Safety and OSHA News

Bizarre Accidents

Does worker’s treadmill death qualify for workers’ comp?

February 6, 2015 By 8 Comments

155563629

An employee who was working at home took some time to walk on his treadmill. He was found dead shortly thereafter. Should workers’ comp pay death benefits?

The Salvation Army permitted Gregory Sullwold to work at home for them as a portfolio specialist and comptroller.

On Feb. 23, 2010, Sullwold died of a heart attack while exercising on a treadmill in his home.

That day, Sullwold started working at 8:30 a.m. and continued working until about 3:30 p.m. when he took a break to walk on the treadmill, bringing his work-issued BlackBerry with him.

About a half hour later, his wife found him unconscious on the floor with the treadmill still running and the BlackBerry next to him. Emergency medical professionals were unable to revive him.

Sullwold had suffered a heart attack in 1993. His doctors recommended he make lifestyle changes, such as exercising regularly, which he did.

His widow filed for workers’ compensation benefits because Sullwold’s “work resulted in a myocardial infarction and cardiac arrest.”

A hearing officer for the Maine Workers’ Compensation Board found work stress was a major causal factor in Sullwold’s death. The Board granted the request for benefits.

The Salvation Army appealed. The Board’s appellate division affirmed the first decision. Next the case went to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court.

Did hearing officer commit error?

Maine’s Workers’ Compensation Act states:

“When the employee has been killed or is physically or mentally unable to testify, there is a rebuttable presumption that the employee received a personal injury arising out of and in the course of employment.”

The Salvation Army argued there wasn’t sufficient evidence to trigger the presumption that Sullwold’s death was work-related.

However, the court noted the hearing officer found that, although Sullwold was walking on the treadmill at the time of his death, his injury occurred during work hours, in a place that the Salvation Army OK’d for his work, and while he was using his BlackBerry that the Salvation Army provided to him for his work.

When an injury or death is caused by a pre-existing condition, the hearing officer must determine if the worker’s job contributed “in a significant manner.”

The hearing officer found Sullwold “was under extraordinary and relentless stress in performing his duties.”

A medical expert testified Sullwold’s “longstanding, chronic and relentless work stress significantly accelerated and combined with his underlying coronary heart disease, which resulted in sudden cardiac death.”

Given these findings, the court decided the hearing officer had made the correct decision in determining that Sullwold’s death occurred in the course of and arose out of employment.

The award of benefits to Sullwold’s widow was affirmed.

What do you think about the court’s decision? Let us know in the comments.

(Estate of Gregory Sullwold v. The Salvation Army, Maine Supreme Judicial Court, No. WCB-13-541, 1/22/15)

Print Friendly
Filed Under: Bizarre Accidents, In this week's e-newsletter Tagged With: , , , ,

Related Posts

Subscribe Today

Get the latest and greatest safety news and insights delivered to your inbox.
  • miltonmojo

    Incredible!!

    First things first - Just because Mr. Sullwold had been authorized to work from home that didn’t make his entire house his workplace, nor mean anything and everything he did in it (even during work hours) was a work activity. As far as I’m concerned when he stopped working and jumped onto his personal treadmill he “left” the work environment. And the part about taking his Blackberry with him should be seen as irrelevant - if he’d gone outside for a walk instead and taken his BB would he still have been “at work”? A lot of us carry devices constantly that allow for instant work communication, that would seem to mean that we’re always “at work”. It’s preposterous!

    Now the more important part: Based on this article it seems that the finding hinged heavily on the idea that his work stress contributed to his cardiac condition. So from that standpoint a WC claim could have been initiated no matter when/where he had his heart attack since work would always be a cause. And that’s just ridiculous.

    I guess the lesson here is that anyone who carries around a device that connects to work can make a claim against work for almost anything that happens since they would be “working” all the time. And of course if you also have a ready-made claim for stress all the time too since carrying such a device appears to be evidence the work stress is “extraordinary and relentless”.
    Unless there’s more to this that we aren’t getting from the article this entire ruling is seriously flawed, and completely out of touch with modern realities!!

    • Brenda

      I agree, it seems they want everything to fall on the employers shoulders.

    • jburzynski

      Thank you! I tried to comment a few days ago but could not censor myself! Ridiculous, ludicrous, preposterous… all excellent examples of words I should have chosen.

  • http://www.ussafety.us Frank Subzda

    By OSHA standards, this would be non-recordable - participating in a voluntary exercise program

    I’ve had quadruple bypass, my phone and nitro are with me at all times. Who was he attempting to contact on the phone?

    I applaud the exercise, what about the rest of the doctor’s dietetic and pharmaceutical directions. Were they followed? If the employee would not have gotten on the exercise machine on that specific day, would the incident have occurred?

    Was the claimed stress acute or chronic. Did something excessive happen today or was the claim that stress over time was the cause? If you work in America, there is stress at some point. Try teaching in the public school system, being a police officer or an air traffic controller.

    Off the top of my head, there is simply not enough information here to determine causality. I feel the employer was gracious to allow the employee to work from home and I fear, based on this judgment, employers will be hesitant to hire people with heart disease.

  • Jim Shewell

    As to recordability, OSHA is specific in 1904.5(b)(2)(iii) Recording and Reporting Occupational Injuries and Illness that this instant case is not a recordable injury:

    1904.5(b)(2)

    Are there situations where an injury or illness occurs in the work environment and is not considered work-related? Yes, an injury or illness occurring in the work environment that
    falls under one of the following exceptions is not work-related, and therefore
    is not recordable.

    1904.5(b)(2) You are not required to record injuries and illnesses if . . .

    (iii) The injury or illness results solely from voluntary participation in a wellness program or in a medical, fitness, or recreational activity such as blood donation, physical examination, flu shot, exercise class, racquetball, or baseball.

    Re: Cumulative effect of work related stress as a proximate cause of death –

    Even though the hearing officer found that, although Sullwold was allegedly walking on the treadmill at the time of his death, and during work hours, and in a place that the Salvation Army approved for his work, that does not trump 1904.5(b)(2)(iii). Further as to work related, there is no evidence presented herein to suggest that Sullwold was engaged in “extraordinary and relentless stress in performing his duties”.

    “A medical expert testified Sullwold’s“longstanding, chronic and relentless work stress significantly accelerated and combined with his underlying coronary heart disease, which resulted in sudden cardiac death.” Here, a comprehensive review of employee complaints of work related stress to management or medical professionals would have to be vetted, as too would the assumption that Sullwold’s pre-death condition was in fact (and not opinion) work related.

    There may be a civil issue the widow could bring, but WC death benefits seen to be unwarranted.

    • miltonmojo

      The problem here Jim is that OSHA’s recordkeeping system and their incident classification criteria have nothing to do with Worker’s Comp (or vice versa). Yes, as discussed at length in other posts this case does not appear to meet OSHA’s definition of being “work related”, and probably is not a Recordable/Fatality (and would likely also not require a notification to OSHA either - even under this year’s updated rules). But by the WC laws in effect in the State of Maine the state’s Supreme Court has ruled that it does qualify as “work related” and is deemed to be compensable there, and they pretty much have the final word up there until/unless the laws are changed.

      Others have pointed out that this might not be the case in other states (and certainly the Maine court’s decision has no direct affect outside of Maine). But my problem is with the complete illogic of anyone, anywhere seeing this as being in any way something that the employer should be held financially accountable for in the first place! For a long time now it seems like I’ve seen a growing trend in this country to see any personal setback as making the person involved a victim, and then finding someone or something to hold accountable and be made to provide “just compensation” to that “victim”. That trend extends to the WC world too in many states, where the laws and the judicial decisions like this seemingly come down all the time where it appears the deciders go out of their way to get WC to apply and get the person a payout. As far as I’m concerned this is just another example. In some of the worst states for this (yes, I’m talking to you California!!) the big & easy WC payouts and resulting high premiums employers are required to pay are actually driving business away!

  • Rach

    Does he have a treadmill at his “real” office? If not, I don’t agree with this.”Taking a break” would be “off the clock” and therefore not the employers fault.

  • VJ

    This occurred in Maine. I don’t know what the Workers Comp requirements are there, but in Texas a Heart Attack is only compensated if you tie it to a “specific event”. His wife said in the testimony that he was “overloaded” with stress after Sept.11th, 2001 and again after the effects of the 2008 economic downturn. He passed away in 2011 while on a treadmill. If he were at a gym and not in his own home, then he would probably not be compensated. If he were in his regular work office and not at home, he wouldn’t have been on a treadmill. It seems to me to be a long stretch to say this was job related.