Lead and mercury exposure in firefighters: What to look for and what comes next

As fire seasons grow, firefighters are exposed to more toxic materials. Common items such as PVC pipes, building materials, electronics, and plastics can be hazardous when decomposed, combusted, and transformed into particulate pollution absorbed through the skin, inhalation or digestion. With every urban fire, firefighters are exposed to mercury and lead in household items such as fluorescent lights, LCD screens, appliances, batteries, thermometers, paint, dust, pipes, stained glass, blinds, roofing, gutters and soil burn, making firefighting increasingly more dangerous.

Exposure to lead and mercury can lead to irreversible damage to the brain, nervous system, kidneys, circulatory system, lungs, and body in general. Following the Palisades and Eaton fires, Dr. Kari Nadeau, M.D., Ph.D. (Chair of the Department of Environmental Health at Harvard School of Public Health) conducted firefighter control group biomarker studies. Her research revealed alarming levels of mercury and lead in firefighters, demonstrating that firefighting is becoming increasingly dangerous as fire seasons and exposures expand.

In 2023, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) reclassified the carcinogenicity of firefighting to its highest level, Group 1 (Carcinogenic to Humans). This puts firefighting on par with tobacco and formaldehyde. In 2025, the IARC reclassified Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA),  a human-made chemical in various industrial and consumer products, such as Teflon and stain-resistant carpets, to Group 1. That same year, the California Professional Firefighters (CPF) introduced Assembly Bills and Senate Bills to protect firefighters from lithium-ion battery fires (AB 841), toxic chemicals in Personal Protective Equipment (AB 1181), and from many other hazards in transportation route, design and priority of water use. Firefighters are exposed to many toxins, some of which are known carcinogens and others with detrimental effects that have not been fully researched. Many toxins have different latency periods and firefighters exposed to toxins may develop the need for treatment or become disabled long after exposure, which is why documentation of exposure to toxins is necessary. 

As the silent absorption of toxins increases in prevalence, what remedies do firefighters have if mercury, lead, or other toxins cause an injury? Generally, Labor Code § 3602 affirms that the sole and exclusive remedy is workers' compensation. When an injury is limited to the workers' compensation system, benefits for firefighters are generally limited to presumptions of industrial causation of injury, salary continuation, special retirement benefits, and special death benefits. To become eligible for benefits in workers' compensation, an employee must first prove that an injury arose out of employment and in the course of employment (at least in part) by a preponderance of the evidence. For the cancer presumption, in Faust v. City of San Diego (2003) 68 Cal.Comp.Cases 1822 (Appeals Bd. en banc), the court explained it was the applicant's initial burden to establish that they came into the class of employees covered by the statute, that the cancer manifested itself during the employee's period of service or during the applicable extension period and that they were exposed to an identified known carcinogen as defined by the IARC or the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations. Therefore, in the presence of a presumption, once the employee demonstrates that the presumption applies, the burden shifts to the employer to disprove that the injury was work-related, which can be very difficult to overcome for the employer.

In certain circumstances, civil remedies exist because firefighters do not assume every risk of their occupation. (See Lipson v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal. 3d 362, 366, 371.) In Neighbarger v Irwin Industries, Inc. (1994) 8 Cal. 4^th 532, 34 Cal. Rptr. 2d 630, 882 P.2d 347, 59 Cal. Comp. Cases 875, the court explained that under the "firefighter's rule" a member of the public who negligently starts a fire owes no duty of care to assure that the firefighter summoned to combat the fire is not injured thereby. Nor does a member of the public whose conduct precipitates the intervention of a police officer owe a duty of care to the officer with respect to the original negligence that brought the officer's intervention. In such a situation, the first responder is generally limited to workers' compensation, where a breach of the duty of care is not required. Neighbarger goes on to state that the firefighter's rule should not be viewed as a separate concept, but as an example of the proper application of the doctrine of assumption of risk that is, an illustration of when it is appropriate to find that the defendant owes no duty of care.

In Rowland v. Shell Oil Co. (1986) 179 Cal. App. 3d 399, 224 Cal. Rptr. 547, the firefighter's rule limited damages to the workers' compensation system and precluded civil remedies where City of Whittier firefighters responded to a chemical spill that had occurred when an American Transfer Company tanker truck jackknifed and overturned. Although this spill initially had been reported as one involving gasoline, it became immediately apparent that was not the case. Here, the misinformation came from dispatch and not the defendant, and upon learning of the spill, the defendant recommended that all clothing and equipment, worn or used, be removed, for the firefighters to shower thoroughly, and to bag their clothing in plastic bags and destroy them. So, under the circumstances, it could not be said that the injuries were a result of risks beyond those involved in handling unknown chemicals or that the firefighters' failure to take appropriate precautions for their own safety was due to any independent acts of misconduct on the defendant's part. Rather, the record demonstrated the injuries were a result of the very risk which occasioned the firefighters' presence at the accident scene. Therefore, the firefighter's rule was squarely applicable.

The firefighter's rule, however, does not preclude civil remedies for all acts or omissions causing injury to a firefighter. It only applies to acts or omissions which occasioned the need for the firefighter to respond. Civil remedies exist, such as product liability and third-party negligence. Several other exceptions to the firefighter's rule can be found in Civil Code § 1714.9. This code grants exceptions to the firefighter's rule in imposing civil liability for willful acts causing injury to a peace officer, firefighter, or any emergency medical personnel employed by a public entity and for any injury occasioned to that person by the want of ordinary care or skill in the management of the person's property.

For example, in Lipson, the Orange County Fire Department responded to a chemical boilover. After the firefighters arrived, the plant owner informed them the boilover did not involve toxic chemicals or materials. The plant owner further advised attempting to contain the boilover was not dangerous, when in fact the boilover involved toxic substances, resulting in injuries from exposure. This misrepresentation was an act of misconduct independent of the cause of the chemical boilover. Therefore, the court set aside the firefighter's rule and allowed the civil suit because the misrepresentation of the nature of the hazard was not the reason for the firefighter's presence at the chemical plant. Further, because the defendants maintained an ultra-hazardous activity or condition that produced a separate injury, the firefighters could seek recovery on a theory of strict liability. Therefore, despite the firefighter's rule, civil remedies may be available.

If an injury does not involve cancer but instead involves something related to toxins, documenting exposures can be of vital importance. California Professional Firefighters' Personal Exposure Reporting (PER) offers an easy, secure and comprehensive method of recording an exposure to cancer-causing chemicals and biological toxins. Documentation is an easy step to help firefighters connect industrially acquired toxins to an injury or illness and enforce vital rights.

Promptly filing a workers' compensation claim is also a vital step in tolling the statute of limitation for filing a claim and becoming eligible for treatment from the employer. Labor Code § 5402 subd. (c) says that within one working day after an employee files a claim, the employer shall authorize the provision of all treatment.

With urban fires increasing and wildfires surpassing historical averages, awareness of risk, documentation of exposure, and proactive engagement can help reduce injury, protect firefighters, and carry on their mission of saving lives, protecting property, promoting public safety and professionally strengthening community relationships.