Estate of Gregory Sullwold v. The Salvation Army
108 A.3d 1265, 2015 ME 4, 2015 Me. LEXIS 4 (2015)
Rule of Law:
Under the Maine Workers' Compensation Act, if an employee dies or is unable to testify, a rebuttable presumption arises that the injury was work-related provided the claim is not hopeless and the evidence demonstrates a rational potential that the injury arose out of and in the course of employment.
Facts:
- Gregory Sullwold worked for the Salvation Army as a comptroller overseeing approximately $2.5 billion in assets.
- He worked remotely from his home in Maine using an employer-provided computer and BlackBerry.
- Sullwold suffered from significant work-related stress due to long hours, the 2008 economic downturn, and frequent travel, and he had previously suffered a panic attack attributed to workload.
- On February 23, 2010, Sullwold worked in his home office from 8:30 a.m. until 3:30 p.m.
- He took a break to walk on his treadmill, bringing his work BlackBerry with him.
- Approximately thirty minutes later, he was found unconscious on the floor with the treadmill running and the BlackBerry nearby.
- Emergency professionals were unable to revive him, and he died of a heart attack.
Procedural Posture:
- Sullwold's widow filed a petition for award of compensation with the Workers' Compensation Board.
- The Hearing Officer granted the petition.
- The Salvation Army filed a motion for findings of fact and conclusions of law.
- The Hearing Officer issued a decision reaffirming the original order.
- The Salvation Army appealed to the Workers' Compensation Board Appellate Division.
- The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's award of compensation.
- The Salvation Army petitioned the Maine Supreme Judicial Court for appellate review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the statutory presumption that an injury arose out of and in the course of employment apply to an employee who suffered a fatal heart attack while exercising at home, where evidence indicated he was carrying a work device and suffering from significant work-related stress?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Hjelm
Yes, the presumption applies because the evidence established a rational potential that the death was work-related. The Court reasoned that the purpose of the statute is to assist claimants who cannot testify on their own behalf, provided the claim is not 'hopeless.' Here, the hearing officer reasonably found that the injury occurred in the course of employment because Sullwold was in a sanctioned workspace during work hours and was carrying his work BlackBerry, effectively working while exercising. Furthermore, regarding whether the injury arose out of employment, medical testimony linked Sullwold's chronic, relentless work stress to his heart disease. Because the Estate established a 'preliminary linkage' between the death and the employment, the hearing officer correctly applied the presumption, and the employer failed to rebut it.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the protective nature of workers' compensation laws regarding deceased employees, specifically in the context of modern telecommuting. By affirming that an employee exercising at home with a mobile work device can be considered within the 'course of employment,' the Court adapts traditional workplace concepts to home-office environments. The ruling clarifies that the statutory presumption in § 327 does not require definitive proof of causation to be triggered; rather, it requires only a 'rational potential' for success. This creates a lower threshold for estates to survive initial scrutiny when the primary witness (the employee) is unavailable.
