The pro se employee appealed various findings of the compensation judge.  We affirm the compensation judge on all issues raised by the employee.  The self-insured employer cross-appealed from the compensation judge’s findings that the employee’s thoracic spine condition was ongoing through the date of hearing, that the employee did not commit prohibited acts barring receipt of workers’ compensation benefits, and that the employee was covered as a traveling employee and was engaged in reasonable recreational activity at the time of injury.  We affirm.

Warren M. Shirkey, Jr., the employee, was hired by J & R Schugel Trucking, Inc., the employer, on October 17, 2007, as an over-the-road truck driver.  Following his hiring, the employee underwent a three-day orientation and training program during which time he was provided with a copy of the employer’s policy manual.  The employee acknowledged receipt of the manual and agreed to abide by its policies and procedures.  The policy manual contains a number of bulleted statements in the Securement Procedures section of the manual including, “Trailers, loaded or empty, may not be dropped/left unattended without written permission.”  The manual further provides that certain conduct may result in disciplinary action including termination.  Such conduct includes “[p]ossession or consumption of alcoholic beverage while on company property, using company equipment, or traveling for work.”  (Resp. Ex. 24.)

The employee’s job duties for the employer occasionally required driving up to fourteen hours a day.  Over-the-road truck drivers are, however, limited to driving no more than 70 hours in a week which may require periods of down time.  In the late morning or early afternoon of November 3, 2007, the employee parked his tractor-trailer at a Travel America truck stop in Clayton, Indiana, for a lay-over until November 5, 2007, when the employee planned a delivery in Indianapolis, Indiana.  Prior to this trip, the employee had never been in Clayton, Indiana.  The employee inquired within the truck stop about the location of a place that had a television where he could watch a football game and was directed to a bar/restaurant in Monroeville, Indiana.  In an unappealed finding, the compensation judge found the bar/restaurant was approximately a mile away from the truck stop.  The employee then walked to Monroeville to watch the football game and returned later that day to his truck.

On November 4, 2007, at about 2:00 or 3:00 p.m., the employee repeated his walk from the truck stop to the bar/restaurant in Monroeville to watch a football game on television.  The employee did not request or obtain oral or written permission from the employer to leave his truck.  The employee ate a meal, consumed four to five alcoholic beverages,^[1] and then left the bar/restaurant and walked back to the truck stop.  On his way back, the employee walked through fields and woods, and, at one point, stopped in the woods and sat for an hour and a half waiting for it to get dark and watching for deer.  Once it got dark, the employee walked from the woods toward the truck stop.  At approximately 8:00 p.m., the employee arrived to within five hundred to six hundred yards of the truck stop.  The employee testified that a truck with bright lights approached him, slowed to a crawl, and then accelerated causing him to jump back.  The employee testified he fell off the road into a ditch hitting the base of his spine.  The employer stipulated the employee fell into a culvert or stepped off the road into a ditch.

Ronald Bennett, apparently, was the individual driving the truck which approached the employee.  Mr. Bennett observed the employee fall into the ditch and called 911 to report the fall.  He stated in his 911 call that the employee had stumbled or maybe tripped and fell head first into the ditch.  Mr. Bennett stated the employee looked dazed or maybe drunk and felt there might be something wrong with him.  He also stated that the employee was staggering or perhaps tripped and lost his footing causing him to fall off the road.  When Mr. Bennett looked into the ditch, the employee was standing in the ditch but not moving.^[2]  The photographs of the road show a difference in height between the road pavement and the road shoulder and the shoulder slopes steeply toward the ditch.  There was no guard rail or street lighting on the road at this location.

In response to the 911 call, paramedics and officers from the Hendricks County Sheriff’s Department responded, arriving at the truck stop at 8:21 p.m.  Deputy Jonathon Brown testified^[3] the employee told him his truck had broken down at the truck stop and he was tired of waiting so he went to get a drink.  The deputy testified the employee smelled of alcohol and had glossy, red eyes and slurred speech.  Deputy Brown opined the employee was intoxicated.

The employee was transported by ambulance to the Hendricks Regional Health emergency department.  The hospital records state the employee complained of lower back pain after falling four to five feet onto his tailbone.  The record states “pt. states walking on side of road and saw car coming at him and stepped off the side of the road.  Pt. states drank 4-5 beers today.  Denies any loc but did state he hit head.”  Charles Kirby, R.N., wrote that the employee appeared intoxicated with complaints of sharp continuous back pain.  Dr. Steven Pischall examined the employee and reported that his eyes were normal to inspection.  X-rays and CT scans of the employee’s cervical and lumbar spines showed no evidence of fracture.  Dr. Pischall diagnosed the employee with a neck/back injury without any assessment of intoxication.

Following the medical assessment, the employee was discharged from the hospital, returned to his truck by taxicab, and in the morning, drove to Indianapolis to drop off his load.  The employee then proceeded to Cincinnati and finally returned the tractor-trailer to the employer’s terminal in Columbus, Ohio.  On November 6, 2007, the employee was terminated from his position.

On November 9, 2007, the employee sought treatment at the Thomas Memorial Hospital emergency department.  X-rays revealed no fractures and, on examination, Dr. Dawson noted moderate spasm and tenderness.  His diagnosis was neck and back pain secondary to a fall and a cervicolumbar strain.  The employee was seen at the Holzer Clinic in November and December 2007 and MRI scans were ordered.  In January 2008, cervical and thoracic MRI scans were obtained at the Charlston Area Medical Center.  In February 2008, the employee saw Dr. Robert Crow, a neurologist, who stated his examination was normal.  The doctor noted the employee had a T-12 compression fracture without evidence of compression of the neural elements.  Dr. Crowe opined surgery was not appropriate.  The employee stated he was interested in pursuing injections by his pain specialist and Dr. Crow agreed with that option.  Thereafter, the employee received thoracic epidural steroid injections by Dr. Christopher Kim.

Dr. Paul Wicklund examined the employee in December 2008 at the request of the self-insured employer.  The doctor obtained a history from the employee, examined his medical records, and performed a physical examination.  Dr. Wicklund opined the employee’s fall on November 4, 2007, caused a compression fracture at T12 which healed in approximately three months.  The doctor rated a 4 % permanent partial disability secondary to the fracture.  Dr. Wicklund opined the employee reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) within six months after his personal injury, and stated the employee could return to work without restrictions.  Finally, Dr. Wicklund opined the medical care and treatment the employee received was reasonable and necessary to cure and relieve the effects of the work injury.

The employee filed a claim petition seeking wage loss benefits, payment of medical expenses, and a rehabilitation consultation.  Following a hearing, the compensation judge issued a findings and order in which she found the employee sustained a temporary injury in the nature of a cervicolumbar strain and a fracture of the twelfth thoracic vertebra.  The judge found the employee failed to prove entitlement to temporary total disability benefits or a rehabilitation consultation.  The judge found the employer advanced to the employee the sum of $1,000.00 in anticipation of a settlement agreement that was not completed.  The employee cashed the check.  The judge found the employer is entitled to a $1,000.00 credit against future workers’ compensation benefits payable to the employee.  The judge further found the employer failed to prove the employee was intoxicated at the time of his personal injury and found that the injury was not the result of the employee’s performance of a prohibited act.  In an amended findings and order, the compensation judge found that at the time of his personal injury, the employee had not departed from the employer’s business and was engaged in reasonable recreational activity.

The employee appeals five of the compensation judge’s findings: the finding that the employee reached MMI from the effects of his personal injury with service of the report of Dr. Wicklund on January 15, 2009; the finding that the employee incurred certain medical expenses; the finding that the employee failed to prove entitlement to a rehabilitation consultation; the finding the employer is entitled to a $1,000.00 credit against future workers’ compensation benefits; and the finding that Kirsten Tate and James Batchelor filed attorney liens for legal services.  The employee filed letters with the court dated February 8, 2012, and March 8, 2012, that constitute the appellant and reply briefs of the employee.  In neither of those letters does the employee address any of the issues raised in his notice of appeal.  “Issues raised in the notice of appeal but not addressed in the brief shall be deemed waived and will not be decided by the court.”  Minn. R. 9800.0900, subp. 1; see Johns v. Crawford Merz Constr. Co., 46 W.C.D. 222, 225 (W.C.C.A. 1991).

Not withstanding the employee’s failure to brief any of the issues raised in the notice of appeal, we conclude the findings appealed by the employee are supported by substantial evidence.  Dr. Wicklund opined the employee reached maximum medical improvement and his report was properly served upon the employee.  The doctor had adequate foundation for his opinion and the compensation judge could reasonably rely upon it.  Further, the employee presented no evidence at the hearing to rebut Dr. Wicklund’s opinion.

The compensation judge found the employee incurred certain medical expenses and ordered the self-insured employer to make payment.  Prior to the hearing, the compensation judge enumerated the medical expenses at issue at the hearing and the employee agreed there were no other bills for which he was seeking payment.  (T. 26-27.)  On appeal, this court’s review is limited to the evidence submitted to the compensation judge.  Gollop v. Shale H. Gollop, D.D.S, 389 N.W.2d 202, 203, 38 W.C.D. 757, 758 (Minn. 1986).  The employee cannot claim entitlement to payment of medical bills not presented at the hearing.

The employee appealed the compensation judge’s finding that he was not entitled to rehabilitation benefits.  The employee did not, however, appeal finding 33 in which the judge found the employee was able to return to work without restrictions as of July 8, 2008, and found the employee failed to prove that he has functional limitations that preclude a return to his pre-injury job.  Based upon this finding, the employee is not a qualified employee under Minn. R. 5220.0100, subp. 22, and has no entitlement to a rehabilitation consultation.  See Swanholm v. Phoenix Indus., slip op. (W.C.C.A. Jan. 9, 1997).

The employee does not dispute that he received and cashed a $1,000.00 check in anticipation of a settlement with the self-insured employer that was not completed.  The employee claims, however, that he is entitled to this sum for travel expenses for attending the hearing.  There is no provision in the law obligating an employer to pay an employee’s travel expenses to attend a workers’ compensation hearing.  The employer is entitled to a $1,000.00 credit against future compensation benefits payable to the employee.

Finally, the employee appealed the judge’s finding that Ms. Tate and Mr. Batchelor filed liens for legal services.  The employee contends they are not entitled to fees because they failed to provide adequate representation.  The employee misapprehends the nature of the judge’s finding.  The judge made no award of attorney fees to Ms. Tate or Mr. Batchelor so there is nothing from which to appeal.

a. Ongoing Thoracic Injury.  The self-insured employer appeals the compensation judge’s finding that the employee’s “thoracic spine condition is ongoing through the date of hearing.”  (Finding 30.)  The appellant contends this finding is not based upon any expert opinion and is contradicted by the opinion of Dr. Wicklund that the fracture had healed, that the employee needed no work restrictions, and that the employee does not need further medical care or treatment.  The appellant contends the compensation judge’s finding constitutes clear error and is unsupported by substantial evidence.  We disagree.

The self-insured employer stipulated the employee’s personal injury resulted in a fracture of the 12th thoracic vertebra for which Dr. Wicklund provided a 4% permanent partial disability rating.^[4]  The compensation judge found the employee was physically able to return to work without restrictions as of July 8, 2008, and had no functional limitations that precluded a return to his preinjury work as a truck driver.  However, the judge also accepted, as credible evidence, the employee’s testimony that he had ongoing pain and spasms in the mid-back through the day of hearing.  The judge found this testimony consistent with the medical records, and with permanent injury to the T12 thoracic vertebra as rated by Dr. Wicklund.  Lack of work restrictions is not identical to no loss of function or to no impairment of a body part.^[5]  There is sufficient evidence to support the compensation judge’s finding and we, therefore, affirm.  See Hengemuhle v. Long Prairie Jaycees, 358 N.W.2d 54, 37 W.C.D. 235 (Minn. 1984).

b.  Prohibited Act.  The self-insured employer appeals the compensation judge’s finding that the employee did not commit prohibited acts barring his receipt of workers’ compensation benefits.  The employer contends the employee abandoned his truck and trailer and consumed alcoholic beverages while on a layover in violation of employer policies and rules.  These rule violations, the employer asserts, constitute prohibited acts barring the employee from receipt of benefits.

The Minnesota Supreme Court articulated the prohibited act defense in Bartley v. C-H Riding Stables, Inc., 206 N.W.2d 660, 663, 26 W.C.D. 675, 678-80 (Minn. 1973) stating,

The first claimed prohibited act was the employee leaving the truck and trailer unsecured for several hours while he walked to the restaurant in Monroeville.  Leah Peck, the human resources director for the employer, testified that the reason for the rule is that the truck and trailer and the freight within the trailer are very valuable and must be safeguarded.  Clearly, this rule is intended to protect the equipment, not the employee.  The act of leaving the truck and trailer unsecured was not in itself unreasonably dangerous to the employee.  Further, a denial of benefits under the prohibited act doctrine requires that there be some causal relationship between the prohibited conduct and the injury.  Yacoub v. American Nat’l Ins., 59 W.C.D 104 (W.C.C.A. 1999).  It was not the violation of the prohibition against leaving the truck which resulted in the employee’s injury.  Accordingly, we conclude the employee’s conduct in leaving his truck and trailer unsecured was not a prohibited act taking the employee out of the course of his employment.

The second alleged prohibited act was the consumption of alcohol by the employee while on a layover.  The employer argues the employee knew of the prohibition, the prohibition was customarily observed, the employer took reasonable steps to enforce the prohibition, and that the performance of the prohibited act was unreasonably dangerous.  Accordingly, the appellant contends the compensation judge erred in concluding the employee’s consumption of alcohol was not a prohibited act barring the employee from benefits.

The compensation judge found the evidence failed to prove that the employee’s consumption of alcohol resulted in his injury.  Rather, the compensation judge concluded the employee lost his footing resulting in his fall off the road.  In reaching this conclusion, the judge considered the testimony of Deputy Brown that he did not thoroughly investigate whether the employee was intoxicated and he performed no tests for intoxication at the scene.  The judge further considered the statements of Mr. Bennett that the employee lost his footing and fell off the road.  As a further basis for her decision, the judge noted the condition of the road, the sloping, narrow shoulder, and the lights of the truck which startled the employee.  The judge concluded these factors, rather than the effects of the alcohol, were most likely the direct cause of the fall.

Where 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.  Redgate v. Sroga's Standard Serv., 421 N.W.2d 729, 734, 40 W.C.D. 948, 957 (Minn. 1988).  We cannot conclude the inferences and conclusions the compensation judge drew from the evidence are clearly erroneous.  Accordingly, the compensation judge’s decision that the employee’s consumption of alcohol was not a prohibited act is affirmed.

c. Business Travel.  In the findings and order, the compensation judge did not address the issue of whether the employee’s activities on November 4, 2007, removed him from the course of his employment.  Counsel for the employer then wrote the judge requesting the judge issue amended findings resolving the issue.  In an Amended Findings and Order issued December 2, 2011, the compensation judge found the employee’s walk to Monroeville to watch a football game and eat food were a natural incident of his work and a reasonable recreational activity.  The judge further found such activity by a truck driver on an extended layover was a reasonably foreseeable activity which was not extraordinary and should have been reasonably anticipated by the employer.  Accordingly, the judge concluded the employee did not depart from the employer’s business to engage in a personal mission and concluded his injury arose out of and in the course of his employment.

The employer contends it is not the intent of the Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Act to afford unqualified portal to portal protection to traveling employees in any and all circumstances.  The employer asserts the employee’s activities on November 4, 2007, were not reasonable relaxation or recreational activities. Rather, the employer argues the employee’s activities were unreasonable, extraordinary, and unforeseen by the employer.  Accordingly, the employer asserts the employee departed or deviated from his employment to the extent that he removed himself from the course of his employment and is not, therefore, entitled to workers’ compensation benefits.

In support of its argument, the employer cites Howell Tractor & Equip. Co. v. Industrial Comm’n, 78 Ill.2d 567, 403 N.E2d 215 (1980).^[6]  In the Howell case, the employee was sent out of town to repair a machine for a customer of Howell Tractor.  Following work, the claimant and a co-employee went out for dinner with the customer’s foreman, following which they went to a bar until closing time at 1:30 a.m.  The foreman and the co-employee then left to go have breakfast but the claimant decided to walk back to his motel.  The employee became lost and apparently fell onto a railroad track and a train ran over his left leg.  The court concluded the employee’s conduct in walking three miles back to his hotel without being certain of the direction after consuming five drinks was not reasonable nor could an employer be expected to reasonably foresee that an employee would make such a rash decision.  Accordingly, compensation was denied.  The employer asserts the facts in the instant case parallel those in Howell and mandate reversal of the compensation judge’s award of benefits.  As in the Howell case, the employer argues, it was neither reasonable nor foreseeable that the employee would leave his truck and trailer unattended and walk alone for miles through unfamiliar and dark territory after drinking.  This conduct, the employer argues, was reckless unanticipated, unforeseeable, and contrary to the best interest of the employer.

The general rule in Minnesota is that an employee whose work entails travel away from the employer’s premises is, in most cases, under continuous workers’ compensation coverage from the time he leaves home until he returns.  Snyder v. General Paper Corp., 277 Minn. 376, 152 N.W.2d 743, 24 W.C.D. 255 (1967).  Where an employee is directed by his employer to remain at a certain locale “the rule applied is simply that the employee is not expected to wait immobile, but may indulge in any reasonable activity at that place, and if he does so, the risk inherent in such activity is an incident of his employment.”  Epp v. Midwestern Mach. Co., 296 Minn. 231, 234, 208 N.W.2d 87, 89, 26 W.C.D. 703, 706 (1973) (citation omitted).  “Reasonable activities are those which may normally be expected of a traveling employee as opposed to those which are clearly unanticipated, unforeseeable, and extraordinary.”  Voigt v. Rettinger Transp., Inc., 306 N.W.2d 133, 138, 33 W.C.D. 625, 633 (Minn. 1981).  An additional exception to the traveling employee rule occurs when the employee departs from the employer’s business and engages in a personal mission. See e.g., Lunde v. Congoleum-Nairn, Inc.,  1 N.W.2d 606, 12 W.C.D. 195 (Minn. 1942).

In the Epp case, the employee was a truck driver who was on a weekend layover in Pennsylvania when he was struck and killed by an automobile while crossing a highway at 2:30 in the morning returning to his motel.  In affirming an award of benefits, the supreme court stated the record was sufficient to support the conclusion that “the employer contemplated, because of the work schedule of the employee, that he would be exposed to the hazards of being upon a highway any hour of the day or night, either driving his truck or having to cross it for meals, refreshments, or to return to his motel room.  Accordingly, we cannot say that employee’s activity was unreasonable and that the risk to which he was exposed did not directly flow as a natural incident of his employment under the circumstances of this case.”  Epp, 208 N.W.2d at 89, 26 W.C.D. at 706.  In the Voigt case, the employee transported campers from the Twin Cities to a camp approximately 14 miles from Detroit Lakes, Minnesota, for a weekend.  After dropping off the campers, Mr. Voigt and three co-employees drove to a restaurant for dinner and drinks.  After dinner two of the co-employees went to a movie.  Mr. Voigt and the other co-employee stayed at the bar where they met two men who were deer hunting in the area.  The four of them then drove to a different bar where they had more drinks.  As the four were leaving the bar, one of the deer hunters began firing a pistol in an attempt to generate some excitement and accidentally shot the employee.  The supreme court affirmed an award of benefits stating that traveling employees “have consistently been afforded broad protection under our Workers’ Compensation Act.”  Voigt, 306 N.W.2d at 138, 33 W.C.D. at 633.  The court stated that the employee’s trip to the bar for recreational purposes was a reasonable activity and was, therefore, incident to the employment relationship.

In this case, the employee walked to a bar/restaurant in Monroeville, Indiana, to eat, drink and watch a football game.  Monroeville is approximately one mile away from the truck stop.  Admittedly, the employee elected to walk through fields and woods on his return trip to the truck stop for the apparent purpose of looking for deer.  While this side trip might arguably have been a personal mission, at the time he fell, the employee had returned to the highway and was on a direct route back to the truck stop.  The compensation judge found the employee had consumed four to five alcoholic beverages, but the judge also concluded the evidence failed to prove the employee’s injury was a result of intoxication.  Rather, the judge concluded the employee simply lost his footing and fell off of the road.  The compensation judge concluded it was reasonably foreseeable that a truck driver on a 40-hour layover might seek out some form of relaxation activity other than that available at a truck stop.  The judge further concluded that walking to the next town, as opposed to driving, was not unreasonable or extraordinary conduct by the employee.  Given the evidence in this case, we cannot conclude from these facts that the employee’s conduct on the evening of November 4, 2007, was unduly hazardous.  Neither can we conclude the compensation judge’s decision was “clearly erroneous and unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted.”  Minn Stat. § 176.421, subd. 1 (2010).  Accordingly, the compensation judge’s decision on this issue is affirmed.