The self-insured employer appeals from the compensation judge’s decision granting the employee’s request to amend her rehabilitation plan to explore retraining.  We affirm.

On November 17, 2002, the employee sustained a work-related injury to her low back while employed as a certified nursing assistant [CNA] by Virginia Regional Medical Center [the employer], which was self-insured for workers’ compensation purposes.  At the time of the injury, the employee was working straight day shifts, earning $12.09 per hour for a 40-hour work week and more than $18.00 an hour when she worked overtime.  Her weekly wage was $506.60.

The employee was off work for some period before beginning a light-duty job with the employer in January of 2003.  However, the attempted return to work was unsuccessful, and, the following month, the employee began receiving rehabilitation assistance from QRC Wende Morrell.  Ms. Morrell eventually completed a rehabilitation plan calling for the employee to return to work with the employer.^[1]

The employee underwent lumbar fusion surgery, with instrumentation, in December of 2003.  The following fall, in October of 2004, she returned to work for the employer as a nursing unit clerk, part time.  She was then on maternity leave from May 2005 through November 2005 before returning to the nursing unit clerk position.  At some point after December of 2005, the employee’s  hours in that job increased to about 30 per week.  The nursing unit clerk job apparently pays $11.93 an hour, and the employee’s temporary partial disability benefit payment typically ranges from $90.00 to $145.00 per week.

In February of 2006, the employee filed a rehabilitation request, seeking to amend her  rehabilitation plans to include exploration of retraining.  QRC Morrell testified that she subsequently made that same request.  The employer objected to amendment of the plan, and, after the employee prevailed at the administrative conference level, the employer filed a request for formal hearing.

Two witnesses testified when the matter came on for hearing before the compensation judge.  The employee testified, in part, that she did not apply for certain jobs posted by the employer because those jobs would have required her to work nights or rotating shifts, interfering with her ability to care for her young child, and because some of the work would have exceeded the restrictions necessitated by her work injury.  The employee also testified rather extensively about her prior school work and grades.  The QRC testified primarily about previous rehabilitation efforts.  She was not asked by either party to render an opinion as to whether investigation of retraining was reasonable.  Other evidence submitted at hearing included some of the employee’s school records, medical records delineating the employee’s restrictions, and a pay stub from the pay period just prior to the employee’s work injury.

In a decision issued on November 27, 2006, the compensation judge granted the employee’s request to amend her rehabilitation plan to include exploration of retraining.  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).

In her findings and order, the compensation judge concluded that the employee had experienced a “significant” continuing wage loss since her return to work with the employer in October of 2004.  The judge also found that the employee was permanently precluded from returning to her pre-injury job as a result of her work injury, that the employer had not introduced any evidence indicating that the employee could expect to earn her pre-injury wage any time in the near future, and that the QRC had not indicated that it would be unreasonable to investigate retraining.  In her memorandum, the compensation judge further explained her decision as follows:

On appeal, the employer argues that the compensation judge improperly shifted the burden of proof to the employer and that the judge erred by amending the rehabilitation plan in the absence of expert vocational opinion justifying that result.  The employer also contends that the judge improperly disregarded evidence of the employee’s rejection of higher-paying work and that the judge’s decision is, in general, unsupported by substantial evidence.  We are not persuaded.

The goal of rehabilitation is to return the employee to an economic status as close as possible to that which the employee would have enjoyed without her disability.  Minn. Stat. § 176.102, subd. 1(b).  Retraining is to be given “equal consideration with other rehabilitation services, and proposed for approval if other considered services are not likely to lead to suitable gainful employment.”  Minn. R. 5220.0750, subp. 1.  However, the issue here is not whether the employee is entitled to retraining but simply whether the rehabilitation plan should be amended to investigate retraining as a rehabilitation option.  A rehabilitation plan may be amended for good cause, including “a need to change the vocational goal of the . . . plan.”  Minn. R. 5220.0510, subp. 1C.

In Johnson v. Artic Cat, Inc., 64 W.C.D. 106 (W.C.C.A. 2004), a panel of this court indicated that exploration of retraining is appropriate if the employee has a loss of earning capacity causally related to the employee’s work injury.^[2]  Other factors that may be relevant to the issue include the length of time since the injury, whether the employee has reached maximum medical improvement,^[3] the extent of the employee’s loss of earning capacity, and evidence concerning the employee’s ability to secure suitable employment through a return to work with the employer or alternative placement efforts.  Again, however, the issue is not whether the employee is entitled to retraining, and, while relevant considerations may vary from case to case, authorization for investigation of retraining should be no more difficult to obtain than authorization for other rehabilitation services, such as placement assistance.

In the present case, it is undisputed that the employee has a loss of earning capacity causally related to her work injury,^[4] and her wage loss is relatively significant given her pre-injury wage.  She was four years post injury and two years post return to work at the time of the hearing before the compensation judge, and, as the judge noted, the record contains no evidence indicating that the employee can reasonably expect to return to her pre-injury economic status any time in the near future.  As for the employer’s contention that the compensation judge improperly shifted the burden of proof to the employer to prove that investigation of retraining is inappropriate, it is clear to us that the judge was merely commenting on the employer’s failure to introduce any evidence in opposition to the evidence supporting the employee’s claim.  Similarly, we reject the employer’s suggestion that expert vocational opinion is necessary to establish that retraining should be explored.  Rather, the issue is one of fact and well within the expertise of a compensation judge.  Thus, while expert testimony may, as a practical matter, be helpful, it is certainly not required.  Finally, contrary to the employer’s argument, the judge’s memorandum amply  demonstrates that she considered the evidence concerning other, higher-paying jobs potentially available with the employer,^[5] and we concur with the judge’s analysis on that point.

The compensation judge’s decision is affirmed.