February 2, 2015 Article

Maine Workers' Compensation Alert: Supreme Court Rules on Application of § 327 Presumption

In Estate of Sullwold v. The Salvation Army, 2015 ME 4 (January 22, 2015), a high-level Salvation Army employee with a history of cardiovascular issues was found dead after a heart attack with his smart phone next to him and a financial news program on TV. The heart attack occurred during normal work hours, at home. The death was deemed work-related under the presumption in 39-A M.R.S. § 327: "In any claim for compensation, when the employee has been killed...there is a rebuttable presumption that the employee received a personal injury arising out of and in the course of employment...." The Estate was awarded death benefits.

The Salvation Army and its insurer appealed to the Appellate Division, asserting: (1) it was error to apply the § 327 presumption because the Estate failed to establish a link between the death and employment, and (2) it was error to shift the burden of proof to the employer to disprove facts established by the § 327 presumption. The Division affirmed, holding: "when § 327 is invoked and is determined to be applicable, the burden of persuasion shifts to the party against whom the presumption is directed to negate." To defeat the presumption, an employer is "required to establish and to persuade the hearing officer that it was more probable than not that the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment." Rather than merely placing a burden of production on the employer, the Division apparently placed on the employer the burden of proving the nonexistence of a presumed fact.

The Maine Supreme Court affirmed, holding first that the hearing officer did not err in finding that the evidence triggered the presumption found in § 327. This is significant, as it expands the presumption to an incident occurring in a home office environment, versus one which occurs on the actual physical premises of an employer or at a job site. With respect to the burden shifting pursuant to § 327, the Law Court clarified that the Appellate Division did not erroneously shift the burden of persuasion to the employer but, rather, appropriately applied the standard under Toomey v. City of Portland, under which once an employer produces sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption of work-relatedness, the presumption disappears from the case and the estate must then meet its burden of proof to prevail.

For more information on this case or to learn more about Preti Flaherty's Workers' Compensation Group, contact any of our Workers' Compensation attorneys.

Firm Highlights


Preti Flaherty Ranked Among U.S. News – Best Lawyers 2020 Best Law Firms

Preti Flaherty has been named among the 2020 Best Law Firms by the U.S. News – Best Lawyers rankings. To be eligible for ranking, a law firm must have at least one attorney named...


Maine WC Alert: Updated Version of Notice of Controversy (WCB-9) Must Be Used Effective February 1, 2020

Following the recent statutory changes to the Workers’ Compensation Act, the Maine Workers’ Compensation Board has updated the language in Box 22 of the Notice of Controversy. This new version should be used as...


Maine WC Alert: Latest Appellate Division Rulings on Health Insurance Payments, Social Security Benefits

The Maine Workers' Comp Appellate Division recently issued rulings in the cases of Rich v. Maine Turnpike Authority and Butler v. City of Portland. Health Insurance Payments Made by Self-Insured Employer for Health Insurance...


Maine WC Alert: Appellate Division Upholds Ruling on Reinstatement Provisions and Termination of Benefits

Maine WC Appellate Division Holds That Ongoing Noncompliance with Reinstatement Provisions in Section 218 Precludes Termination of Benefits for Expiration of Durational Cap Under 213 Section 218 of the Maine Workers’ Compensation Act provides...


Maine WC Alert: MAE Unit Publishes Guidance on Compliance with Recent Amendments

The Maine Workers’ Compensation Board’s Monitoring, Audit & Enforcement Unit has issued a document to provide guidance on complying with certain recent amendments to the Workers’ Compensation Act in P.L. 2019, c. 344 (LD...


Maine WC Alert: Appellate Division Addresses the Issue of Timely Notice in Two Recent Decisions

For claims for which the date of injury is on or after January 1, 2013, unless otherwise provided by the Maine Workers' Compensation Act, proceedings may not be maintained unless notice of an injury...


Maine WC Alert: Appellate Division Rules No Consequences Under 218 for Deferment of Receipt of Old-Age Social Security Benefits

In Pratt v. S.D. Warren (No. 19-3 [WCB App. Div. April 30, 2019]), S.D. Warren appealed a decision denying its Petition for Approval of Discontinuance of Incapacity Benefits. An employer may reduce incapacity benefits...


Maine WC Alert: New Legislation Brings Procedural Changes, Benefit Modifications

LD 756 (“ An Act To Improve the Maine Workers’ Compensation Act of 1992 ”), was signed into law by Governor Mills on June 17, 2019. LD 756 has an effective date of September...


Maine WC Appellate Division Addresses Refusal of Suitable Work and Notice

The Maine Workers' Compensation Appellate Division recently addressed cases dealing with refusal of suitable work and notice. Both decisions rely heavily on the specific facts of each case. In the context of a refusal...


Maine WC Alert: Appellate Division Reiterates Requirement to Trigger Retirement Presumption

Maine Workers' Comp Appellate Division Reiterates That Working in Customary Job Until Retirement Constitutes “Termination of Active Employment” Sufficient to Trigger the Retirement Presumption In Capitan v. NewPage Paper (WCB 19-10 [App. Div. April...