The employee appeals the compensation judge’s finding that documented benefit payments, which the employee claimed he did not receive, had been made.  We affirm.

On August 4, 1980, William E. Commodore, the employee, sustained a work-related injury resulting in left ear hearing loss while working as a laborer for Western Precipitation, the employer, which was insured for workers’ compensation liability by National Union Fire Insurance, administered by Broadspire.  Neither party has complete documentation or files available from this time period.  Some documentation was available from the Department of Labor and Industry.  In July 1981, the employee was paid $5,763.00 for a 30 percent permanent partial disability rating for his left ear.  A receipt for this amount was signed by the employee and by the insurer’s claims representative.  (Employee’s Ex. I; Employer and Insurer’s Ex. 2.)

The employee recalled contacting the claims representative regarding his worsening hearing loss in 1983.  The representative sent him for additional testing.  A notice of discontinuance dated April 4, 1984, signed by the same claims representative, indicated that the employee had been paid a total of $10,805.05 in permanent partial disability benefits for a 56.25 percent rating for his left ear hearing loss.  (Employee’s Ex. H; Employer and Insurer’s Ex. 2.)  According to a November 1989 award on stipulation based on a settlement which indicated the employee had a 62 percent hearing loss in his left ear, an additional award of $1,000.00 in permanent partial disability benefits had been paid.  The stipulation for settlement was signed by the employee.  (Employee’s Ex. G; Employer and Insurer’s Ex. 2.)

In 2010, the employee was evaluated by Dr. Chandler Marietta for increased hearing loss.  Dr. Marietta diagnosed asymmetric sensorineural hearing loss and rated the condition at 11 percent whole body disability.  The parties litigated whether the employee’s binaural hearing loss was causally related to his work injury.  After a hearing on December 8, 2011, a compensation judge found that this condition, which required the use of bilateral hearing aids, and the related medical expenses were causally related to his work injury.  This decision was not appealed.  Notices of benefit payment dated January 16, 2012, and July 30, 2012, listed the total compensation paid for 10 percent permanent partial disability for hearing loss as about $11,805.00.  (Employee’s Ex. J and K.)  An audiologist assessed the employee’s hearing loss at 13 percent whole body disability based on an audiogram dated August 7, 2012.  (Employee’s Ex. A.)

On April 19, 2013, the employee filed a claim petition for payment of additional permanent partial disability for left ear hearing loss from the 1980 work injury.  The employer and insurer responded that all benefits due had been paid.  At the January 16, 2014, hearing, the parties agreed that the employee received the permanent partial disability payment of $5,763.00 in July 1981.  The employee claimed that he did not receive any additional payments in 1984 or the notice of discontinuance dated April 4, 1984, which indicated that he had been paid a total of $10,805.05 in permanent partial disability benefits for his hearing loss as of that date.  The employee claimed that the address listed for him on this document was incorrect.  The employee also claimed he did not receive the additional award of permanent partial disability benefits of $1,000.00 which was documented as paid pursuant to the November 1989 award on stipulation.  The employee recalled signing the stipulation while working with his previous attorney, but claimed he did not read the stipulation because the attorney told him he did not need to read it and that he did not receive any additional money at that time.

The parties also litigated the appropriate rating for the employee’s hearing loss.  The compensation judge found that the employee was entitled to permanent partial disability consistent with a 13 percent whole body disability rating, less the permanent partial disability documented as previously paid, resulting in an additional payment of $2,717.70.  The judge noted that the employee did not recall receiving all of the documented payments, but stated that the employee “did not establish based upon a preponderance of the evidence that payment was not made.”  The employee appeals the judge’s determination that he had received the documented benefit payments.

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 Prods., 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.  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.  Krovchuk v. Koch Oil Refinery, 48 W.C.D. 607, 608 (W.C.C.A. 1993), summarily aff’d (Minn. June 3, 1993).

The employee argues that the compensation judge erred as a matter of law by placing the burden of proving that the documented payments had not been made on the employee, based on the judge’s language in the memorandum that the employee “did not establish based upon a preponderance of the evidence that payment was not made.”  (Memorandum at 4.)  The employee cites Jacob v. Davies, Inc., 67 W.C.D. 362, 371-72 (W.C.C.A. 2007), where this court stated that the employer and insurer have the burden of proving entitlement to a credit or an overpayment, and the appropriate amount.  See, e.g., Wohlwend v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 709, slip op. (W.C.C.A. Jan. 29, 1998); Carlson v. Minn. Dance Theatre & School, slip op. (W.C.C.A. Nov. 24, 1986).  In this case, there was no overpayment.  While the employer and insurer were claiming a small credit if the employee had been rated at 11 percent instead of 13 percent, whether an overpayment had been made was not the issue.  The issue was whether the employee had received the payments as documented in the record, which is a question of fact for the compensation judge.  Generally, the employee has the burden of proof to establish entitlement to benefits by a preponderance of the evidence.  Minn. Stat. § 176.021, subds. 1 and 1a.

The employee attempted to rebut the documentary evidence with his testimony.  The compensation judge considered and weighed the evidence in the record and chose to rely on the documentary evidence.  The compensation judge has the responsibility of weighing the evidence and of assessing the probative value of witness testimony.  Assessment of a witness’s credibility is a unique function of the trier of fact and this court must give due weight to the compensation judge’s opportunity to assess the credibility of witnesses.  See Even v. Kraft, Inc., 445 N.W.2d 831, 834-35, 42 W.C.D. 220, 225 (Minn. 1989).  Where the evidence reasonably allows different inferences, the inference drawn by compensation judge is generally upheld.  Dille v. Knox Lumber, 452 N.W.2d 679, 681, 42 W.C.D. 819, 823 (Minn. 1990).  While the employer and insurer did not have any additional documentation of payment, such as copies of cashed checks, the forms filed with the Department of Labor and Industry indicated that the payments were made.  This evidence was sufficient for the employer and insurer to meet the burden of proof.  The compensation judge concluded in her memorandum: