U.S. Steel Corporation appeals from the compensation judge’s award of temporary partial disability benefits commencing February 24, 2005, following the employee’s August 2003 retirement from the employer for reasons unrelated to his work injury, and from the judge’s finding that the employee is a “qualified employee” entitled to rehabilitation services.  We affirm.

James E. Boutto [the employee] began working for U.S. Steel Corporation [the employer] or its predecessors in March of 1973 and continued to work there for over thirty years.  Although the ownership and name of the employer changed over the years, the employee’s seniority accumulation carried over to each successive new owner, pursuant to his union’s labor contract.

The employee worked for the employer as a millwright on a “belt crew,” maintaining and repairing fabric belts.  It was physical work that often involved awkward positioning, bending, twisting, and lifting.  On November 19, 1990, the employee injured his back at work as he attempted to remove a barrel pump from an oil barrel.  He experienced a sharp, jabbing pain in his low back that radiated into both legs.  He consulted a chiropractor and was placed on conservative management, which resulted in some improvement in his back and leg pain.  He treated extensively with the chiropractor through July 1991, by which date he had returned to work at his pre-injury job without restrictions.

Between July 1991 and May 2002, the employee continued to work at his pre-injury job on the belt crew, but he continued to have intermittent low back pain that gradually worsened over time.  After exhausting conservative treatment measures, the employee underwent an L5-S1 fusion on May 14, 2002, performed by neurosurgeon Dr. Scott Dulebohn.

About five months after his fusion surgery, the employee returned to his job on the belt crew with light-duty restrictions, continuing in that capacity until he retired from the employer on August 31, 2003.  At the time of his retirement, the employee was earning his full millwright wages but was working subject to restrictions against lifting over twenty pounds and against extensive bending, twisting, and climbing.  The employee retired from the employer under a retirement incentive program offered by the employer to employees with at least thirty years of service.  Workers who took advantage of the incentive program were offered an early retirement cash bonus and a monthly pension benefit.  Acceptance of the employer’s offer also meant that the worker gave up all reemployment rights at the employer.  The employee elected to avail himself of the program and was paid a cash bonus of $40,000.00, along with a monthly pension benefit.  On August 31, 2003, the employee was fifty years old.

On October 29, 2003, the employee filed a Claim Petition, seeking payment of permanent partial disability benefits for a 13% whole body impairment related to his low back injury of November 19, 1990.  About three weeks later, the employer made payment to the employee for a 9% whole body impairment.  On August 10, 2004, the employee amended his claim petition to allege entitlement also to temporary partial disability benefits commencing upon his retirement in August 2003.  The employee had been working part time as a public school bus driver for the school district in his hometown of Cook, Minnesota, and had also worked intermittently as a carpenter.

The employee’s claims for benefits came on for hearing before Compensation Judge Peggy A. Brenden on February 24, 2005.  In a Findings and Order issued March 30, 2005, Judge Brenden concluded that the employee’s November 19, 1990, work injury was neither a substantial contributing factor in the employee’s decision to retire in August 2003 nor a substantial contributing factor in the employee’s diminished earnings or earning capacity from that date through the time of hearing.  She attributed the employee’s diminished earnings following his retirement to his “personal choice to simply work less and have more free time.”  She found also that the employee did not conduct a reasonable and diligent search for work subsequent to his retirement from the employer.  On those conclusions, the judge denied the employee’s claim for temporary partial disability benefits through the hearing date, but she did award compensation for an additional 2% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole and a rehabilitation consultation to determine whether the employee was a “qualified employee,” eligible to receive rehabilitation services.

The employee was seen for a rehabilitation consultation by certified rehabilitation counselor L. James Jackson on August 10, 2005.  In a report dated August 18, 2005, Mr. Jackson stated that

The employee subsequently filed a Rehabilitation Request for rehabilitation assistance and a Claim Petition for temporary partial disability benefits continuing from February 24, 2005, the date of the previous hearing.  The employee’s claims were consolidated for hearing and were heard by Compensation Judge Brenden on October 19, 2006.  Witnesses at hearing included the employee, QRC Jackson, and the employer’s expert vocational witness, Karen Jarocki Strewler.

At hearing, the employee testified that he had been working continuously for his local school district following the February 24, 2005, hearing.  He had changed from driving bus part time to driving full time, twenty-five hours a week, had obtained a second job with the district as an “in-school suspension monitor,” and had then taken a third job as a teacher’s aide.  In addition, the employee had worked on a limited basis as a carpenter.  He testified that, while he had intended to retire from work with the employer, he was not financially able to completely retire from the labor market and took the jobs with the school district to supplement his pension benefits.

Ms. Strewler had performed a review of the employee’s rehabilitation and medical records and testified at the hearing that, in her opinion, the employee’s back condition and work restrictions were not a substantial contributing factor in the employee’s reduced earnings following his retirement from the employer.  She stated that he was earning less because of his personal choice to retire from “a very good paying job.”  She testified also that she would not have found the employee to be a “qualified employee,” eligible for rehabilitation services.  She testified that, in her professional judgment, given his skills and qualifications, the employee had already attained the vocational goal contemplated by the rehabilitation plan.

In a Findings and Order issued November 8, 2006, the compensation judge found the employee’s work injury to be a substantial contributing factor in the employee’s loss of earnings, and she awarded temporary partial disability benefits based on evidence of his actual earnings.  She also  found that the employee met the requirements of a “qualified employee” and ordered the employer to provide rehabilitation assistance.  The employer appeals.

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 (2006).  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).

To prove entitlement to temporary partial disability benefits, an injured employee must be working and must demonstrate a work-related physical disability and an actual loss of earning capacity that is causally related to that disability.  Dorn v. A. J. Chromy Constr. Co., 310 Minn. 42, 47, 245 N.W.2d 451, 454, 29 W.C.D. 86, 91 (1976).  The presence of physical restrictions and the effect of such restrictions on an employee’s ability to work are central considerations in determining entitlement to wage loss benefits.  See, e.g., Kautz v. Setterlin Co., 410 N.W.2d 843, 845, 40 W.C.D. 206, 208 (Minn. 1987).  The employer’s appeal is based on its assertion that substantial evidence does not support a determination that the employee’s wage loss is causally related to the effects of his work injury.

The employer argues that, because the employee’s work injury was not a substantial contributing factor in the employee’s decision to retire, and because the employee knew when he retired that he would not be making as much money with the school district as he had made with the employer, the judge’s finding that the employee’s diminished earnings are causally related to the work injury must be reversed.  It asserts that not only did the employee retire at a time when he was physically capable of continuing to perform his modified job with the employer but also if he had not retired he would still be capable of holding that job.  The employer argues that, just as an employee’s retirement or permanent withdrawal from the labor market is a complete defense to a claim for permanent total disability benefits,^[1] so the employee’s personal decision to leave a high paying job with the employer knowing that he could not return to that employment represents a “partial withdrawal from the labor market” and should be a complete defense to a temporary partial disability claim where the diminished earnings are due to that retirement.  We are not persuaded.

It is well settled that termination from employment for reasons not connected to the work injury does not preclude an award of temporary partial disability benefits.  See Marsolek v. Geo. A. Hormel Co., 438 N.W.2d 922, 41 W.C.D. 964 (Minn. 1989); Johnson v. State, Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 400 N.W.2d 729, 39 W.C.D. 367 (Minn. 1987); Mayer v. Hormel Foods Corp., slip op. (W.C.C.A. Apr. 18, 2001).  In cases of voluntary termination or termination for misconduct, the employee’s right to wage loss benefits is suspended until “it has become demonstrable that the employee’s work-related disability is the cause of the employee’s inability to find or hold new employment.”  Marsolek, 438 N.W.2d at 924, 41 W.C.D. at 968.  That determination is to be made “upon consideration of the totality of the circumstances including the usual work search ‘requirements.’”  Id.  We see no basis for distinguishing the employee’s voluntary retirement in the present case from voluntary terminations in cases following from Marsolek.  The employee’s decision to accept the employer’s retirement incentive package should not place him in a worse position than someone discharged for misconduct.

The issue remains whether the employee has shown that his wage loss is causally related to his disability in light of the “totality of the circumstances.”  Here, the judge reasonably concluded that the employee was “making good faith efforts to maximize his post injury earnings,” and she explained, in the context of the employee’s job search, that,

It is evident from the record that the employee was subject to physical restrictions related to his work injury at all times during the period of this claim.  Nor does the employer argue that he was not.  The fact that the employee accepted an early retirement incentive from his employer for reasons unrelated to his injury or that he remains physically able to perform his previous job is not relevant to the question of whether the employee’s actual loss of earning capacity is causally related to the work injury.  A job that is no longer available to an employee is of little relevance in determining entitlement to wage loss benefits.  See Tottenham v. Eaton Char-Lynn Corp., 43 W.C.D. 71, 78-9 (W.C.C.A. 1990).  The employer here, in entering into its early retirement package with the employee, got exactly what it bargained for - - a reduction in its work force.  The employee was not excluded from the program because he happened to be working at a modified job.  An injured worker is not forever bound to his employer in order to retain his entitlement to benefits.  The employee was only fifty years old when he retired from his job with the employer, and, while he clearly intended to retire from his position with the employer, there is evidence that he did not intend to completely retire from the labor market, that he reasonably needed to continue working to cover his expenses.  Whether an employee’s reduction in earnings during a period of post-injury employment is due to the employee’s injury or to some nonwork-related cause 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).  Because it was not unreasonable, we affirm the judge’s finding of causation.^[2]  See Hengemuhle, 358 N.W.2d at 59, 37 W.C.D. at 239.

The employer argues also that there is no substantial evidence to support the judge’s finding that the employee was entitled to rehabilitation services where the employee had already achieved his goal of obtaining full-time employment with the school district.  The employer contends that, when he met QRC Jackson in 2005, the employee stated that his goal was to obtain full-time work with the school district.  The employee accomplished that goal in September of 2006 without the assistance of Mr. Jackson or of anyone else.  He is currently working fifty to fifty-five hours per week, and, supported by Ms. Strewler’s testimony, they argue that a proposal to spend over $6,000.00 for a job search is highly inappropriate, given that the employee has already attained his vocational goal.  We are not persuaded.

An employee is eligible for rehabilitation services if he or she, because of the work injury, (1) is likely to be precluded from engaging in his or her preinjury position, (2) cannot reasonably be expected to return to work with the date-of-injury employer, and (3) can reasonably be expected to return to suitable gainful employment through the provision of rehabilitation services.  Minn. R. 5220.0100, subp. 22.  Moreover, that rehabilitation is “necessary” in a particular case does not mean that it is “indispensable” but simply that it “will materially assist the employee in restoring his impaired capacity to earn a livelihood.”  Norby v. Arctic Enterprises, Inc., 305 Minn. 519, 521, 232 N.W.2d 773, 775, 28 W.C.D. 48, 50 (1975).

In the present case, the compensation judge accepted the testimony of Mr. Jackson that the employee’s chances of finding better paying work - - work providing an economic status closer to that that the employee would have enjoyed without his work-related disability - - would be improved with professional rehabilitation assistance.  Ms. Strewler disagreed with that assessment.  It is the compensation judge’s responsibility, as trier of fact, to resolve conflicts in expert testimony.  Nord v. City of Cook, 360 N.W.2d 337, 342, 37 W.C.D. 364, 373 (Minn. 1985).  Because the judge’s determination on this issue was not unreasonable, we affirm.  See Hengemuhle, 358 N.W.2d at 59, 37 W.C.D. at 239.