The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P died of a heart attack while exercising on a treadmill in his home. At the time of his death, he was employed by D as a portfolio specialist and comptroller and was responsible for overseeing investor relations and the financial interests of D’s Eastern Division, which were then valued at approximately $2.5 billion. D permitted P to work remotely from home, supplying him with a computer, BlackBerry, and other office materials. On the day of his death, P started working at 8:30 a.m. in his home office and continued working until about 3:30 p.m., when he took a break to walk on the treadmill, bringing his BlackBerry with him. About thirty minutes later, his wife found him unconscious on the floor with the treadmill still running and the BlackBerry next to him. Emergency medical professionals were called but were unable to revive him. P had previously suffered a heart attack in 1993. P's doctors recommended that he make lifestyle changes by dieting and exercising regularly, which he did. He continued to be treated for coronary artery disease and atherosclerosis, and shortly before his death, he reported to his doctor that he was experiencing chest pain while walking his dog. There is no evidence that P reported any concerns about his workload or work-related stress to any of his doctors, although shortly before his death he suffered a panic attack, which he attributed to 'overload.' His wife and coworkers also reported that he experienced stress from working long hours and traveling frequently and that this stress was exacerbated by increased donor contributions after September 11, 2001, and the effect of the 2008 economic downturn on D's finances. P's widow filed a petition for award of compensation with the Workers' Compensation Board, alleging that P's 'work resulted in a myocardial infarction and cardiac arrest.' The Board granted the petition. A hearing officer issued a decision reaffirming the original order and making further findings of fact regarding her determination that work stress was a major causal factor in P's death. D then filed appeals with the Workers' Compensation Board Appellate Division and with this Court. This court dismissed the appeal holding that the case was subject to initial review by the Appellate Division. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's award of compensation, concluding that the hearing officer did not err in finding that the evidence triggered the presumption found in 39-A M.R.S. § 327 and that D failed to rebut the presumption. D appealed. D claims the hearing officer erroneously applied the presumption in 39-A M.R.S. § 327 and that she misconstrued the nature of the burden needed to rebut the presumption.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.