The employer and insurer appeal from the judge’s decision denying discontinuance of temporary partial disability benefits.  We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand the matter for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

On November 17, 2010, the employee was involved in a work-related accident while operating a bulldozer in his job as a farm laborer with VZ Hogs, LLP [the employer].  The injury occurred when the bulldozer tipped into a ditch, causing the employee to strike his head on the roll bar.  He was airlifted for treatment and was found to have a burst fracture and associated spinal cord injury at C5-6.  Treatment included anterior fusion surgery, C4 through C6, and extensive physical therapy.^[1]

At the time of the injury, the employee’s job with the employer paid $14.00 per hour, and the employee worked from 40 to as much as 100 hours per week, depending on the employer’s needs.  The employee also worked as a volunteer firefighter, and he and his wife operated a 15-acre hobby farm.

The employee returned to work with the employer, with restrictions on activity and hours, in March of 2011.  He continued treatment and engaged in work hardening, and his restrictions were relaxed somewhat as his condition improved.  However, in May of 2012, the employer decided they could no longer accommodate his restrictions, and the employee was apparently terminated.

A couple of months later, in July 2012, the employee started a job with NAPA Auto Parts, earning $11.00 per hour to start, with a $1.50 per hour raise after 90 days.  For several months, he worked about 40 hours a week, receiving help from coworkers with lifting and heavy activities.  The employee testified that the position was considered full time and that he worked 40 or more hours to fulfill his new employer’s expectations.  Eventually, however, one of his treating physicians, Dr. Russell Gelfman, recommended that the employee return to a six-hour per day limit on hours.  By this time, during the spring of 2013, the employee had noticed an increase in low back and leg symptoms, and one of the issues in the current litigation concerns the source of these complaints.  In any event, the employee reduced his hours but nevertheless sometimes worked more than six hours per day, especially on Fridays, to accommodate NAPA’s needs.  The employee also continued to perform activities with the fire department and continued, with his wife, to operate his farm.  He testified, however, that he was no longer able to do much if any of the physical labor associated with either job.  The employee explained that he is not able to do any field work on his hobby farm and that he merely supervises the work there.  As for firefighting, he became a training officer following the injury and feels he is no longer physically capable of making fire calls.

In October 2013, the employer and insurer had the employee evaluated by Dr. Mark Larkins.  In his subsequent report of December 26, 2013, Dr. Larkins concluded that the employee should observe various restrictions as a result of a herniation at L4-5, which was in the doctor’s opinion not the result of the employee’s 2010 work-related accident.  Dr. Larkins also concluded that the work-related C5 burst fracture warranted a 19% whole body rating under the applicable schedules but that the employee required no restrictions or additional treatment due to that injury.^[2]

The employer and insurer filed a notice of intent to discontinue, seeking to discontinue temporary partial disability benefits.  The employee prevailed at the administrative conference level, and the employer and insurer accordingly filed a petition to discontinue benefits, alleging

At the outset of that hearing, held on April 14, 2014, both parties acknowledged that liability for the employee’s lumbar condition would not be determined at that time.  It was stipulated that the employee had sustained a cervical injury on November 19, 2010.  Evidence submitted at hearing included the employee’s medical records, rehabilitation records, Dr. Larkins’ reports, and several years of tax returns.  The employee and his wife testified, and the employer and insurer elicited much information from the employee about earnings related to the hobby farm and the employee’s volunteer firefighting position.  Testimony was also offered by Jon Hanson, who worked first as the employee’s QRC and then as the employee’s disability case manager, and Gary Novitsky, a placement specialist who started working with the employee in October 2013.  In opening statements, the employer and insurer took the position that the employee had no restrictions attributable to his work injury but that, even if he had such restrictions, he had the burden of establishing his post-injury earnings.

In a decision served and filed on May 27, 2014, the compensation judge concluded that the employer and insurer were not entitled to discontinue temporary partial disability benefits.  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 (2014).  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).

The compensation judge concluded that the employee remained subject to restrictions related to his November 2010 injury and that the employee was therefore entitled to ongoing temporary partial disability benefits.  On appeal, the employer and insurer argue that the judge erred in several ways in reaching this conclusion.

Initially, the employer and insurer contend that the employee’s restriction on work hours was not related to the employee’s November 2010 cervical injury but was instead based on the employee’s low back and leg pain.  And, the employer and insurer maintain, because liability for a claimed low back injury was not to be determined at this hearing, substantial evidence did not support the judge’s conclusion that the employee has restrictions related to his work injury.  Furthermore, the employer and insurer allege, the judge erred by failing to consider the employee’s income from his hobby farm and from firefighting in evaluating whether the employee had a loss of earnings causally related to his work injury.  The employer and insurer also contend that the judge erred by addressing the alleged lumbar spine injury, in contravention of the judge’s own decision denying consolidation and in violation of Minn. Stat. § 176.238, subd. 6.  Finally, the employer and insurer contend that the judge failed to dispose of all questions of fact and law by failing to take into account the employee’s earnings outside of his NAPA job and by failing to determine the appropriate temporary partial disability benefit rate, given those extra earnings.

Much of the employer and insurer’s position on appeal is evidently based on their contention that the employee has no residual disability related to his admitted cervical injury.  The opinion of Dr. Larkins supports their position in this regard.^[3]  However, other evidence amply supports the conclusion that the employee continues to experience ongoing symptoms and resulting limitations related to his cervical condition.  It was apparently expected from early on that the employee might never make a complete recovery from the injury.  For example, in a May 10, 2012, office note, Dr. Bret Ball predicted that the employee would “suffer long-term effects from the spinal cord injury, and this will limit his ability to participate in normal activities.”  Much more recently, in April of 2014, just prior to the hearing, Dr. Mark Christopherson wrote that the employee “continues to struggle with pain, strength, coordination, and endurance,” citing his February 4, 2014, exam as showing continued “evidence of right greater than left cervical spinal cord injury.”  Dr. Christopherson further wrote that he and Dr. Gelfman agreed that the employee continued to suffer from C5 myelopathy with ongoing spasticity due to the work injury.  We would also note that, pursuant to caselaw, an employee’s testimony alone may establish the need for restrictions, and the employee has consistently complained of ongoing symptoms since his injury.  See Brening v. Roto-Press, Inc., 306 Minn. 562, 237 N.W.2d 383, 28 W.C.D. 225 (1975).  However, while the record as a whole supports the conclusion that the employee continues to experience limitations, particularly due to fatigue, as a result of his cervical condition, we conclude that remand is required for reconsideration and additional findings.

Specifically, it appears very possible to us that the judge may have based his decision in part on his conclusion that the employee sustained a work-related lumbar injury.^[4]  Because it was expressly understood that liability for a low back injury would not be decided at this hearing, the judge on remand should reconsider the question and issue additional findings explaining his decision as to whether the employee’s cervical condition necessitated restrictions and reduced his earning capacity within the meaning of applicable case law.  See, e.g., Dorn v. A.J. Chromy Constr. Co., 310 Minn. 42, 245 N.W.2d 451, 29 W.C.D. 86 (1976).

We also reluctantly remand the matter for findings as to the employee’s earnings, both pre- and post-injury.  Part of the employer and insurer’s argument seeking discontinuance was based on their contention that the employee’s earnings in the hobby farm and from his volunteer firefighter position had to be factored into deciding their liability for ongoing temporary partial disability benefits.  In fact, in their post-hearing memorandum to the compensation judge, the employer and insurer alleged that, because the employee did not adequately establish what he had actually earned post injury, the employee had failed to establish entitlement to any temporary partial disability benefits.  We would note here that the employer and insurer’s position on the employee’s outside earnings is a bit perplexing, in that the employee had the hobby farm and the firefighter position on the date of injury, and, at least according to the employee, those earnings were not included in the employee’s weekly wage calculation.^[5]  Certainly the employer and insurer cannot exclude that income when calculating the employee’s wage on the date of injury but then insist on its inclusion for post-injury benefit calculations.  Still, evidence as to these earnings was submitted, and the judge made no findings on the issue.  We therefore remand the matter to allow the judge to consider the employee’s earnings from his hobby farm and firefighter job for both weekly wage calculation purposes and temporary partial disability benefit eligibility/calculation purposes.  The judge may in his discretion direct the parties to submit additional evidence and arguments on this issue.  Either party may of course appeal from the judge’s decision on remand.