(a) A presumption under § 607.053, 607.054, 607.0545, 607.055, or 607.056 may be rebutted through a showing by a preponderance of the evidence that a risk factor, accident, hazard, or other cause not associated with the individual’s service as a detention officer, custodial officer, firefighter, peace officer, or emergency medical technician was a substantial factor in bringing about the individual’s disease or illness, without which the disease or illness would not have occurred.
(b) A rebuttal offered under this section must include a statement by the person offering the rebuttal that describes, in detail, the evidence that the person reviewed before making the determination that a cause not associated with the individual’s service as a detention officer, custodial officer, firefighter, peace officer, or emergency medical technician was a substantial factor in bringing about the individual’s disease or illness, without which the disease or illness would not have occurred.

(c) In addressing an argument based on a rebuttal offered under this section, an administrative law judge shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law that consider whether a qualified expert, relying on evidence-based medicine, stated the opinion that, based on reasonable medical probability, an identified risk factor, accident, hazard, or other cause not associated with the individual’s service as a detention officer, custodial officer, firefighter, peace officer, or emergency medical technician was a substantial factor in bringing about the individual’s disease or illness, without which the disease or illness would not have occurred.