POLISCOPE
Back to bills

The civic record

Read. Follow. Verify.
Did Not Advance

Indiana bill establishes line-of-duty disability presumption for firefighters with PFAS exposure

Original title: Line of duty disability from PFAS exposure.

Last action · January 5, 2026: First reading: referred to Committee on Veterans Affairs and Public SafetySponsor: Randy Novak

Introduced
Committee
Floor Vote
Passed
Law

Track this bill to get notified when it advances a stage. One tap to stop, anytime.

Public stanceCommunity reactions are separate from the official record and reporting.

What This Bill Proposed

House Bill 1190 establishes that a health condition caused by PFAS chemical exposure creates a legal presumption of line-of-duty disability for full-time firefighters, even if they have used tobacco products. The measure defines PFAS chemicals and exposure-related health conditions, effective July 1, 2026.

Why it matters

Full-time firefighters diagnosed with health conditions resulting from occupational PFAS exposure gain eligibility for line-of-duty disability benefits without tobacco use disqualifications.

Who It Would Have Affected

Groups the bill's text would have affected, as described in the record. Being affected is not a position for or against it.

Directly affected

firefighters

Full-time firefighters gain a legal presumption of line-of-duty disability for PFAS exposure-related health conditions and an exemption from tobacco use disqualifications.

Directly affected

local pension boards

Local pension boards must determine impairment classifications and evaluate evidence during hearings regarding PFAS-related disability claims and rebuttals.

Key Facts

You don't have to trust us. Each fact below is taken straight from the official document - click any one to see the exact passage, highlighted in the original.

Frequently Asked Questions

Who qualifies for the PFAS disability presumption under House Bill 1190?
Full-time firefighters who are actively employed or have terminated employment not more than sixty months earlier, and who are diagnosed with a PFAS exposure-related health condition requiring medical treatment or causing disability, qualify for the presumption.
Does prior tobacco use disqualify a firefighter from claiming a PFAS-related disability presumption?
No. The bill explicitly allows firefighters diagnosed with a PFAS exposure-related health condition to qualify for the disability presumption notwithstanding the use of tobacco products.

What else do you want to know?

News Coverage

No news coverage found yet. Articles are indexed twice daily.

Where This Stands

This bill did not become law - Died at adjournment · in House committee.

Procedural history

2 actions
  1. Jan 5, 2026HouseIntroduced
    First reading: referred to Committee on Veterans Affairs and Public Safety
  2. Jan 5, 2026House
    Authored by Representative Novak

Version history

Only one version on file - nothing to compare yet. As later stages (committee substitute, engrossed, enrolled) are captured, the redline appears here.

View official text →

Lobbying Activity

No state lobbying filings in our records match this bill. Federal lobbying reports (LDA) cover Congress, so they are not listed on state bills.

Full breakdown

Who this bill affects and the strongest case for and against it, written only from the bill’s own text.

Sponsors

Discoveries

1 pattern noticed across the record

Patterns POLISCOPE noticed across the record. These are observations to investigate, not conclusions.

policy shift95% confidence

Expansion of Occupational Disease Presumptions

The bill extends existing exposure-related disease frameworks (previously covering certain cancers, heart/lung disease, and Parkinson's) to encompass PFAS chemical exposure for firefighters.

Connected Entities

General Assembly, Randy Novak
OrganizationGeneral Assembly“Legislative body of the State of Indiana”Map →
PersonRandy Novak“Representative who introduced House Bill 1190”Map →

Sources

Analysis Score

0–100
  • Significance20
    Lowered because this bill did not pass (its text scored 65)
  • Controversy40
    Intensity of disagreement among stakeholders
  • Entertainment5
    Compellingness for a non-policy-wonk reader
  • Buzz35
    Current news / social attention level

Publisher tools

Share or embed this record

POLISCOPE publisher tools

Share or embed this record