The Appellate Division of the Maine Workers’ Compensation Board recently issued a decision in Estate of Gregory Sullwold v. The Salvation Army, which could expand employers’ liability for injuries suffered by employees who work from home. Case No. App. Div. 12-0002 Decision No. 13-13.
The employee, Mr. Sullwold, was a portfolio manager for the Salvation Army who worked out of his home in Brunswick, Maine. Mr. Sullwold died from a heart attack while on a half-hour break walking on a treadmill in his home office. His wife and coworkers testified that he frequently used his smartphone for work and monitored financial news channels while walking on the treadmill. The employee was found with his employer-provided smart phone next to his body and with a nearby television tuned to a financial news channel. Sullwold centers on Maine’s statutory “death presumption”, 39-A M.R.S.A. § 327, which provides that when an employee is deceased or physically or mentally unable to testify, there is a rebuttable presumption that the injury arose out of and in the course of employment.
In the underlying decree, the Maine Workers’ Compensation Board hearing officer granted death benefits, finding the employer had failed to rebut the death presumption. On appeal, the employer questioned whether the hearing officer had applied the standard in Toomey v. City of Portland, 391, A.2d 325 (Me. 1978), which requires the employer to prove it is at least as likely that the injury was not work related (i.e., 50% likely or less), or whether she applied the more stringent standard in Hall v. State, which requires the employer to prove it is more probable than not that the facts presumed did not exist (i.e., 51% likely or more). 441 A.2d 1019 (Me. 1982).
The Appellate Division found that the hearing officer likely applied the less strict standard in Toomey but still upheld the finding that the death presumption had not been rebutted by the employer. However, the Appellate Division went further and specifically noted that the more stringent “more probable than not” standard in Hall remains good law and is the preferred standard going forward.
The impact of this finding could be significant. It potentially places a higher burden of proof on an employer seeking to rebut the death presumption. The employer’s appeal to the Law Court was recently accepted and the case is set for oral argument on November 5.