The employee appeals from the compensation judge’s denial of a portion of his claim for wage loss benefits.  We affirm.

The employee has worked in carpentry and construction since 1972.  In 2003 or 2004, he commenced employment with KMB Architectural Metals, Inc. [the employer], installing metal architectural elements such as metal roofs and gutters.  The employee was a working foreman, and his job required extensive climbing of ladders and carrying of materials.

On September 18, 2007, the employee sustained a work-related injury when he fell six or seven feet from a ladder.  He was taken by ambulance to North Memorial Medical Center, where he was diagnosed with a comminuted left intertrochanteric subtrochanteric femur fracture.^[1]  Surgery, an open reduction with internal fixation, was performed by Dr. Rolf Hauck that same day.  Dr. Hauck continued to follow the employee subsequent to his discharge from the hospital.  Post-surgical treatment included physical therapy, therapeutic exercises, medication, and, eventually, work hardening.

The employee completed the work hardening program on January 31, 2008.  According to the work hardening discharge summary, the employee was by then “able to complete a full day of job simulation with report of fatigue and soreness but no objective signs of deterioration,” he no longer used a cane, and his limp and tendency to “left side bend” had decreased.  However, the report also indicated that the employee had expressed concern that he was “not 100%,” noting continued medial thigh pain, a locking sensation when bringing his knee to his chest, and muscle pain from the left side of his groin to his left knee.  Carrying more than 50 pounds and working in a prolonged squat or kneeling position were his primary functional difficulties.  Nevertheless, because the employee had demonstrated the ability to climb and work on ladders and repetitively lift and carry 50 pounds, as required for his job with the employer, recommendations were as follows:

The employee saw Dr. Hauck again on that same date.  In his office notes, Dr. Hauck reported that the employee was “really doing well for the most part;” “he feels that he would be able to tolerate his regular duties within the next few weeks.”  The employee’s incision was well healed, and he had flexion to 100 degrees, full extension, and was “10 and 10 of internal and external rotation.”  X-rays demonstrated that the fracture had healed.  Dr. Hauck indicated that the employee could resume his regular job duties on February 15, 2008, working up to 10 hours a day in a 40-hour week.

The employer had no work for the employee when he was released to return to his job, and the company apparently disbanded sometime thereafter.  While he never returned to work for the employer, the employee helped an owner or supervisor of the company install siding on a house.  The employee testified that he was stiff and sore, with pain and numbness in the leg, hip, and lower back, but that he tried to complete the work.

On March 24, 2008, the employee saw Dr. Hauck again for a recheck.  Dr. Hauck’s office note of that date indicates that the employee was experiencing persistent numbness in the anterior aspect of the medial tibia as well as some occasional abductor pain and some buttock and low back discomfort.  He exhibited full range of motion in the hip and knee and complained of no pain with internal or external rotation; however, the doctor noted that, “[s]ubjectively [the employee] has a decreased soft touch sensation throughout the anterior aspect of the left tibia.”  Dr. Hauck concluded that the employee had reached maximum medical improvement [MMI], was able to “work his regular duties,” and had a 3% whole body impairment as a result of his injury.  Around this same time, the employee’s QRC closed her file.

Dr. Hauck evaluated the employee again on June 16, 2008.  At that time, the employee was “certainly not 100%,” complaining of groin pain when he coughed and a little bit of numbness down the medial aspect of his left leg.  Range of motion was “fairly good,” and x-rays showed no degenerative changes in the hip.  Dr. Hauck referred the employee to a general surgeon, for evaluation of a possible hernia given his groin pain, and indicated again that the employee could work a “full day regular duties.”  Over the next several months, the employee apparently continued to receive physical therapy.

The employee received unemployment compensation due to the unavailability of work with the employer.  Sometime in late summer or the fall of 2008, he attempted to start his own pick up and delivery business, primarily hauling scrap metal, evidently, and he occasionally performed odd job and handyman-type construction work.  He testified that he continued to experience numbness and left leg pain and that he did not feel safe working on ladders.

On December 3, 2008, the employee was evaluated by Dr. Paul Wicklund, the employer and insurer’s examiner.  In his report dated December 11, 2008, Dr. Wicklund suggested that the employee observe temporary lifting and bending restrictions pending completion of a lumbar MRI, which the doctor recommended to ascertain whether there was any anatomic basis for the employee’s subjective complaints of left leg pain and left foot numbness.  Dr. Wicklund also indicated that the employee’s fracture had healed and that it had been appropriate for Dr. Hauck to have released the employee to work without restrictions in March of 2008, given the employee’s physical findings and complaints at that time.

At the request of the employer and insurer, the employee’s QRC reopened her file, and the QRC arranged for the employee to undergo the lumbar MRI on April 3, 2009.  The scan disclosed multi-level degenerative changes, but the cause for the employee’s continuing left leg complaints was not apparent.

On April 9, 2009, a few days after the MRI, the employee was seen again by Dr. Hauck, expressing concern that he might be suffering from cauda equina syndrome.  Dr. Hauck noted definite “irritability with range of motion of [the employee’s] hip” as well as non-focal neurological findings.  Observing that he had nothing further to offer the employee from an orthopedic standpoint, Dr. Hauck suggested that a functional capacities evaluation might be useful.  He also recommended that the employee undergo a neurological evaluation to investigate the employee’s “chronic rather unusual complaints of numbness throughout his entire leg,” as well as spasm, which, in Dr. Hauck’s view, were not typical for that kind of fracture.

The employee underwent a neurological evaluation by Dr. Bruce Idelkope on April 30, 2009.  After reviewing the employee’s MRI scan, Dr. Idelkope agreed that the employee’s lumbar spine was not the source of his complaints.  Rather, following examination, the doctor concluded that the employee had sustained a neuropathic injury, possibly both femoral and sciatic, and he recommended a pelvic MRI as well as an EMG to further define the nature of the employee’s condition.  The EMG, performed on June 8, 2009, was interpreted as being compatible with sciatic nerve injury.

The employee was seen again by Dr. Idelkope on June 22, 2009.  In his report of that date, Dr. Idelkope concluded that the employee had sustained a sciatic nerve injury, which probably “transpired when [the employee] had his subtrochanteric femoral fracture.”  Because the employee was nearly two years post-injury, Dr. Idelkope did not expect further healing and did not recommend further investigation or therapy.^[2]  Finally, the doctor expressed “some concerns about him returning to his former occupation” but stated that he would “leave this to his QRC.”

The employee saw Dr. Hauck again on July 6, 2009.  At that time, Dr. Hauck indicated, again, that the employee had reached maximum MMI from the healed fracture.  As for the sciatic nerve problem, Dr. Hauck noted that the employee had chronic pain,^[3] which would not be measured well by a functional capacity evaluation, and indicated that pain would have to be taken into account when assessing the employee’s ability to work.

On July 23, 2009, Dr. Wicklund issued another report following review of the employee’s EMG and the records from Dr. Idelkope.  In Dr. Wicklund’s opinion, the minimal changes shown on EMG would not prevent the employee from using his left leg in a normal fashion, and the doctor saw no need for a functional capacities evaluation or any specific restrictions on the employee’s activities.

The employee filed a claim petition alleging entitlement to various benefits as a result of his September 18, 2007, work injury.  In April of 2009, the parties settled the employee’s wage loss benefit claims through August 23, 2008.  The employee’s remaining claims for wage loss benefits from and after August 24, 2008, came on for hearing before a compensation judge on August 20, 2009.  At hearing, the parties stipulated that the employee had “no restrictions on his work activities from a doctor, due to the effects of his work injury,” from August 24, 2008, to December 11, 2008.

In a decision issued on October 22, 2009, the judge denied the employee’s claim for temporary total disability benefits between August 24, 2008, and December 11, 2008, based on his release to work without restrictions, and found that he was not entitled to temporary total disability benefits between December 11, 2008, and March 30, 2009, because he had not conducted a reasonably diligent job search during that period.  The judge also denied the employee’s claim for temporary partial disability benefits through March 30, 2009, on grounds that his earnings were sporadic and resulted in unsubstantial income.  The judge did, however, award the employee temporary total disability benefits from and after March 30, 2009,^[4] based on the employee’s need for restrictions and cooperation with rehabilitation efforts.  The employee appeals from the judge’s denial of wage loss benefits between August 24, 2008, and March 30, 2009.

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 (2008).  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 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).

The compensation judge concluded that the employee’s left sciatic nerve condition was causally related to his September 18, 2007, work injury.  Finding also that the employee was subject to restrictions and cooperated with rehabilitation efforts beginning on March 30, 2009, the judge awarded the employee temporary total disability benefits from that date through 90-days post MMI.  These findings and award are undisputed on appeal.

The judge denied the employee’s claim for temporary total disability benefits between August 24, 2008, and December 11, 2008, on grounds that the employee had been released to work without restrictions during that period.  In explaining her decision, the judge cited Minn. Stat. § 176.101, subd. 1(h), and Kautz v. Setterlin Co., 410 N.W.2d 843, 40 W.C.D. 206 (Minn. 1987). On appeal, the employee contends that the judge’s denial of benefits is not supported by substantial evidence.  More specifically, the employee contends that the record is replete with medical evidence establishing that he continued to experience left leg symptoms during this period, and, he argues, restrictions would have been recommended had his sciatic nerve injury been properly diagnosed in a timely fashion.  We acknowledge that the compensation judge could have concluded that the employee was subject to restrictions for the period in question, for just the reasons asserted by the employee.  Nevertheless, we find no basis to reverse.

The fact that an employee experiences continuing symptoms does not automatically mean that that employee has physical limitations or that his condition has any effect on his employability.  Furthermore, as the compensation judge noted, Dr. Hauck was aware of the employee’s continuing complaints but nevertheless indicated on several occasions that the employee was capable of working at his usual job, and the employee submitted no medical opinion indicating that, in hindsight, he should have limited his activities during this period.^[5]  And, Dr. Wicklund, the employer and insurer’s examiner, indicated that it had been appropriate for Dr. Hauck to have released the employee to work without restrictions, “given his physical findings and complaints at the time.”

The employee has the burden of establishing that he is disabled as a result of a work-related injury.  Cf. Salmon v. Wheelabrator Frye, 409 N.W.2d 495, 40 W.C.D. 117 (Minn. 1987); see also Arouni v. Kelleher Constr., Inc., 426 N.W.2d 860, 41 W.C.D. 42 (Minn. 1988) (it is the employee’s burden to establish a diminution in earning capacity causally related to the work injury).  While the compensation judge could have inferred that the employee was in fact subject to restrictions during the period in question, despite the lack of medical opinion in that regard, the judge was certainly not required to do so.  Because it was not unreasonable for the judge to conclude that the employee failed to carry his burden of proof, we affirm the denial of temporary total disability benefits between August 24, 2008, and December 11, 2008.

The judge also denied the employee’s claim for temporary total disability benefits between December 11, 2008, and March 29, 2009, this time on grounds that the employee failed to perform a reasonably diligent job search.  On appeal from the judge’s decision on this issue, the employee argues that the employee’s job search was reasonably diligent under the circumstances or, in the alternative, that no job search was required once Dr. Wicklund issued restrictions pending completion of an MRI.

The judge’s decision on this issue is easily supported by the record.  The employee received unemployment compensation during this period, and he testified that he submitted information on his job search to the unemployment office.  However, he offered no job logs and very little testimony about his job search efforts at hearing.  Also, contrary to the employee’s contention, his receipt of unemployment benefits does not constitute “presumptive evidence that he diligently searched for work” for purposes of his workers’ compensation claim.  Given the vague and minimal evidence on the issue, the judge’s finding as to the employee’s job search efforts was not unreasonable or unsupported by the record.

Finally, we reject the employee’s contention that his job search obligations were suspended pending completion of the MRI recommended by Dr. Wicklund.  The employee was released by Dr. Wicklund to work, with “temporary” restrictions, pending completion of that scan.  No one took the employee off work entirely during that period, and the employee offered no testimony indicating that he considered himself unable to look for work.  The judge’s decision on this issue is also affirmed.  See Redgate v. Sroga’s Standard Serv., 421 N.W.2d 729, 40 W.C.D. 948 (Minn. 1988) (in general, an injured employee shows total disability by a diligent job search to no avail).

In the alternative, the employee claims entitlement to temporary partial disability benefits from August 24, 2008, through November 29, 2008,^[6] based on income he received from certain small construction projects and his start up delivery business.  The compensation judge denied the claim, concluding that “the employee’s work activities since August 24, 2008, were sporadic and resulted in unsubstantial income.”  On appeal, the employee argues that the employer and insurer failed to rebut the presumption of earning capacity raised by his actual earnings and that his attempts at self-employment were reasonable given his functional capacity and his lack of rehabilitation services.  We are not persuaded.

The employee’s weekly wage on the date of injury was $714.73.  According to his indemnity worksheet submitted at hearing, he had income in 9 weeks during the 14-week period at issue.  Listed earnings ranged from $34 to $150 a week.  When averaged over the entire 14-week period, the employee’s weekly income was $53.54.

Because the employee was released to work full time but worked only very part time and sporadically, his earnings are not presumptively representative of his earning capacity.  See., e.g., Kunferman v. Ford Motor Co., 65 W.C.D. 198 (W.C.C.A. 2004).  Moreover, again, the compensation judge concluded that the employee had no restrictions during this period, and we have affirmed her decision to this effect on appeal.  Absent restrictions, the employee cannot establish that his reduced earnings are related to his work injury.  See, e.g., Krotzer v. Browning-Ferris/Woodlake Sanitation Serv., 459 N.W.2d 509, 43 W.C.D. 254 (Minn. 1990); Dorn v. A.J. Chromy Constr. Co., 310 Minn. 42, 245 N.W2d 451, 29 W.C.D. 86 (1976).  We therefore affirm the judge’s denial of temporary partial disability benefits.