## Facts

- Gregory Sullwold worked for The Salvation Army as a portfolio specialist/comptroller, performing authorized remote work from a home office in Maine using employer-provided equipment (including a BlackBerry).
- On February 23, 2010, Sullwold worked from about 8:30 a.m. to about 3:30 p.m., then took a brief break to walk on a treadmill at home while carrying his work BlackBerry.
- During the treadmill break, Sullwold suffered a heart attack and died.
- Sullwold had a history of heart disease, including a prior heart attack in 1993.
- Evidence described significant employment-related stress, including long hours, frequent travel, and financial pressures associated with the recession; he had recently experienced a panic attack he attributed to “overload.”
- The Estate sought workers’ compensation death benefits, alleging that work stress caused or significantly contributed to the fatal heart attack.
- A hearing officer awarded death benefits, applying the rebuttable presumption in 39-A M.R.S. § 327 that a physical injury occurring at a place the employee reasonably may be while performing duties arises out of and in the course of employment.
- The Workers’ Compensation Board Appellate Division affirmed; the employer sought further review.

## Issues

1. Whether 39-A M.R.S. § 327’s rebuttable presumption applied to a fatal heart attack suffered by an authorized remote employee during a brief treadmill break at home while remaining accessible for work.
2. Whether the employer produced sufficient evidence to rebut the § 327 presumption.
3. Whether substantial evidence supported the finding that work-related stress significantly contributed to the heart attack despite preexisting heart disease.

## Decision

- The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the Appellate Division, leaving the award of death benefits in place.
- The court held the hearing officer properly applied § 327 because the home, in an authorized remote-work arrangement, was a place the employee reasonably could be in performing duties, and the injury occurred during the workday in that setting.
- The court agreed that the treadmill break did not remove Sullwold from the course of employment where the break was brief and incidental and he remained available for work (carrying the work BlackBerry).
- The court held the employer did not rebut the presumption; evidence of prior heart disease and personal risk factors did not compel a finding that the death was unrelated to work.
- The court held substantial evidence supported causation, including testimony concerning sustained work stress and medical evidence supporting that stress and exertion could trigger the cardiac event.

## Legal Principles

- Under 39-A M.R.S. § 327, when a physical injury occurs at a place the employee reasonably may be in performing work duties, the injury is presumed to arise out of and in the course of employment, subject to rebuttal.
- An authorized home office can be a place where an employee reasonably may be while performing job duties for workers’ compensation purposes.
- Brief, foreseeable breaks during the workday, including limited personal activity, may remain within the course of employment when the employee stays available for work in the remote-work context.
- Preexisting disease does not bar compensability when employment-related stress or activity contributes in a significant manner to the injury or death; the employer remains liable for work-related contribution to an underlying condition.
- Rebutting the § 327 presumption requires evidence sufficient to support a finding that the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment; the fact-finder may credit competing medical and factual evidence.

## Conclusion

The court upheld workers’ compensation death benefits because the statutory presumption applied to a remote employee’s fatal heart attack occurring at home during a brief mid-day break, and the employer failed to show that the death was unrelated to employment where the record supported that work stress significantly contributed to the event.


Estate of Sullwold v. The Salvation Army, 108 A.3d 1265 (Me. 2015)