Curtis Atkins, the claimant, through his guardian, appeals from the compensation judge’s finding that his injury on August 17, 2012, did not arise out of or in the course of work activity for the respondents.  We affirm.

Shortly before 5:30 p.m. on August 17, 2012, Curtis Atkins fell onto the pavement from a John Deere 624J front end loader which was sitting parked in a fenced enclosure adjacent to 610 Hamel Road in Medina, Minnesota.  Emergency responders found him unresponsive but still breathing.  He was taken by helicopter to North Memorial Hospital in Minneapolis, where it was determined that he had sustained a fractured skull and a severe traumatic brain injury.  The district court subsequently found Mr. Atkins to be an incapacitated person unable to care for himself or to make medical or financial decisions, and appointed his mother and sister as conservators.  Through his mother as conservator, the employee filed a claim petition alleging that the August 17, 2012, injury occurred in the course and scope of employment with Calvin Chase, either individually, or doing business as Chase Tree and Outdoor Services or as Chase Tree and Landscaping.^[1]  The defendants denied that Curtis Atkins was employed by any of them on the date of injury or that the injury sustained on that date was in the course and scope of employment.

The matter was heard before a compensation judge of the Office of Administrative Hearings on August 8 and August 23, 2013.  Curtis Atkins was unable to recall the events surrounding the accident, or to provide specific testimony about the duration and timing of any employment relationship with the defendants.  Accordingly, his case was presented largely through circumstantial evidence.  The defendants relied principally on the testimony of Calvin Chase and his father, Mitchell Chase, and on a statement given by a temporary employee working for the defendants on the date of injury, Tyrone Adams.

Chase Tree Service was started by Mike Chase, Calvin’s older brother.  In 2009 Mike died and Calvin took over the business.  When Calvin took over the business he had no employees and his equipment consisted mostly of shovels and rakes.  The business was and remains seasonal, running from sometime in the spring to sometime in the fall, and consists primarily of trimming and planting trees and shrubs and putting down mulch and sod for residential customers.

In January 2011, Calvin’s father, Mitchell Chase, leased a commercial property at 610 Hamel Road (“the shop”) where he hoped to start a diesel repair business.  The shop had previously been used to house telephone repair trucks.  It had a large inside open area with garage doors opening on two fenced and gated parking areas, one east and one west of the building.  It also contained a 40 x 120-foot office area with several offices, a kitchen, and two bathrooms.  After leasing this property, Mitchell Chase took up residence in a part of the office area.  He asked a truck mechanic, Pat Atkins, to work for the business once it got started.  In preparation for this, Pat brought tools to the shop and began to stop by the shop most evenings where he worked on his own vehicles and at times on vehicles owned by Calvin or Mitchell Chase.  However, the proposed diesel repair business never got off the ground and Pat Atkins removed his equipment from the shop by the beginning of 2012.

Curtis Atkins, the appellant, is Pat Atkins’ nephew.  In about April of 2011, Pat asked Mitchell Chase if his nephew could “hang out” at the 610 Hamel Road property for a while, as he had lost his apartment.  Mitchell agreed and Curtis moved in to the 610 Hamel Road building where he used one of the offices as his residence.  Mitchell was still living at the shop, and he and Curtis became close friends, spending a lot of time together watching television, playing video games, and going places together.

Starting in the spring of 2011, Mitchell Chase let Calvin store his tree service equipment at the shop.  By this time Calvin had acquired a pickup truck, another larger truck, and a bobcat.  Beginning about April 2011, Calvin hired Curtis to help him with the tree service business.  Curtis continued to work for Chase Tree Service into the fall of that year, as work was available.  Four Chase Tree Service checks, three annotated “work,” were in evidence for the latter part of the summer and early fall of 2011, showing payments to Curtis of $468.75, $462.00, $403.80 and $269.75.

In July 2011, Curtis began dating Julia Leach.  He had previously lost his drivers’ license, so she would pick him up at the shop for dates.  That fall, Curtis moved out of the shop and began living with Julia in her parents’ basement in Crystal, Minnesota.  Curtis continued to come to the shop almost every day.  Julia usually drove him there and picked him up after she got off work herself.

Calvin testified that Curtis had proven to be a careless worker whose work often had to be redone.  In the fall of 2011, as the season wound up, he ended Curtis’ employment with Chase Tree Service, telling him that the arrangement just wasn’t working out.

Mitchell Chase testified that Curtis still continued to come to the shop almost every day and the two of them would spend much of the day hanging out, watching television, playing video games, and taking care of the dogs.  Each morning, they routinely visited at a local gas station where they knew the owner and his wife.  They also attended auto auctions several times a week.  Mitchell testified that Curtis became like a son to him and talked with him about his relationships with his family and girlfriend.  Curtis told him that he had previously lost about twenty jobs, either being fired or by having simply walked off the job.  According to Mitchell’s testimony, Curtis didn’t want his girlfriend or her parents to know he had problems finding and keeping jobs, so he simply continued to hang out at the shop and to tell her that he was working.

For a while that fall, Curtis attended evening auto repair classes at Dunwoody Institute.  He started to make some money from time to time by working on cars people would bring to the shop for him to fix.  A few times, as a lark, Curtis stood begging for money on the side of the road holding a cardboard sign, once raising $80 in about 15 minutes.  When asked if Curtis did any work for Chase Tree Service in the summer of 2012, Mitchell responded “I’m going to say no.  Maybe a couple of times.”  He found it unlikely that Calvin asked Curtis to do any work for Chase Tree Service after 2011 because “Calvin is a perfectionist” while Curtis “always screwed up everything.”

Julia Leach testified that she had continued to drop Curtis off at the shop almost every day after he moved into her parents’ home.  He told her he was working for Chase Tree Service.  While she had never actually seen him at work with Calvin Chase at a job site, he often came home sweating and with dirty or oily clothes.  She had also seen him being transported to or from the shop at various times by Mitchell or Calvin Chase.  He had given her cash which he said was his pay from work to deposit in her bank account.  A few times, he had signed checks over to her for deposit.  He had asked her to help him add up some time records and time cards he kept in a notebook, although the notebook could not be found after the accident.

In addition to the Chase Tree Service checks previously mentioned, which showed payments made to Curtis for his work for Chase Tree Service in the summer of 2011, three additional Chase Tree Service checks to Curtis Atkins were in evidence for subsequent periods.  These were a check dated February 10, 2012, for $119.00, a check dated May 19, 2012, for $364.00 annotated “work,” and a check dated July 27, 2012, for $400.00.  Calvin Chase testified that the February check paid Curtis for changing the oil on Calvin’s personal vehicles and that the check dated May 19, 2012, was for repair work Curtis had done on a dump truck.  With respect to the check dated July 27, 2012, he testified that he had given Curtis $400 because Curtis and Julia spent several days helping him pack and move his belongings from an apartment in Otsego, where his lease was ending, to a house owned by his mother-in-law.

Around the beginning of August 2102, excavation and installation work had started to install a new sprinkler system and fire hydrants in the shop building to bring it up to code, as the owners planned to sell it.  A trench for running water pipes for the hydrants had been dug along the front of the shop and into and through part of the east parking area.  The contractor performing this work was storing its heavy equipment in the fenced and gated east parking area.  The equipment included an excavator, a packer or roller, and the John Deere front end loader later involved in the accident in this case.  Calvin and Mitchell Chase both testified that they were not involved with the performance of this construction project, and that they did not own, lease, or use the John Deere loader or other equipment involved in this project.

A few days prior to the August 17, 2012, accident, Curtis emailed Julia a photo he had apparently taken with his cell phone, showing the John Deere loader and captioned “can I have one.”  Mitchell Chase testified that Curtis had mentioned that his father owned a similar loader, but that he had never seen Curtis go near the loader when it was present near the shop.

On August 13 or 14, 2012, Tyrone Adams began working for Chase Tree Service.  He had responded to an advertisement Calvin placed on Craigslist for help for a few days with a job ending on Friday, August 17.  On Tyrone’s first day of work, Calvin came to pick him up and they went directly to the residential job site.  Later that day when they stopped at the shop, he met Curtis who struck up a conversation with him.  After learning where Tyrone lived, Curtis offered to pick him up and drop him off when Julia brought him to and from the shop in return for gas money, which Tyrone accepted.  Tyrone stated that he had little contact with Curtis other than riding with him a couple of times.  He stated that Calvin Chase was the only person working at the job site with him while he worked for Chase Tree Service.  He assumed that Curtis worked at the shop in some capacity, but didn’t know what he did there.

In the morning of August 17th, Julia Leach drove Curtis to the shop, picking up Tyrone on the way.  She testified that she dropped them both off there around 7:00 a.m.  Because one of her friends had a wedding set for that evening, Julia reminded Curtis that she wanted to pick him up at 5:00 p.m. so that they would have enough time to clean up and change and still make it to the wedding.  Tyrone was told that he would need to find other transportation home after he finished work since Julia and Curtis would not have time to give him a ride.

Mitchell Chase testified that he arose by 7:00 a.m.  About an hour later, he and Curtis went to the Mobil gas station to visit with the owner and his wife.  On the way there they passed Calvin driving in to the shop.  After about 30 minutes to an hour, Mitchell and Curtis returned to the shop.  Around 9:00 a.m. they took one of the dogs to the veterinarian, located about ten miles away, where they remained for roughly an hour.

Calvin Chase testified that when he arrived at the shop that morning, Tyrone Adams was there waiting for him.  About half an hour later he and Tyrone left for their job site in Plymouth.  When they left, his father and Curtis were getting ready to take Diesel, one of the dogs at the shop, to the vet.  Calvin testified that he and Tyrone remained at the job site in Plymouth all day.  He did not see Curtis again until he returned to the shop, although Curtis did talk to him on the phone briefly to tell him that Diesel was “doing great.”

Julia Leach also testified that Curtis sent her a text message about an hour or two after she dropped him off stating that he was at the veterinarian’s office with dogs from the shop.

Mitchell Chase testified that after he and Curtis brought the dog back to the shop from the veterinarian’s office, they went to Eden Prairie where Curtis helped Mitchell seal pavers and lay sod at Mitchell’s girlfriend’s house.  Mitchell testified that they were there until about 4:30 p.m., when they left to drive back to the shop.

Julia Leach testified that she arrived back at the shop to pick Curtis up at about 5:00 p.m.  She parked in a lot belonging to a neighboring business and adjacent to the street leading from Hamel Road to the shop.  She texted Curtis from her car to tell him that she had arrived.  He texted back that he was still on his way to the shop but was almost there.  Not long afterwards a car drove in and parked in front of and facing the shop.  Julia testified that she saw Calvin Chase get out of the driver’s side door and that Curtis and Tyrone got out on the passenger side.  All three went into the shop.  About five minutes later, she saw Mitchell Chase arrive.  She testified that he parked his car and did not leave again.

Calvin Chase testified that he and Tyrone Adams had arrived back at the shop somewhere around 5:00 p.m. in an SUV.  Curtis was not with them.  When he passed Julia’s parked car, the driver’s side of his car faced hers.  He testified that he had to park parallel to the shop building because of the construction trench that ran parallel with the shop in front of the shop entrance.  He parked directly in front of the shop door.  He got out of the driver’s side door and Tyrone got out of the passenger side door.  About five minutes after they had entered the building he noticed Curtis walk past him and go out through the side shop door into the east fenced parking area.  Calvin was getting a pill ready to give to one of the dogs.  He noticed that the dog had gone out the shop door with Calvin, so he went to catch up with the dog.  As he stood up after giving the medication to the dog, he noticed Curtis fall and hit the ground next to the John Deere loader that was parked in the lot.  He yelled for Tyrone to call 911.

Mitchell Chase testified that he and Curtis had arrived at the shop at about 5:00 p.m.  He saw Julia’s car and passed the back of her car as he drove up toward the shop.  He had to drive around the back of the construction trench and around a fire hydrant to drop Curtis off by the shop door.  Then he turned around and drove back to the Mobil station to fill his gas tank.  When he arrived back from the Mobil station he pulled up to the gate of the east side parking area, where he saw Calvin waving his arms and yelling that someone should call 911.  He opened the gate and ran in and saw Curtis lying on the ground.

Tyrone stated that he had not actually seen the accident occur.  When he came in response to Calvin’s shouting he saw Curtis lying next to some heavy equipment.  He had never seen either Mitchell or Calvin Chase or Curtis Atkins operate that equipment, and didn’t know who owned it.  He had the impression that neither Calvin nor Mitchell Chase “even knew what happened” that had resulted in the accident.  After calling the ambulance, but before it arrived, he left for the bus stop in order to catch his bus home.

Two officers from the Medina Police Department were the first to arrive on the scene.  Their report stated that on their arrival they “found a male that had fallen approximately five feet onto hard pavement and was unconscious and bleeding from the head.”  The report listed Mitchell and Calvin Chase as witnesses.  The report also stated that “[a] witness stated that he saw V[ictim] fall as he exited a front end loader he had been operating . . . ”  However, both Mitchell and Calvin Chase testified that neither had seen Curtis operating the front end loader, and that this portion of the police report was in error.

During this time, Julia Leach had continued to wait for Curtis in her car.  She could not see the secured parking area to the left of the building from where she was parked.  She became anxious when he did not reply to her text messages.  About ten or fifteen minutes after Mitchell Chase drove up she saw police cars and an ambulance arrive.  She left her car and asked Mitchell what had happened.  He told her that Curtis had fallen and was hurt.  An officer stopped her from entering the gated parking area, where she could see paramedics attending to Curtis.  The officer asked her for information about Curtis, which she provided.  After Curtis was taken to the hospital, she drove home to get his insurance card and then went to the hospital.

The claimant’s case and his arguments on appeal also rely significantly on the report and testimony of Officer Charmane Domino, a Medina police officer.  Officer Domino performed a brief investigation for the limited purpose of assessing whether the facts appeared consistent with an accidental injury and to rule out foul play.  On August 21, 2012, she interviewed Curtis Atkins’ parents and sister and Julia Leach at the North Memorial Medical Center.  She then went to the accident scene and spoke with Mitchell and Calvin Chase.  She testified that her usual practice was to record interviews rather than take notes.  However, the police department’s records management system showed that she had not recorded any of the interviews, and that no notes had been preserved.  Officer Domino did not recall precisely when she prepared her report, but testified that it was prior to August 28, 2012, the date on the report.

In her report, Officer Domino noted that Julia told her that Curtis worked for Calvin and Mitchell Chase.  Consistent with Julia’s trial testimony, the report states that Curtis arrived at the 610 Hamel building with Calvin Chase, and that Mitchell Chase arrived separately.  The report attributed this information to Calvin and Mitchell Chase.  It recited that Calvin did not know why Curtis was on the front end loader “as he had not been running that piece of equipment that day.”  It also quoted Calvin as speculating that Curtis was either pulling the key for the weekend or was going to drive the loader out of the lot to show off to his girlfriend.  The report stated that Officer Domino had asked for a demonstration of how a person would climb on and off the loader.  Following the demonstration she determined that claimant's injuries were consistent with an accidental fall and that there was no evidence of foul play.

Officer Domino was deposed on August 16, 2013.  She recalled that the loader was in a secured lot on the east side of the building at 610 Hamel Road when she went to the scene, and that she had talked to an unidentified man who was working on the water main near the shop.  He was the man who had demonstrated how a person climbed onto and off of the loader.  She recalled that he said he either owned the equipment or worked for its owner, but that the “landscaping company” was either “using it or storing it or renting it.”

Calvin and Mitchell Chase denied telling Officer Domino that Curtis had arrived at the shop with Calvin.  Calvin denied offering any theory about a key; Mitchell stated that he was the one who had speculated about a key.  Neither Mitchell nor Calvin had seen anyone working in the area when Office Domino interviewed them.

In reviewing cases 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.  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, “[f]actfindings are clearly erroneous only if the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.”  Northern States Power Co. v. Lyon Foods Products, Inc., 304 Minn. 196, 201, 229 N.W.2d 521, 524 (1975).  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.”  Id.

Our statutes define a personal injury as an “injury arising out of and in the course of employment.”  Minn. Stat. § 176.011, subd. 16.  The employee must prove that the injury both “arose out of” the employment and was sustained “in the course of” the employment.  Gibberd v. Control Data Corp., 424 N.W.2d 776, 780, 40 W.C.D. 1040, 1047 (Minn. 1988).  The words “‘arising out of’ connote a causal connection, whereas ‘in the course of’ refers to the time, place, and circumstances of the incident causing the injury.”  Id., 40 W.C.D. at 1047.  For an injury to arise out of the employment, there must be a causal connection between the employment and the injury.  Lange v. Minneapolis-St. Paul Metro. Airport Comm’n, 257 Minn. 54, 99 N.W.2d 915, 21 W.C.D. 61 (1959).  The requisite causal connection exists “if the employment, by reason of its nature, obligations or incidents may reasonably be found to be the source of the injury-producing hazard.”  Nelson v. City of St. Paul, 249 Minn. 53, 55, 81 N.W.2d 272, 275, 19 W.C.D. 120, 123 (1957).

However, “the question is not whether the activity is compelled by the contract of employment, but whether it is incidental to the employment relationship.”  Id. at 221, 161 N.W.2d at 320, 24 W.C.D. at 626.  “An act outside an employee’s regular duties which is undertaken in good faith to advance the employer’s interests, whether or not the employee’s own assigned work is thereby furthered, is within the course of employment.”  Swenson v. Zacher, 264 Minn. 203, 211, 118 N.W.2d 786, 791, 22 W.C.D. 342, 351 (1962), quoting 1 Larson, Workmen’s Compensation Law § 27.  The burden of proving that a personal injury arose out of the employment is on the employee.  Minn. Stat. § 176.021, subd. 1.

To show that the claimant's injury arose out of employment with Chase Tree Service, the claimant needed to establish that it was more likely than not that he was both employed by Chase Tree Service and that he had climbed onto the loader from which he fell in order to carry out some act to further the interests of the employer, rather than for merely personal reasons.

Because there was no direct evidence about why the claimant had climbed onto the loader, he sought to bolster the claim that the purpose was related to employment by seeking to show by circumstantial evidence that he had been working for Chase Tree Service on the day of the injury up to the time he was injured.  And, because a finding that he had worked for Chase Tree Service on that day depended on the inferences drawn from that circumstantial evidence, he offered further circumstantial evidence that might support an inference of an ongoing employment relationship with Chase Tree Service preceding the date of injury.

The compensation judge, however, accepted as credible the testimony of Calvin and Mitchell Chase and the recorded statement of Tyrone Adams, and found that it was more likely than not that the claimant had not been employed by Chase Tree Service since the fall of 2011, that he was not performing work for Chase Tree Service on the date of injury; and that he had climbed onto the loader for merely personal reasons.

A recurring theme in the appellant’s argument to this court is that the compensation judge erred in accepting the testimony of Calvin and Mitchell Chase as credible.  As a general rule, it is not the role of this court to evaluate the credibility and probative value of witness testimony and choose different inferences from the evidence than the compensation judge.  See Krotzer v. Browning-Ferris/Woodlake Sanitation Serv., 459 N.W.2d 509, 512-13, 43 W.C.D. 254, 260-61 (Minn. 1990); Redgate v. Sroga’s Standard Serv., 421 N.W.2d 729, 734, 40 W.C.D. 948, 957 (Minn. 1988).  The appellant argues, however, that the other evidence in this case was so compelling as to mandate a contrary result, and that the compensation judge erred in reaching the findings she made.  We therefore have examined the factual arguments made by the appellant in detail below.

The first issue appellant raises in his brief on appeal is whether the compensation judge erred in finding that Curtis Atkins’ employment with Chase Tree Service had ended by the fall of 2011.  He contends that, when viewed in its entirety, the documentary evidence and testimony strongly creates so strong an inference of ongoing employment up to and including the date of injury that this court must reverse the finding that the employment relationship had ended by the fall of 2011.

Looking first at the documentary evidence, we note that the strongest documentary evidence in favor of the appellant’s position consists of three Chase Tree Service checks paid to Curtis Atkins in February, May, and July 2012.  Of these, the February check seems unlikely to relate to work performed for Chase Tree Service since that business was seasonal and did not operate during the winter months.  The check dated May 19, 2012, in the amount of $364.00, was annotated “work,” and in that respect, it does resemble paychecks in evidence for Curtis’ work for Chase Tree Service in 2011.  On the other hand, all three checks in 2012 were written for even dollar amounts, unlike the 2011 paychecks.

Calvin Chase testified that that the February and May checks were to pay for automotive repair work Curtis did for him, and that the July check was to repay Curtis and Julia for three days they spent helping him move out of a rental townhouse to his mother-in-law’s house.  The appellant reiterates his argument that the judge should not have given much weight to the testimony of Calvin Chase since it was self-serving.  However, we note that this testimony was to some extent indirectly corroborated by other witnesses.  As to the July check, we note that Julia Leach testified that she and Curtis did in fact help Calvin move, and that she was aware that Curtis and Calvin had a discussion over the amount Calvin paid Curtis for the help.  While appellant offers a number of speculative arguments over why it would not make logical sense for Calvin to have paid Curtis $400 on July 27, 2012, for helping with Calvin’s household move, we do not find these arguments particularly compelling or convincing, and none clearly provide a basis to conclude that the compensation judge erred in accepting Calvin’s testimony about the purpose of the check.  The testimony that the other checks were for repair work on vehicles were to some extent indirectly corroborated by testimony from other witnesses, including at least one of claimant’s own witnesses, that Curtis had earned some money by performing automotive repairs at the shop for relatives and acquaintances.

The appellant also points to Julia’s testimony, corroborated by bank statements, that she had made several cash deposits in the bank account she shared with Curtis.  She testified that these deposits represented cash Curtis told her he had earned working for Chase Tree Service.  On the other hand, we note that Julia admitted that she had no personal knowledge about the actual source of any cash Curtis gave her to deposit.  As we noted above, there was testimony from witnesses called by both sides that showed that Curtis received cash payments from time to time for car repairs he did at the shop for relatives and acquaintances.  We note also that at the time the deposits were made, Julia was receiving cash tips at her job as a server at a restaurant, although she testified that she never deposited any tips at the bank.  Overall, we see no clear reason why the compensation judge would have been compelled to conclude that these deposits represented payments to Curtis for work for Chase Tree Service.

Calvin testified that it was not his practice to pay in cash for work done for Chase Tree Service, but appellant points to evidence he contends contradicts that testimony.  Near the end of his recorded statement, Tyrone Adams was asked how he was paid for the three days of work he performed for Chase Tree and Outdoor Services ending on the date of Curtis Atkins’ injury.  He responded “I got paid by a check.”  Appellant points to language earlier in the statement which, he contends, contradicts that response.  Specifically, Tyrone had just finished explaining that he had learned about the short-term work for Chase Tree Service by looking for work on Craig’s List.  He was then asked how he was paid, and answered, “they just pay me you know cash.”  While appellant claims this clearly contradicts the statement that he was paid by check for the job for Chase Tree Service, we do not find the alleged contradiction so clear.  A reasonable alternative interpretation to the answer about payment in cash is that Tyrone was explaining how he was generally paid for work he found on Craig’s List, rather than how he was paid after performing this specific job.

The appellant next alleges that testimony by Mitchell Chase and some language in the recorded statement of Tyrone Adams directly contradict the judge’s finding by indicating that Curtis continued to work for the defendants during the summer of 2012.  Specifically, the appellant asserts that after Mitchell Chase was asked whether Curtis had worked for defendants during that summer, he responded “maybe a couple of times.”  Read in context, however, the quoted language simply appears to qualify Mitchell’s general denial that Curtis did any work for Calvin by admitting a slight possibility that Curtis might have performed some work for Chase Tree Service that Mitchell was not aware of, but that this could not have happened more than a couple of times.  The full answer hardly constitutes strong, positive evidence to support a finding that Curtis performed work for Chase Tree Service in 2012.

The appellant next points out that Tyrone Adams speculated that Curtis worked for the Chases at the shop.  However, there is no evidence that this speculation was based on anything beyond the fact that Curtis was coming and going to the shop, was there when Tyrone met him, and had offered Tyrone a ride to and from that location.

Finally, appellant’s argument relies on the testimony of Mona Crohn, a landlady who contacted Calvin Chase early in July 2012 for verification of Curtis’ employment before accepting Curtis and Julia’s application for an apartment lease.  She testified that Calvin told her Curtis worked for him.  However, Calvin provided an explanation for why this testimony was not reliable as to the question whether Curtis worked for Chase Tree Service, which the compensation judge accepted.  Specifically, he testified that in late June or early July Curtis had told him he and Julia were having trouble getting an apartment, and had asked if he would lie to verify that Curtis was working for him.  He testified he did not specifically recall the conversation with Mona Crohn, but that he would have lied to her about employing Curtis to help Curtis and Julia find an apartment.  The appellant argues that because Calvin admitted he lied to Ms. Crohn, the judge erred in accepting any part of his testimony as truthful.  We conclude, however, that the weight to be given to this admission of untruthfulness was a matter for the compensation judge.  The judge’s decision to accept Calvin’s testimony as credible despite this admission does not here rise to the level of reversible error.

Overall, we are unable to conclude that the checks, bank records, and testimony offered by the claimant constitute such compelling evidence of continuing employment by Chase Tree Service after the fall of 2011 as to require our reversal of the judge’s finding.

The compensation judge also found that, regardless of any other date that Curtis might have performed work for Chase Tree Service, the evidence failed to show that he was engaged in work for Chase Tree Service on August 17, 2012, the specific date of injury.

To establish the inference that he had worked for Chase Tree Service on that date, the claimant relied not only on the circumstantial evidence he offered to show an ongoing employment relationship, but on Julia Leach’s testimony and the report of Officer Domino, both of which stated that Curtis had arrived at the shop around 5:00 p.m. on the date of injury in a vehicle driven by Calvin Chase.  In her Memorandum, the compensation judge acknowledged that if Curtis had returned to the shop with Calvin Chase and Tyrone Adams that day, it would strongly support an inference that he was working for Chase Tree Service on that date.  The contrary evidence was the testimony of Calvin Chase, Mitchell Chase, and Tyrone Adams, which, taken together, was that Calvin and Tyrone had worked together alone at a job site and that Curtis was not with them either on the job site or when they returned to the shop, but instead had spent the day with Mitchell Chase and returned to the shop with him.

The compensation judge reconciled this discrepancy by reasoning that Julia had no strong reason and at most only a momentary opportunity to observe who brought Curtis back to the shop, and that her recollection therefore might not be accurate.  Similarly, the judge reasoned that since the purpose of Officer Domino’s investigation was to determine if Curtis’ fall was an accident, the question of who drove him back to the shop with was merely an incidental detail about which she might not have given close attention.  The judge gave greater weight to Tyrone Adams’ statement that Curtis had not been with him and Calvin at the job site or returned back to the shop with them, since there was no evidence that Tyrone was anything but a disinterested witness.  Finally, the judge noted that the fact that Curtis had sent a message to Julia about being at the veterinarian’s office with one of the shop dogs further corroborated that he had been with Mitchell Chase rather than with Calvin Chase that day.

The appellant argues that the compensation judge should have weighed the testimony differently.  He contends that Officer Domino’s report should have been given greater weight because it was produced as part of an official investigation, not as a matter of mere “recollection.”  He argues that Julia Leach would certainly have been paying very close attention to Curtis’ arrival, since she was waiting impatiently for him to leave with her so that they would be on time to attend her friend’s wedding.  As to the message from Curtis about a visit to the veterinarian, the claimant argues that this was entitled to little weight since it did not preclude the possibility that Curtis might have been at the work site in Plymouth later that day.

We do not find these arguments compelling.  The appellant is merely asking that we substitute his own proposed weighing of the evidence for the weight given by the compensation judge.  This is not the role of this court on review.  We conclude that the compensation judge’s weighing of the evidence was reasonable, and affirm the finding that the claimant was not working for Chase Tree Service on the date of injury.

Finally, the appellant argues that, even if he was not at the job site in Plymouth with Calvin Chase and Tyrone Adams, the testimony of Mitchell Chase was that Curtis helped Mitchell with landscaping work in Eden Prairie, which the judge should have deemed to be performed on behalf of Chase Tree Service.  There was, however, no basis in the evidence for imputing to Chase Tree Service work Curtis did helping Mitchell lay sod and seal pavers at the house of Mitchell’s girlfriend.  We note, also, that Mitchell Chase had been dismissed by claimant as a defendant in this case before the matter came on for hearing below.

We have affirmed the compensation judge's findings that the claimant was not employed by Chase Tree Service generally after the fall of 2011 or specifically on August 17, 2012, as these findings are supported by substantial evidence.  However, even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the claimant had been working for Chase Tree Service on the day he was injured, the compensation judge could still reasonably find on the evidence in this case that the claimant failed to meet his burden of proof to show that he sustained an injury which arose out of and in the course of employment.

The compensation judge found it more likely than not that the claimant climbed up on the loader for a personal reason unrelated to Chase Tree Service.  A few days prior to the accident Curtis had sent Julia a picture of the loader captioned “can I have one,” and one theory Calvin had offered to Officer Domino was that Curtis perhaps wanted to drive the loader out of the lot to show it to Julia.  The appellant makes a number of arguments about why Curtis could not have intended to drive the loader, including that the gate was closed and that there was a truck parked near or in front of the gate.  He further contends that if the facts do not reasonably support the conclusion that Curtis wanted to drive the loader out of the lot, the alternative is to find that the claimant went onto the loader to take out the key.  We disagree.  There was no evidence about Curtis’ motives other than speculation, and many other equally speculative non- work reasons might be offered.

The claimant argues that the preponderance of the evidence supported the theory that he climbed up on the equipment to take out a key.  However, the only supporting evidence for this hypothesis was that Mitchell or Calvin Chase had suggested that possibility in speculation to Officer Domino.  No clear evidence was offered that Chase Tree Service owned, leased, or had ever used the loader, and both Calvin and Mitchell Chase denied having done so.  The compensation judge could reasonably conclude that there was no obvious reason Chase Tree Service would benefit from the key to the equipment being “removed for the weekend.”  And, even if we assume that Curtis did climb on the machine to remove the key for the weekend, the judge could also have concluded he was doing so simply to ensure his own access to the equipment for purely personal reasons.

The claimant bore the burden of proof to show that the injury arose out of employment, and with no persuasive evidence on either side of the question, the judge reasonably found that he failed to do so.  Ultimately, the decision in this case rested on credibility.  There was conflicting testimony regarding the events leading up to the claimed work injury.  This court must give deference to the compensation judge with respect to the assessment of witnesses’ credibility.  Tolzmann v. McCombs Knutson Assocs., 447 N.W.2d 196, 42 W.C.D. 421 (Minn. 1989).  Having carefully reviewed the record, we cannot conclude that the compensation judge’s finding that the claimant failed to prove he sustained a compensable injury arising out of and in the course of his employment is unsupported by substantial evidence or clearly erroneous.  We must, therefore affirm.