Connection lost
Server error
Estate of Gregory Sullwold v. The Salvation Army Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: An employee died of a heart attack while exercising at his home office. The court upheld a workers’ compensation award, finding a statutory presumption of compensability applied because his death was rationally linked to his high-stress job, and the employer failed to rebut it.
Legal Significance: This case clarifies the “preliminary linkage” test required to invoke the statutory presumption of compensability in death cases, extending its application to remote workers and recognizing work-related stress as a significant causal factor for injuries involving pre-existing conditions.
Estate of Gregory Sullwold v. The Salvation Army Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Gregory Sullwold was a portfolio specialist for The Salvation Army, managing a $2.5 billion portfolio. The job was high-stress, involving long hours and frequent travel. The Salvation Army permitted Sullwold to work remotely from his home office in Maine, providing him with necessary equipment, including a BlackBerry. Sullwold had a pre-existing heart condition, having suffered a heart attack in 1993. On February 23, 2010, Sullwold began working at 8:30 a.m. in his home office. At approximately 3:30 p.m., he took a break to exercise on his treadmill, bringing his work BlackBerry with him. About thirty minutes later, his wife found him unconscious on the floor next to the still-running treadmill. He was pronounced dead from a heart attack. Evidence showed Sullwold experienced significant work-related stress, including a recent panic attack he attributed to “overload.” His estate filed a petition for workers’ compensation benefits, alleging his death arose out of his employment. A medical expert testified that Sullwold’s “longstanding, chronic and relentless work stress” was a significant factor in his death.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Did the Workers’ Compensation Board properly apply the statutory presumption that an employee’s death arose out of and in the course of employment where the employee, who worked from home and had a pre-existing heart condition, died of a heart attack while exercising during work hours?
Yes. The court affirmed the award of compensation, holding that the evidence Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Exc
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Did the Workers’ Compensation Board properly apply the statutory presumption that an employee’s death arose out of and in the course of employment where the employee, who worked from home and had a pre-existing heart condition, died of a heart attack while exercising during work hours?
Conclusion
The decision confirms a broad application of the statutory death presumption in Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo conseq
Legal Rule
Under 39-A M.R.S. § 327, when an employee is killed and unable Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum d
Legal Analysis
The court's analysis focused on whether the claimant met the "preliminary linkage" Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nis
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Summary unavailable
No flash summary is available for this opinion.