M. A. Mortenson Companies, Inc., and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company appeal the compensation judge’s Order of Dismissal served and filed May 15, 2013, dismissing Lakes & Plains Construction, Inc., and RAM Mutual Insurance Company as parties from this matter.  We affirm.

Eric J. Jurva, the employee, claims that he sustained a right elbow injury on November 19, 2010, while working as a millwright for M. A. Mortenson Companies, Inc., which was insured for workers’ compensation liability by Liberty Mutual Insurance Company.  The employee continued working for that company until December 2010.  The employee worked for several other companies after that time, including Lakehead Constructors, insured by Discover Property & Casualty Company; American Crystal Sugar, insured by Zurich North America or self-insured; Lakes & Plains Construction, Inc., insured by RAM Mutual Insurance Company; and Industrial Maintenance Services, insured by Wausau Insurance Company.  In February 2013, the employee filed an amended claim petition alleging a right elbow injury against five employers and insurers, listing a specific injury on November 19, 2010, against Mortenson/Liberty; a Gillette injury culminating in June 2011 against Lakehead/Discover; a Gillette injury culminating in June 2011 or September 2011 against American Crystal Sugar/Zurich or self-insured^[1] and Lakes/RAM; and a Gillette injury culminating in September 2011 against Industrial/Wausau.^[2]

On February 26, 2013, Lakes/RAM filed a motion for dismissal, claiming that Lakes was a North Dakota employer and that there was no jurisdiction for workers’ compensation liability against Lakes/RAM under Minnesota workers’ compensation law.  Mortenson/Liberty filed an objection to the motion on March 15, 2013, requesting denial of the motion pending further factual investigation.  The objection also noted that the employee’s deposition was scheduled in March, which would give Lakes/RAM an opportunity to further investigate the facts of the case.  The employee did not object to the motion.  Compensation Judge Jerome Arnold ordered a Special Term Conference on the motion to be held by telephone on May 13, 2013.  The notice of the conference indicated that the Special Term Conference would be a record hearing held by telephone and that “parties shall come prepared to present evidence supporting their respective positions, including copies of all documents to be submitted.”  There were no witnesses called during the recorded telephone conference on May 13, 2013.  Lakes/RAM submitted three exhibits into evidence in the record, including a copy of the motion with attachments, the employee’s March 13, 2013, deposition, and an affidavit from Lakes’ representative.^[3]  Neither Mortenson/Liberty nor any other employer/insurer presented witnesses or submitted exhibits.

During the conference, Lakes/RAM argued that Lakes was a North Dakota employer and that there was no jurisdiction for workers’ compensation liability against the company in Minnesota.  Mortenson/Liberty and the other employers/insurers argued, based on Minnesota case law, that Lakes and the employee had established an employment contract in Minnesota when the employee answered the employer’s phone call regarding employment while at his home in Minnesota.  The record closed on the date of the conference.^[4]  The compensation judge issued an order granting the motion for dismissal of Lakes/RAM on May 15, 2013.  Mortenson/Liberty, hereinafter referred to as appellants, appeal this order.^[5] 

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.^[6]  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.^[7]  Fact findings are clearly erroneous if the reviewing court, looking at the entire evidence, is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.^[8]  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.”^[9]  A decision which rests upon the application of a statute or rule to essentially undisputed facts generally involves a question of law which the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals may consider de novo.^[10]

The appellants argue that the compensation judge erred by dismissing Lakes/RAM from the matter below without an evidentiary hearing which would have afforded them the opportunity to complete discovery and present formal evidence in a courtroom setting.  We are not persuaded by the appellants’ argument.

Generally, hearings are required for motions to dismiss in order to provide notice to the parties, to allow the parties to present arguments and support them with evidence, and ultimately to preserve a record for appellate review.^[11]  The issue on appeal is whether this court is able to “effectively review the factual and legal issues in this dispute.”^[12]  For the following reasons, we find the evidence sufficient to effectively review the factual and legal issues in the motion for dismissal of Lakes & Plains Construction, Inc., and RAM Mutual Insurance Company from this matter.  First, the telephone conference was scheduled for a date almost two months after the appellants’ objection was filed and the employee’s deposition was held.  There is no indication in the record that the appellants objected to the form of the conference on the motion before it was held.  Second, notice was duly given to all parties advising all parties of the right to present evidence to support their positions.  The parties had ample time to conduct discovery before the conference.  In other words, the appellants had the opportunity to submit exhibits and to call witnesses at the conference.  Third, the conference hearing was recorded and there is a transcript and a record that is available for this court to review.  While no witnesses were called, three exhibits were submitted by Lakes/RAM, including the employee’s deposition.  The judge issued an order and provided a memorandum with his decision.  Under the circumstances of this case, the conference hearing was procedurally sufficient to allow this court to review the compensation judge’s decision.

The appellants also contend that there are genuine issues of fact as to whether the employee was temporarily employed out-of-state under Minn. Stat. § 176.041, which provides for application of the Minnesota workers’ compensation act to work injuries occurring outside of Minnesota in certain circumstances.^[13]  Under that statute, a work injury is subject to the act where an employee is hired in Minnesota by a Minnesota employer and is injured while temporarily employed outside of Minnesota.  The appellants argue that the interpretation of the terms “Minnesota employer” and “temporarily employed” is complex and that more evidence was required as to “the details of the Employee’s hiring process and the location of [Lakes’] business opportunities.”^[14]  The appellants, however, had the opportunity to present evidence on these issues and chose not to do so.  Further, there was no discussion of the issue of Lakes’ business contacts within Minnesota in the transcript.  Thus, this issue was not raised during the proceeding.^[15]  Issues generally may not be raised by a party for the first time on appeal.^[16]  Therefore, we will not address the appellants’ argument that additional evidence could show that Lakes was a Minnesota employer.

The issue raised by the appellants and the other parties at the conference was whether the employee was hired in Minnesota on the basis of answering a phone call from Lakes while at his home in Minnesota.  In Houle v. Stearns-Rogers Mfg. Co., the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the Industrial Commission’s finding that an employee was hired in Minnesota by a Colorado employer through a union office in Minneapolis.^[17]  The Minnesota Supreme Court also noted that neither the employer nor the employee was a resident of the state where the injury occurred and that the employer had business contacts within the state of Minnesota.^[18]  The appellants also cite Summers v. Northern Indus. Erectors, Inc.,^[19] where we held that “there was an offer of employment and acceptance by the offeree over the telephone, sufficient to meet the requirements of a contract for hire in Minnesota.”^[20]  In that case, however, the parties stipulated that the employer was a Minnesota employer and that the employee was temporarily employed outside of Minnesota.^[21]  No such stipulations were made in this case.

In his memorandum, the judge considered the issue of an initial employment contract through the phone call offer as well as the Houle case, and noted that job acceptance could be made by answering a telephone call in Minnesota.  The judge emphasized, however, that the employee, while a Minnesota resident, was hired out of a North Dakota union hall and that he worked for Lakes for 7 weeks in North Dakota and did not work for the company in any other location.  The judge also noted that Lakes was located in North Dakota, the employee was dispatched from North Dakota, and his paychecks were issued from a North Dakota bank.  The appellants do not dispute any of these facts and did not submit any evidence to the contrary.  They also did not submit any evidence regarding Lakes’ business contacts within the state of Minnesota.

On the basis of the evidence contained in the record, the compensation judge concluded that “the employee neither before or since the injury worked for the employer in Minnesota.”^[22]  There is no evidence in the record to contradict this conclusion.  Given the evidence submitted, the judge could reasonably conclude in this case that the employee did not meet the requirements of Minn. Stat. § 176.041, subds. 2 and 3, regarding application of the Minnesota workers’ compensation act to work injuries occurring outside of Minnesota.  The judge did not err by dismissing Lakes/RAM from this matter.  We affirm.