The employer and insurer appeal from the judge’s finding that the employee’s work injury and the resulting restrictions are a substantial contributing cause of the employee’s reduction in wages.  We affirm.

The employee worked for William Mueller & Sons [the employer] as a driver during the construction season and in maintenance for part of the off-season.  He typically worked 10.5 months a year.  On January 4, 2002, the employee sustained multiple injuries when he fell at work.  The employee’s average weekly wage at the time of injury was $1,117.45.  The employer and insurer admitted liability for the employee’s injuries.

In a findings and order filed June 24, 2004, a compensation judge found that the employee had physical restrictions that were still in effect, that he was able to work subject to those restrictions, that he was unable to earn as much as he was earning prior to the date of injury, and that this reduction in earnings was directly related to the work injury.  The judge awarded temporary partial disability benefits from March 9, 2002, to December 13, 2002.

On September 9, 2004, the employee filed an amended claim petition seeking continuing temporary partial disability benefits.  When the matter proceeded to hearing, the employee claimed entitlement to temporary partial disability benefits from May 3, 2003, through December 20, 2003, October 31, 2004, through December 4, 2004, and May 7, 2005, through October 22, 2005.

During the hearing, the employee introduced a November 19, 2005, report from Dr. Samuel R. Deweese, indicating that the employee could drive only ten hours or less per day, five days per week, could not lift more than 30 pounds, and was subject to limits on bending, squatting, kneeling, twisting, turning and climbing.^[1]  The employee also introduced wage records for the relevant pay periods.  He had reduced earnings, compared to his pre-injury wage, during most of those weeks.  The employee testified that he is no longer able to perform his maintenance job, as it is outside of his restrictions, and that he generally complies with his restriction of ten hours of driving per day, while other drivers work longer hours.

The employer and insurer called Bradley Droege, the employee’s supervisor, as a witness.  Mr. Droege testified that the driving season generally runs from mid-April until the middle of November or December; that, because of rain in May and June of 2005, the company was working only four days per week; that, from 2003 to 2005, work availability was generally down; that the employee is restricted to ten hours of driving per day, and that other drivers often work beyond ten hours a day if the weather is good.

The employer and insurer also called Elda Kaliher, the employer’s office manager, as a witness.  Ms. Kaliher testified that the employer lost money in 2004 and 2005, because they did not obtain the contracts they had had in past years.  She estimated that, for 2005, the income for drivers would be down $3,000 to $5,000 per driver.  She also testified that the employee is paid the same hourly rate as the employer’s other drivers and that the employee works less hours because of his restrictions.

A findings and order filed on November 17, 2005, the compensation judge found that the employee is still partially disabled as a result of his work injury and that he is entitled to temporary partial disability benefits.  The employer and insurer appeal.

On appeal, the Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals must determine whether "the findings of fact and order [are] clearly erroneous and unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted."  Minn. Stat. § 176.421, subd. 1 (2004).  Substantial evidence supports the findings if, in the context of the entire record, "they are supported by evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate."  Hengemuhle v. Long Prairie Jaycees, 358 N.W.2d 54, 59, 37 W.C.D. 235, 239 (Minn. 1984).  Where evidence conflicts or more than one inference may reasonably be drawn from the evidence, the findings are to be affirmed.  Id. at 60, 37 W.C.D. at 240.  Similarly, findings of fact should not be disturbed, even though the reviewing court might disagree with them, "unless they are clearly erroneous in the sense that they are manifestly contrary to the weight of the evidence or not reasonably supported by the evidence as a whole.”  Northern States Power Co. v. Lyon Food Prods., Inc., 304 Minn. 196, 201, 229 N.W.2d 521, 524 (1975).

For the purposes of this appeal, the employer and insurer admit that the employee has a work-related injury resulting in disability and that the employee is able to work subject to that disability.  The employer and insurer contend, however, that the employee does not have a loss of earning capacity and that any loss of earnings is not causally related to his disability.

Generally, it is the employee’s burden to establish a loss of earning capacity that is causally related to the work injury.  Krotzer v. Browning-Ferris/Woodlake Sanitation Service, 459 N.W.2D 509, 43 W.C.D. 254 (Minn. 1990).  An employee’s actual earnings are presumed to be a fair measure of the employee’s current earning capacity, absent a showing by the employer and insurer of “something more than a theoretical possibility of a [different] position or wage.”  Patterson v. Denny’s Restaurant, 42 W.C.D. 868, 873-75 (W.C.C.A. 1989), citing Einberger v. 3M Co., 41 W.C.D. 727 n.14 (W.C.C.A. 1989).  In the present case, the employer and insurer contend that the employee’s reduction in earnings is a result of a reduction in hours due to bad weather and decreased availability of work.

Substantial evidence supports the judge’s findings.  The employee testified that he can no longer perform the maintenance job he formerly held during the off season, and Mr. Droege confirmed that the maintenance job was heavy work that was not within the employee’s restrictions.  The employee also testified that he generally drove no more than ten hours a day during the summer months because “the pain was too bad” but that other drivers “for the most part” worked an additional one to two hours.  Medical records establish that the employee was restricted by his doctor to ten hours of driving a day.  Mr. Droege testified that other drivers often work more than a ten-hour day if the weather is good and there is adequate light.

“Whether reduced earning capacity is attributable to the disability or some other factor is a question of fact for the compensation judge.”  Borchert v. American Spirits Graphics, 582 N.W.2d 214, 215, 58 W.C.D. 316, 318 (Minn. 1998).  While there was evidence that weather impacted the number of hours of work available to all drivers during certain months, the issue on appeal is not whether the evidence would support an alternative finding, but rather whether substantial evidence supports the findings made by the compensation judge.  The evidence cited in the preceding paragraph reasonably supports the conclusion that the employee sustained a reduction in earning capacity that was causally related to his work injury and that he is entitled to the temporary partial disability benefits claimed.  We therefore affirm the judge’s findings and order.