The employee appeals from the compensation judge’s decision as to the nature and extent of her work injury.  We affirm.

The employee worked in the paint department of WASP, Inc. [the employer], a manufacturer of large steel items.  The employee testified that she worked as a painter 90% of the time in this job; for the other 10%, she operated a grinding tool to smooth welds.  When working as a painter, the employee sprayed powdered paint on the heavy steel parts hanging from a large A-frame rack.^[1]  To do the job, the employee and a coworker had to move the rack, which was on wheels, into the paint room and then out into an oven after the paint had been applied.  The employee estimated that the loaded rack may have weighed a ton or more and that it was necessary to push/pull the rack over a slight lip in the floor to get it into the paint room.  She typically painted 12 or 13 racks of parts during her eight-hour shift.

On May 23, 2012, the employee sustained an admitted injury to her right shoulder while pulling a rack over the lip in the floor at the threshold of the paint room.  The employee testified that, while she was pulling, she experienced an excruciating pain in that shoulder, so severe that she felt faint.  As she described it at hearing, the pain was located at the edge of the outside of her shoulder blade and “it pulled on my neck up by my ear.”  The employee finished her shift but reported the injury to the employer that same day.

For about a week after the injury, the employee switched to grinding work, using her left hand.  Her right shoulder symptoms failed to improve, and, on May 29, 2012, she sought treatment at Glacial Ridge Health Systems, where she was seen by Dr. D. Eric Westberg.  Treatment notes indicate that the employee was complaining of a burning sensation and shooting pain down her right arm, not alleviated by anti-inflammatories.  The doctor diagnosed a right shoulder strain/muscle strain in the posterior aspect of the shoulder, advised the employee to use a sling, and referred her for physical therapy.  X-rays taken on that date were negative.

The employee was subsequently seen at the clinic on June 4, 2012, by nurse practitioner Elizabeth Ankeny.  Ms. Ankeny started the employee on a Medrol Dosepak and reiterated the recommendation for physical therapy, diagnosing “right shoulder pain with radiculopathy.”  Ms. Ankeny also noted at the time that the employee denied having any neck pain.

The employee saw Dr. Westberg again on June 7, 2012, complaining of worsening symptoms.  Dr. Westberg gave the employee additional medication and instructed her to follow up with Ms. Ankeny.

On June 15, 2012, the employee underwent an MRI scan of the right shoulder, ordered by Ms. Ankeny.  The scan apparently showed some tendinosis in the right supraspinatus tendon, and Ms. Ankeny again strongly urged the employee to have physical therapy.

The employee continued to experience significant symptoms and was seen by Dr. Patrick Hurley, an orthopedist, in mid July 2012.  At the time of that exam, Dr. Hurley indicated that the employee had “more cervical spine pain than shoulder pain,” and the employee was also noted to have limited range of cervical motion.  Dr. Hurley concluded that the employee’s right shoulder pain was “likely coming from her cervical spine” and ordered a cervical MRI.  According to the radiologist’s report from that scan, performed that same month, the employee had a “small extruded herniated disc posteriorly and slightly to the right at C4-5,” as well as degenerative changes at C5-6 and C6-7.

The employee underwent a cervical nerve root injection on July 31, 3012.  She experienced no improvement and subsequently developed significant headaches.

On October 12, 2012, the employee was examined by Dr. Jeffrey Gerdes of Central Minnesota Neurosciences.  By that time, the employee’s “greatest complaint [was] neck pain and headaches.”  Dr. Gerdes advised the employee that surgery would not help those symptoms but could be performed to address her radicular symptoms and cervical stenosis.  The procedure he recommended was a C4-7 anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with plating.

In January 2013, the employer and insurer had the employee examined by Dr. Richard Strand.  Dr. Stand was unable to complete his examination due to the employee’s extreme pain complaints, and he concluded that the employee’s prognosis was extremely poor given what he characterized as “severe pain behaviors and signs of symptoms magnification.”  As regards the nature and extent of the employee’s May 23, 2012, work injury, Dr. Strand concluded that the employee’s only injury on that date was a temporary right shoulder strain, which had resolved at least by the date of his examination.  He attributed the employee’s cervical symptoms to preexisting degenerative changes, finding “no definite evidence” that the employee had injured her cervical spine in the work-related incident.

In April of 2013,^[2] Dr. Gerdes issued a report in which he indicated that the employee’s cervical condition had resulted in “some degree of permanent partial disability . . . and I do feel the work related injury was related to this.”  According to this report, the employee had been seen in the clinic “reporting that on 5-23-12 while at work, she was pulling on a rack when this fell forward striking her in the head,” and, “[s]ince that time, she has had ongoing neck pain, headaches, and intermittent arm pain, right greater than left.”

The employer and insurer admitted liability for a temporary shoulder injury but denied primary liability for a claimed cervical injury, and the matter come on for hearing before a compensation judge for resolution of this issue and the employee’s related claims for wage loss benefits, medical expenses, and approval of the surgery recommended by Dr. Gerdes.  In a decision issued on September 23, 2013, the compensation judge resolved the issues in the employer and insurer’s favor, concluding that the employee had sustained only a temporary shoulder injury on May 23, 2012, which had resolved by January 10, 2013, the date of Dr. Strand’s examination.  The employee appeals.

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 (2012).  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 employee contends that substantial evidence does not support the compensation judge’s decision as to the nature and extent of the employee’s May 23, 2012, work injury.  Specifically, the employee contends that she has consistently complained of the same symptoms since the date of injury and that, “[a]lthough a shoulder strain may have been a component of the initial complaints . . . it is clear that the primary source of her symptoms was the herniated disc in her cervical spine.”  In support of this argument, the employee notes that Ms. Ankeny mentioned radicular symptoms as early as June 4, 2012, shortly after the work incident, the employee had been able to do heavy work at the employer for five years prior to her work injury, with no complaints or treatment, and no evidence was submitted to indicate that the employee had ever complained of or sought treatment for cervical (or shoulder) symptoms prior to May 23, 2012.  Nevertheless, after reviewing the entire record, we cannot conclude that the judge’s decision is unsupported by evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate.

Contrary to the employee’s contention, there is no mention of neck pain in the employee’s medical records until July 2012; in fact, Ms. Ankeny’s June 4, 2012, treatment note specifically indicates that the employee denied experiencing any neck pain, and Ms. Ankeny’s impression was “right shoulder pain with radiculopathy.”  At the next visit, June 11, 2012, Ms. Ankeny noted that the employee had full range of cervical motion.  Furthermore, as the compensation judge noted, Dr. Gerdes’ April 2013 causation report contains an erroneous description of both the mechanism of the employee’s injury and the subsequent nature of the employee’s complaints, as documented in contemporaneous medical records.  Finally, Dr. Strand reported that the May 23, 2012, injury was merely a shoulder strain that had resolved by the date of his examination in January of 2013.

In her memorandum, the compensation judge addressed the medical evidence in considerable detail, explaining why she rejected the opinion of Dr. Gerdes.  She also explained why she accepted the opinion of Dr. Strand, writing, in part, as follows:

We find no basis to conclude that the compensation judge erred in accepting the opinion of Dr. Strand, especially in view of the errors in Dr. Gerdes’ causation report.  We therefore affirm the judge’s decision in its entirety.  See Nord v. City of Cook, 360 N.W.2d 337, 37 W.C.D. 364 (Minn. 1985).