The employee appeals from the compensation judge’s determination that the employee suffered a temporary cervical strain/sprain on December 8, 2009, that resolved without the need for any work restrictions or additional medical treatment as of April 23, 2010.  We affirm.

Glenda R. Holter, the employee, began working as a Head Start classroom assistant for Kootasca Community Action, Inc., in Grand Rapids, Minnesota, the self-insured employer, in 1998.  She earned a weekly wage of $676.40.  The employee worked with four- and five-year-old children.  Her job required her to spend much of the day squatting, kneeling, and sitting on the floor or at small tables and chairs with the children.  The employee testified she normally lifted no more than a 20 to 25 pound box of books and materials on a daily or weekly basis.  The employer, however, did require that employees be capable of lifting up to 50 pounds in case of an emergency in which a child might need to be lifted or carried.

On December 8, 2009, the employee was sitting on the floor in the gym.  A child ran toward her to give her a hug, was unable to stop, and struck her neck and shoulder on the left side.  The employee experienced immediate pain from the top of her shoulder and into her neck but was able to complete her work that day.  The employee reported the injury the following day.  The self-insured employer admitted a work-related injury to the cervical spine and left shoulder, and paid various benefits including medical expenses and wage loss benefits.

The employee did not seek immediate medical attention.  When her symptoms did not improve, she was seen by Trevor Yartz, a certified physician’s assistant (PA) at Meridian Medical Clinic, on December 15, 2009.  On examination, the employee had some tenderness in the mid-cervical paraspinous muscles and over the left trapezius.  She also reported pain on extension, bilateral rotation, and flexion to the left.  X-rays taken that day showed mild to moderate degenerative changes from C4 through C6.  PA Yartz diagnosed an acute cervical strain, prescribed Flexeril, Naprosyn, and ice, gave orders for physical therapy, and provided a 10 pound lifting restriction.  The employer did not have work available within this restriction.

On December 28, 2009, a physical therapist at Radtke Physical Therapy noted a slumped posture, good grip, upper neck and thoracic muscle pain that limited side bending and rotation, and muscle tension/myofascial tightness in the upper neck, upper back, and shoulder region.  Physical therapy was recommended two to three times per week for four weeks.  The employee was seen by PA Yartz that same day.  She reported improvement with physical therapy and requested a 50 pound lifting limit so she could return to work, stating she was capable of doing her job.  On examination, the employee had full range of motion in her cervical spine and reported no numbness, tingling, or weakness in her upper extremities.  PA Yartz released the employee to work with a 50 pound lifting restriction as requested.

The employee continued to receive medical treatment at Radtke Physical Therapy and from PA Yartz.  On January 4, 2010, the physical therapist noted the employee had made significant improvement and was progressing overall with improved range of motion and decreased pain.  On January 8, 2010, the therapist noted the employee had seen a massage therapist and was feeling pretty good without much pain.  On January 11, 2010, the employee saw PA Yartz stating she was improving.  She had stopped taking Flexeril but continued to use Naprosyn occasionally.  PA Yartz noted full range of motion in the cervical spine and some tenderness in the occipital region bilaterally.  The employee was referred for deep tissue massage and continued on a 50 pound lifting restriction.

The employee continued to improve and on February 8, 2010, was seen by PA Yartz reporting excellent results with massage therapy and physical therapy.  She stated her pain was a 1-2 on a scale of 10, with some persistent trapezius discomfort bilaterally.  She was using Naprosyn minimally.  On examination, she had a normal appearing cervical spine with full range of motion and some mild tenderness in the trapezius muscles.  The employee’s 50 pound work restriction was continued and she was continued in physical therapy.

On March 3, 2010, the employee returned to physical therapy after a three week hiatus reporting increased pain in the neck and in the shoulder blade region.  The therapist recommended continued physical therapy on a one to two times per week basis.  Toward the end of March 2010, the employee reported to the therapist numbness in her fingers and hands and shooting pain in her right upper arm, along with a sharp pain at the base of the neck with headaches.  Cervical traction was added to the employee’s therapy regimen.  The employee reported her neck pain significantly decreased with the addition of traction, but she continued to have numbness in her hands.  On April 6, 2010, the employee reported to PA Yartz that she had been receiving traction in physical therapy which seemed to help.  She also reported occasional numbness, tingling, and shooting pain in her upper extremities that she had not had previously.  On examination, the employee had fairly good range of motion but continued to have paraspinous discomfort on palpation.  She had good grip strength and deep tendon reflexes were equal bilaterally.  PA Yartz was concerned about possible underlying nerve impingement and recommended an MRI scan.  Approval for the scan was denied by the insurer.  The employee continued to report neck pain and upper extremity numbness and tingling to the physical therapist and to PA Yartz through the end of April 2010.

On April 23, 2010, the employee was seen by Dr. Tilok Ghose, an orthopedic surgeon, at the request of the self-insured employer.  The employee reported headaches, neck pain with tenderness in the paraspinous muscles, occasional radiating pain into the trapezius and scapula, numbness and tingling in her fingers, and occasional radiating pain from the cervical spine down the right arm.  On examination, Dr. Ghose found no evidence of muscle spasm or tightness with palpation, essentially normal cervical range of motion, symmetrical deep tendon reflexes, and no weakness or sensory deficits in the upper extremities.  The doctor concluded the employee sustained a mild cervical strain/sprain on December 8, 2009, that had resolved by the date of his examination.  In his opinion, the employee had age-related degenerative changes that would be expected for someone in her age group.  Dr. Ghose opined that no further treatment or diagnostic studies were needed to cure or relieve the injury, and that no work restrictions were necessary as a result of the December 8, 2009, incident.

By letter dated June 23, 2010, PA Yartz stated the employee’s symptoms were due either to her cervical spine or her shoulders and that further evaluation was needed, including referral to a specialist and an MRI scan.  In his opinion, physical restrictions were necessary due to the employee’s neck pain, headaches, and radicular upper extremity symptoms.

On July 26, 2010, the employee was seen by Dr. Peter Eriksson at Meridian Medical Clinic reporting neck pain and stiffness with a tingling sensation in the second, third, and fourth fingers of her left hand.  On examination, Dr. Eriksson noted tenderness over the posterior musculature but no tenderness over the cervical spine.  The doctor referred the employee for an MRI scan.  The August 20, 2010, scan showed mild broad-based bulging at C5-C6 and C6-C7 without cervical cord or nerve root compression.

On September 9, 2010, PA Yartz referred the employee to a neurologist.  The employee was seen by Dr. Wolcott Holt on October 21, 2010.  The employee’s neurological examination was normal, but the doctor noted some tenderness on palpation of the trapezius with mild limitation of cervical range of motion.  Dr. Wolcott concluded the employee had either paresthesias in the C6 distribution or carpal tunnel in the median nerve of the hand that appeared to start after traction rather than the original injury.  An EMG and nerve conduction study performed on November 11, 2010, ruled out cervical radiculopathy, but was read as consistent with mild carpal tunnel syndrome on the left.  In a report dated February 22, 2011, Dr. Holt diagnosed cervical and shoulder pain without definite cervical radiculopathy or mylopathy and questionable carpal tunnel.  Dr. Holt further opined the employee’s history was consistent with cervical traction accentuating her carpal tunnel syndrome.

The employee returned to see PA Yartz on December 2, 2010, reporting persistent neck pain that did not seem to be improving.  On examination, the employee had fairly good range of motion, but some tenderness along the paraspinal muscles and some mild trigger point tenderness in the trapezius.  PA Yartz recommended either chiropractic care or chronic pain management.

In January 2011, the employee commenced chiropractic treatment with Scott Vanina, D.C.  The employee reported neck and shoulder pain that had not changed since the injury.  Dr. Vanina opined the employee sustained a cervical lateral and hyperextension flexion injury causally related to the December 8, 2009, incident.  Dr. Vanina further opined the employee did not have carpal tunnel syndrome but had, instead, a cervical dysfunction causing upper extremity symptoms.  The employee received seven treatments through April 18, 2011, reporting some improvement in her neck and shoulder blade pain and a decrease in the numbness in her fingers.

In December 2010, Dr. Ghose reviewed the employee’s MRI scan films and report.  In an addendum dated December 16, 2010, the doctor stated the MRI scan results confirmed his previous opinion that the employee did not have findings consistent with any anatomical sensory abnormality and had nothing more than age-related findings of no clinical relevance.  By reports dated April 5, 2011, and April 20, 2011, Dr. Ghose noted his review of Dr. Holt’s and Dr. Vanina’s treatment records and reports.  He disagreed with Dr. Holt that the employee had carpal tunnel syndrome and disagreed that the employee’s cervical traction therapy had anything to do with carpal tunnel syndrome.  He further opined the chiropractic treatment received by the employee was not related to the employee’s December 8, 2009, injury, and also disagreed with Dr. Vanina’s opinion that the employee had cervical dysfunction causing numbness in the hands and arm.

On May 31, 2011, the employee was seen in consultation by Dr. Ronald Tarrel, a neurologist, on referral from PA Yartz.  The employee reported headaches, neck pain, occasional radiating discomfort into the upper extremities, and significant soreness and stiffness throughout the upper back.  On examination, Dr. Tarrel noted the employee exhibited good strength and normal movement in all extremities with normal bulk and tone.  He noted bilateral tissue texture change in the posterior cervical regions particularly in the left upper back and interscapular region.  Dr. Tarrel’s impression was chronic soft tissue dysfunction, and he suggested a short course of oral steroids or chronic pain management.  By report dated September 6, 2011, Dr. Tarrel stated the MRI scan showed relatively mild underlying changes but nothing pre-existing that would account for the employee’s symptoms.  The doctor opined the employee had a permanent cervical sprain injury as a result of the incident on December 8, 2009, and needed permanent restrictions including a lifting restriction of 45 pounds.  Dr. Tarrel assigned a 10% permanent partial disability pursuant to Minn. R. 5223.0370, subp. 3.C.(2), and stated the employee would likely need periodic conservative care.

Dr. Ghose reviewed Dr. Tarrel’s report, and by report dated October 12, 2011, reiterated that in his view, the MRI scan was consistent with age-related degenerative findings.  He stated that when he examined the employee on April 23, 2010, she had full range of motion in the cervical spine with no findings of spasm or tightness and no limitation of motion.  He again opined that the employee sustained a mild cervical strain/sprain as a result of the work incident that was, at most, a temporary aggravation of her pre-existing degenerative condition.

Following her injury, the employee was off work and paid total disability benefits through approximately December 28, 2009.  Thereafter, the employee returned to work as a classroom assistant with the self-insured employer.  In November 2009, prior to the injury, the employee had been notified by the employer that she would not be rehired the following school year due to significant budget shortfalls and that her position would be eliminated at the end of the school year.  The employee continued to work for the employer until May 21, 2010.  She then received unemployment benefits and began working with a qualified rehabilitation consultant and job placement vendor.  She also obtained COBRA medical insurance coverage.  The employee was rehired by the self-insured employer as a substitute Head Start classroom assistant on September 3, 2010.  The employee received few calls, working only twenty days as a substitute between January and March 2011.  In May 2011, the employee commenced full-time employment with Arrowhead Promotion where she continued to work through the date of hearing.  The employee earned less with Arrowhead than she earned with the employer.

The employee’s claim for wage loss benefits and payment of medical expenses was heard by a compensation judge on April 3, 2012.  The compensation judge denied benefits finding the employee suffered a cervical strain/sprain on December 8, 2009, that had resolved as of April 23, 2010, without any residuals and without the need for any work restrictions or additional medical treatment.  The employee appeals.

The employee argues the compensation judge’s finding that the employee’s cervical spine injury had healed as of April 23, 2010, is manifestly contrary to the weight of the evidence and not reasonably supported by the evidence as a whole.  We disagree and affirm.

There is little disagreement as to the underlying facts in this case.  Rather, this is a case involving the weight to be given medical expert evidence.  The employee asserts the compensation judge erred by ignoring the opinions, observations, and conclusions of six medical providers who examined or treated the employee, including Trevor Yartz, PA, Radtke Physical Therapy, Dr. Eriksson, Dr. Holt, Dr. Vanina, and Dr. Tarrel.  The employee points out that the records and reports of these medical providers document continuing neck and shoulder pain and symptoms well after the employee was examined by Dr. Ghose on April 23, 2010.  Thus, the employee argues, if this court is to weigh the evidence to determine its substantiality, then the weight of the evidence is overwhelmingly in support of the employee’s claim of a permanent cervical injury.

It is not, however, the function of this court on appeal to reevaluate the probative weight of the evidence.^[1]  Krotzer v. Browning-Ferris, 459 N.W.2d 509, 513, 43 W.C.D. 254, 261 (Minn. 1990); Redgate v. Sroga’s Standard Serv., 421 N.W.2d 729, 734, 40 W.C.D. 948, 957 (Minn. 1988).  Rather, this court’s function on appeal is solely to determine whether the findings and conclusions reached by the compensation judge “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).  “[W]here the evidence is conflicting or more than one inference may reasonably be drawn from the evidence, the findings of the Compensation Judge are to be upheld.”  Id. at 60, 37 W.C.D. at 240.  Conflicts in medical expert testimony are to be resolved by the compensation judge as the trier of fact.  Nord v. City of Cook, 360 N.W.2d. 337, 342, 37 W.C.D. 364, 372 (Minn. 1985); Reuther v. State, Mankato State Univ., 455 N.W.2d 475, 478, 42 W.C.D. 1118, 1123 (Minn. 1990).  Where the facts assumed by the expert in rendering his opinion are supported by the evidence, the findings of the compensation judge must be upheld.  See Nord at 342-43, 37 W.C.D. at 372-73.

In reviewing the evidence we note, first, that it is evident the compensation judge did consider the records and reports of the employee’s treating providers including in the findings and order a detailed enumeration of the employee’s treatment with and the reports of PA Yartz, Dr. Eriksson, Dr. Wolcott, Dr. Vanina, and Dr. Tarrel from December 15, 2009, through March 30, 2012.

Second, the medical experts in this case came to opposing conclusions on the issue of causation.  There is no dispute the employee initially suffered a cervical strain/sprain as a result of the incident on December 8, 2009.  PA Yartz’s notes reflect continuing neck and upper back pain and limited cervical range of motion through May 2011.  He believed the employee needed continuing work restrictions due to her ongoing neck, upper back, and upper extremity symptoms.  Based on his October 2010 examination and the November 2010 EMG, Dr. Holt diagnosed cervical and shoulder pain as a result of the December 2009 work injury, with possible carpal tunnel syndrome aggravated by cervical traction.  Dr. Vanina opined the employee sustained a permanent injury resulting in cervical dysfunction causally related to the incident of December 8, 2009, for which the employee would need restrictions and periodic medical care.  Dr. Tarrel opined the employee sustained a permanent cervical sprain injury as a result of the incident on December 8, 2009, requiring permanent restrictions and periodic conservative treatment.

Dr. Ghose, on the other hand, found no evidence of muscle spasm or tightness with palpation, normal range of motion, no tenderness over the shoulder, and an essentially normal neurological examination.  He concluded the employee’s subjective neck, shoulder, and upper extremity symptoms did not correspond to normal anatomy, and that the employee had age-related degenerative changes in her spine that were normal for someone in her age group.  In his view, the reported symptoms did not correlate with the mechanism of injury, and the doctor opined that, at most, the employee sustained a mild cervical strain/sprain that had healed by the April 23, 2010, date of his examination.  The judge found the conclusions and opinions of Dr. Ghose more persuasive than those of the employee’s medical providers, adopting his opinion that the employee’s work-related injury was a temporary aggravation that had resolved by April 23, 2010.

The employee argues, however, that the opinions of Dr. Ghose lack foundation because his opinion was based on an inaccurate factual history with respect to how the injury occurred.  In his report, Dr. Ghose related that the employee was sitting in the wrestling room playing with the children on the floor.  One child came to give her a hug, could not stop, and jarred her neck.  In his conclusion, Dr. Ghose stated it was reported that the employee was “bumped” by a child, and he opined that the employee’s reported symptoms did not correlate with the mechanism of injury.  Dr. Ghose’s choice of words may have minimized the force of the injury, but the essential description of how the injury occurred is not significantly different from the description of the incident contained in the records of the treating physicians.  Dr. Ghose reviewed the records and reports of the treating and consulting medical providers – including chart notes and reports for treatment provided to the employee after his April 23, 2010, examination – took a history from the employee, and physically examined the employee.  As such, Dr. Ghose had adequate foundation for his opinions.  See Grunst v. Immanuel-St. Joseph Hosp., 424 N.W.2d 66, 40 W.C.D. 1130 (Minn. 1988).

Finally, the employee argues the compensation judge erred in failing to comment upon the credibility of the employee.  The employee argues the compensation judge’s rejection of the opinions of the treating providers can be explained only if the judge concluded the employee was being dishonest with her providers after April 23, 2010.  We disagree.  The question before the judge ultimately was a legal one – was there a causal relationship between the employee’s December 8, 2009, injury and her need for treatment or work restrictions after April 23, 2010?  Based on the medical expert opinion of Dr. Ghose, the judge concluded there was not.  Further examination of the employee’s credibility was not necessary to the judge’s decision.

We acknowledge there is evidence in support of the employee’s claims and that different inferences could be drawn in this case.  Whether we might have viewed the evidence differently, however, is not the point.  Redgate at 734, 40 W.C.D. at 957.  Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude the evidence, including the opinion of Dr. Ghose, is adequate to support the decision of the compensation judge, and we affirm.