2025 Texas sessionsRegular and both called sessions have ended. This index covers House and Senate bills, not resolutions. Statuses come from official reports.

2025 · Regular session · House bill

HB331

HB331 broadens when a qualifying firefighter, peace officer or emergency medical technician can use a legal presumption that a disabling or fatal heart attack or stroke was work-related.

Read bill highlights ↓

Official caption: Relating to certain presumptions applicable to claims for benefits or compensation for certain medical conditions brought by certain first responders.

Signed by governorSource-checked explanation published

Official report lists House author(s): Patterson, Simmons, Perez, Mary Ann, Longoria, Lujan. This does not identify sponsors or amendment drafters.

Report an error ↗

Bill explanation published · Version and amendment review scope is stated below · Individual amendment records may not be separately annotated.

Bill highlights

Selected points from the published explanation. Follow each point to its source-linked context; conditions and limits may matter.

HB331 broadens when a qualifying firefighter, peace officer or emergency medical technician can use a legal presumption that a disabling or fatal heart attack or stroke was work-related.
The person must have performed qualifying physical emergency-response activity or a training exercise while on duty.
The law took effect when signed on May 24, 2025.

Read the full explanation ↓

What does it do?

HB331 broadens when a qualifying firefighter, peace officer or emergency medical technician can use a legal presumption that a disabling or fatal heart attack or stroke was work-related. The event may occur during the qualifying shift or up to eight hours after that shift ends, rather than only while the person is performing the activity. The bill also removes the requirement that the stressful or strenuous physical activity be “nonroutine.” Final law

The person must have performed qualifying physical emergency-response activity or a training exercise while on duty. Clerical, administrative and other nonmanual activities remain excluded. This is a rule about proving a connection to employment, not a declaration that every heart attack or stroke is caused by the job. Existing eligibility conditions still matter, including the chapter’s five-year service requirement, an examination that did not reveal the claimed disease, and discovery during employment. The presumption can be rebutted under the existing evidence standard, and it does not create a new lawsuit or a new category of benefits. Eligibility, effect and rebuttal: sections 607.051–607.058

The law took effect when signed on May 24, 2025. Its changes apply to claims brought on or after that date; earlier claims remain governed by prior law. The dividing line is the claim date, not simply the date of the medical event. Transition provision and final text · Official history

What changed along the way?

The introduced bill already contained the eight-hour-after-shift window and removal of “nonroutine.” Those provisions remained unchanged in the House committee, House-passed, Senate committee and enrolled versions. Both committees reported the bill without amendments, and the official amendment index lists none. Final passage was 140–0 in the House, with two present but not voting, and 31–0 in the Senate. Introduced text · All versions · Amendment index · Final certifications

For the full amendment record, open the official amendment index.

Official bill versions

Compare the published text versions in the official text index. A change is not attributed to a specific amendment here without a verified record.

Who could benefit—and who could bear the costs?

Eligible first responders whose disabling or fatal medical event follows qualifying physical work may find it easier to establish the employment connection needed for existing benefits. Removing “nonroutine” also avoids excluding an activity merely because demanding work is part of the person’s normal duties. Employers and benefit providers may face claims that previously fell outside the presumption, but they retain the statutory opportunity to rebut it. Specific exclusions—including certain tobacco-related cases and some insurance or survivor-benefit determinations—remain in section 607.052. Retained limits and rebuttal rules

The Legislative Budget Board anticipated no significant state or local-government fiscal impact and assumed state implementation costs could be absorbed using existing resources. That forecast is not a guarantee of no cost for an individual claim. The law specifies no new benefit amount and does not guarantee that every claim will succeed. Latest posted fiscal note

Official sources

Catalog report retrieved 2026-10-25. Check the official record for corrections or later changes.