefighter employed by Superstition Fire and Medical Department for 18 years, was diagnosed with oligodendroglioma, a rare form of brain cancer, in 2020. He had been exposed to various carcinogens during his career, including smoke, soot, diesel fumes, firefighting foam, and radiation from a nearby cell tower. Arizona law provides a rebuttable presumption that certain cancers, including brain cancer, arise out of a firefighter’s employment and are eligible for workers’ compensation under A.R.S. § 23-901.01(B). Vande Krol filed a workers’ compensation claim, which was denied by Benchmark Insurance. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruled against Vande Krol, requiring him to prove a reasonable relationship between a specific carcinogen and his specific type of brain cancer. Vande Krol appealed the decision. 


Issue(s):

  1. Does A.R.S. § 23-901.01(C)(3) require a firefighter to show a reasonable relationship between a carcinogen and their specific type of brain cancer, or is it sufficient to show a relationship to brain cancer generally?

  2. Did the ALJ correctly interpret and apply the statute in denying Vande Krol’s claim?


Holding:The Arizona Court of Appeals held that A.R.S. § 23-901.01(C)(3) requires a firefighter to show only a reasonable relationship between a carcinogen to which they were exposed and brain cancer generally, not their specific type of brain cancer. The ALJ erred in requiring Vande Krol to prove a connection to his specific type of brain cancer. The court set aside the award and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this interpretation.


Key Takeaways:

  1. Statutory Interpretation: The court clarified that the phrase “the cancer” in A.R.S. § 23-901.01(C)(3) refers to the types of cancers listed in § 23-901.01(B), such as brain cancer, and does not require proof of causation for a specific subtype of cancer.

  2. Firefighter Presumption: Arizona law provides a presumption that certain cancers in firefighters are occupational diseases, easing the burden of proving causation. This presumption applies if the firefighter demonstrates exposure to a carcinogen reasonably related to the type of cancer listed in the statute.

  3. Procedural History: The Arizona Supreme Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals to resolve the interpretive issue regarding the statutory presumption under A.R.S. § 23-901.01(C)(3). See Summary of Supreme Court Opinion.

  4. Burden of Proof: The employer/insurer can rebut the presumption by showing evidence of a specific cause of the cancer unrelated to occupational exposure.

  5. Remand for Reconsideration: The case was remanded for the ALJ to determine whether Vande Krol’s exposure to carcinogens was reasonably related to brain cancer generally and whether the presumption was rebutted by the respondents.


Comments

bottom of page