The employer and insurer appeal from the compensation judge’s decision denying their request to discontinue benefits, arguing that the judge erred in concluding that the employee had not fully recovered from her injury, had not been terminated from her job for misconduct, and had not failed to cooperate with rehabilitation or to conduct a diligent job search.  We affirm.

The employee was born in Sudan.  On arriving in the United States, she lived for several years in Nebraska before moving to Austin, Minnesota, in 2007 or 2008. English is not her native language, but she can read and converse in English to some extent.

The employee began employment on the production line of Quality Pork Processors [the employer] in 2008, working full time with some overtime.  On December 17, 2009, she sustained a work-related low back injury when she was briefly pinned against her work table by a forklift.  Following this incident, the employee was seen by the nurse in the employer’s onsite medical department, where she was given ice and medication.  She finished her shift but informed the employer the next day that she was unable to work due to low back pain.

Over the next two months or so, the employee reported to the company nurse periodically before her shift for treatment of low back symptoms, and she was eventually assigned to light-duty work.  In mid-February, the employee asked to see a doctor, indicating that her symptoms were not improving, and the nurse made an appointment with Dr. Barry Larson, a doctor in the employer’s managed care plan. The employee was ultimately unable to attend this appointment due to a personal medical issue, which also caused her to be off work for two weeks.

The employee was finally examined by Dr. Larson on March 24, 2010.  Dr. Larson prescribed medication and physical therapy and restricted the employee to sedentary work.  According to physical therapy records, many treatment modalities had to be discontinued because of the employee’s pain complaints. In about mid-May 2010, the employee was informed that her care would be transferred to Dr. Michael Toth because Dr. Larson was moving out of town.

The employee was terminated from her job effective June 2, 2010, when a hog carcass contaminated with fecal matter got past her work station to the cutting floor, a problem for which the employee had been disciplined before.  The circumstances of this last incident are disputed.  The employee testified that she had received permission from a supervisor to leave her station to see the nurse for back pain.  She further testified that she returned to her post about 30 minutes later to find that no one had taken her place on the line while she was gone.  In rebuttal, the employer offered evidence indicating that the employee had neither sought nor obtained permission to leave her station, and there is also no record of the employee having seen the nurse at that time.  The employer gave the employee a written warning for that conduct, and when asked to sign the warning document, the employee refused.  She was then terminated for that refusal, her failure to prevent a contaminated hog from reaching the cutting floor for a second time, and several other past disciplinary incidents.  No grievance was filed on the employee’s behalf following her termination.  She subsequently applied for and received unemployment compensation.

Shortly after being discharged from her job, the employee consulted a physician at the Mayo Clinic for treatment of her back pain.  The employee’s neurological exam was essentially normal, and the diagnosis was chronic back pain.  In August of 2010, the employee was seen for the first time by Dr. Toth.  At that time, the employee complained of pain and numbness in her arms as well as her legs and low back.  The employee’s medications were changed and Dr. Toth issued new work restrictions.  About two weeks later, the employee underwent a surgical evaluation by Dr. Manual Pinto.  Dr. Pinto ultimately concluded that the employee was not a surgical candidate and suggested that she seek treatment for her pain from Dr. Frank Wei.

Also in August of 2010, the employer and insurer had the employee placed under surveillance.  The employee was recorded carrying items to her car, grocery shopping, driving from Austin to Des Moines, Iowa, and lifting and carrying her young children.

On September 10, 2010, the employee was examined for the employer and insurer by Dr. Paul Dworak.  In his subsequent report, Dr. Dworak concluded that the employee’s December 2009 work incident had caused a sprain/strain that had resolved completely, with no residual effects or need for treatment.

The employee underwent a lumbar MRI in December of 2010.  According to the radiologist’s report, the scan disclosed facet arthropathy at L4-5, greater on the right than the left.^[1]

In late March 2011, the employee began treating with Dr. Wei, who ordered more physical therapy and continued the employee’s restrictions.  The employee reported some improvement from the physical therapy but continued to complain of pain while lifting or bending.  In June of 2011, the employee indicated that her back was better, but she reported having continued buttock and thigh pain.  Dr. Wei noted that the employee was then about six months pregnant, which he felt was aggravating the employee’s work injury.  He continued the employee’s work restrictions, advised the employee to exercise and undergo one therapy session a month, and instructed her to return to see him after the birth of her child.

At the request of the employee’s attorney, Dr. Wei reviewed the surveillance recording.  It did not change his opinion about the employee’s condition.

The matter came on for hearing before a compensation judge for determination of the employee’s entitlement to continuing workers’ compensation benefits.  The employer and its insurer contended that the employee’s work injury had fully resolved, in accordance with the opinion of Dr. Dworak, and also that the employee had been terminated for misconduct and had failed to conduct a reasonably diligent job search.  Evidence included the employee’s medical and rehabilitation records, the report of Dr. Dworak, and the surveillance recording.  Witnesses included the employee, who was assisted by an interpreter, and two witnesses for the employer and insurer: Carole Bower, manager of the employer’s occupational nursing department, and Dale Wicks, from the employer’s human resources department.

In a decision issued on August 12, 2011, a compensation judge concluded that the employee continued to suffer from the effects of the injury, that she had not been terminated for misconduct, and that she had made a reasonably diligent job search and cooperated with rehabilitation services.  The judge accordingly ordered the employer and insurer to pay temporary total disability benefits from the date of the employee’s termination through the date of hearing, as well as expenses for treatment rendered by Dr. Wei.  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 (2010).  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).

On appeal, the employer and insurer maintain that the judge’s decision is manifestly contrary to the evidence, contending that medical records establish that the employee’s injury was temporary and had long since resolved.  Most of the employer and insurer’s argument to this effect is based on the position that the employee was simply not a credible witness as to any of the disputed facts.  In support of this argument, the employer and insurer point out that virtually every doctor who examined the employee found evidence of symptom magnification or otherwise nonanatomic findings.  We concede that the employee’s medical records contain numerous references to give-way weakness, nonorganic signs, nonataomic findings, and voluntary guarding.  However, the compensation judge clearly took these references into account before nevertheless concluding that the employee had not fully recovered from the effects of her injury, writing in her memorandum as follows:

The employer and insurer also contend that the employee is not entitled to ongoing temporary total disability benefits because she was terminated from her job for misconduct.^[2]  This argument also lacks merit.  The compensation judge accepted the employee’s testimony that she left the line due to pain from her work injury.  This, again, was a credibility determination we have no basis to overturn, and we would also note in this regard that the compensation judge did not accept all of the employee’s testimony as to the events on the day in question.  At any rate, even accepting the employer and insurer’s version of the incident, the compensation judge could reasonably conclude that the employee was discharged for poor performance, as opposed to misconduct.^[3] The judge’s decision on this issue is therefore affirmed.

The employer and insurer also contend that the employee was not eligible for temporary total disability benefits following her termination because she failed to make a diligent search for other work.  See Redgate v. Sroga’s Standard Serv., 421 N.W.2d 729, 40 W.C.D. 948 (Minn. 1988).  We reject this argument as well.

The compensation judge explained her view of the evidence on this issue as follows: