Home Depot and its insurer, Helmsman Management Services, appeal from the compensation judge’s determination that the employee sustained a work-related injury to his left knee on December 29, 2011, while employed by Home Depot, and from the compensation judge’s finding as to apportionment.  We affirm.

Craig Fiedler was employed by Home Depot when he was injured on the job on December 29, 2011.  Mr. Fiedler, who was employed as a contractor services manager, slipped and fell on ice in the store’s parking lot as he was taking paperwork to a delivery driver.  The employee later claimed that he had injured his left knee in the fall.

Mr. Fiedler had had an earlier work injury to his left knee in 1981.  At that time, he was working for the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission and was injured when he fell almost 30 feet while on the job.  He sustained multiple injuries and was treated for left knee problems by Dr. Evan Ellison, who diagnosed chondromalacia of the patella.  Dr. Ellison performed arthroscopic surgery on the knee in December 1982.  Dr. Ellison provided a permanent partial disability rating of 20 percent to the leg and noted that the only treatment “indicated at this time is quadriceps exercises but it is possible he may need further reconstructive surgery due to wear and tear changes at some time in the future.”  The employee testified that he made a very good recovery from the surgery.  He played racquetball and softball and did a lot of swimming, cycling, inline skating, and running.  Mr. Fiedler also worked at a variety of jobs after his recovery from the 1981 injury.  He began working at Home Depot in March 2001.

Mr. Fiedler worked at the Home Depot store in Woodbury.  He described his work day as desk work about half of the time, with the rest of his time was spent helping customers in finding products or even helping to load their vehicles.  While the job was not heavy, it required physical activity.  The employee had no problems with his left knee during his employment.

On December 29, 2011, Mr. Fieldler was asked by a coworker to take some paperwork out to a truck driver.  He walked out the back door and slipped when he stepped on the parking lot pavement.  The employee said that much of the parking lot was glare ice.  The employee testified that he fell forward on his knees and hands and then onto his left hip as he slid.  His left hand caught in a crack of the pavement and his left little finger was fractured.^[1]

The employee sought immediate medical care at HealthEast Woodwinds in Woodbury.  His dislocated little finger was noted on examination and X-rays showed it was fractured.  The finger was splinted.  The chart note from the visit states the employee “denies pain or injury elsewhere.”

The employee saw his family doctor, Dr. Kevin Kelly, for a follow-up visit on January 5, 2012, for his hypertension.  The employee also reported other “concerns” as being in a recent fall in which he injured his “left hand, right knee, neck and shoulder blade.”  The employee testified that he told Dr. Kelly that he had injured his left knee and that he had never sustained any injury to his right knee.  At a return visit on February 18, Dr. Kelly again referenced the employee as having right knee problems.

Dr. Kelly also referred Mr. Fiedler to an orthopedic physician for an evaluation of his left hand injury.  The employee was seen by Dr. Stephen Olmsted on March 28, 2012.  Dr. Olmsted apparently did not review any knee problems since his chart notes refer only to the employee’s left hand.  In June 2012, Dr. Olmsted found the employee to be at maximum medical improvement (MMI) for his left small finger.

There are no records of any other medical appointments related to the employee’s work injury until April 24, 2013, when he saw Dr. Ralph Bovard.  Dr. Bovard’s notes indicate this was a referral from Dr. Kelly.  The employee testified that the delay in seeing Dr. Bovard was because of his concern about insurance coverage for his visit.  He stated that he had contacted the insurer for his 1981 injury as well as the current workers’ compensation insurer and had difficulty with either insurer accepting responsibility for continuing care.  Mr. Fiedler was no longer employed by Home Depot when he saw Dr. Bovard.

On examination, Dr. Bovard noted the employee was ambulatory with a limp favoring the left leg.  Focal tenderness over anterior and posterior medial joint lines was found, and the employee had limitations in his range of motion.  Dr. Bovard recommended an MRI which was done on May 1, 2013.  The MRI showed “fairly extensive, horizontal tear involving the majority of the body and posterior horn of the left knee medial meniscus, with extensive fraying also noted along the free edge of the posterior horn,” a “horizontal tear involving the body of the lateral meniscus, extending throughout the anterior horn and posteriorly to the junction with the posterior horn,” as well as “moderate, focal chondrosis identified along the central aspect of the trochlea.”  The employee met with Dr. Bovard to discuss the MRI and the etiology of his left knee problems.  Dr. Bovard stated in his chart note that “[a]s noted his x-rays show relatively well-preserved joint space both medial and lateral.  This suggests that the meniscus tears are relatively recent.  We would anticipate that if the primary trauma to the joint . . . occurred 20 or 30 years ago that there would be a progressive and/or advanced arthritic changes in the medial and/or lateral compartments.”  Dr. Bovard recommended a referral to a surgeon for consideration of a knee arthroscopy.

Dr. Kelly referred the employee to Dr. Michael Wengler for a surgical consultation on July 18, 2013.  The examination showed tenderness to palpation at both medial and lateral joint line and the McMurray’s test was positive.  Dr. Wengler assessed left knee medial and lateral meniscus tears and chondromalacia of the patella.  Dr. Wengler recommended an “arthroscopic partial medial and lateral meniscectomy.”

The employee was evaluated by Dr. William Park on behalf of Home Depot and Helmsman on October 31, 2013.  Dr. Park concluded that the employee did not sustain a knee injury at Home Depot and that the cause of his left knee problems was degenerative joint disease with degenerative tears of the medial and lateral meniscus.  Dr. Park’s opinion was based in significant part on the absence of immediate left knee swelling or immediate treatment for the left knee.

Mr. Fiedler was also seen by Dr. Ross Paskoff at the request of Metropolitan Waste Control and Liberty Mutual on February 14, 2014.  Dr. Paskoff apparently had limited medical records to review and relied on Dr. Park’s report and review of the records.  Dr. Paskoff reached the same conclusion as Dr. Park, that the employee’s left knee condition was a result of a degenerative process not related to any work injury in 1981 or 2011.

At the request of the employee’s attorney, Dr. Wengler prepared a report dated June 16, 2014.  He had reviewed the reports of Drs. Paskoff and Park as well as records of the treatment by Drs. Kelly and Bovard.  On the issue of causation for the left knee problems, Dr. Wengler stated, “I think that a twisting, slipping fall may very well have contributed to a meniscal tear in light of a previous existing chondromalacia.”  He also stated, “I think that there is a very likely possibility that any medial meniscus tear may be more likely due to the roughness of the medial femoral condyle left after an osteochondritis defecans which was evident in the arthroscopy in 1982.”  Dr. Wengler was asked to apportion responsibility for the left knee problems if appropriate, and he stated, “[w]ith regard to the need for arthroscopy I would apportion 50% to degenerative meniscus on a natural history basis and 30% to the slip and fall at Home Depot and 20% to his injury at Metro Waste.”

The employee’s claims for payment of medical expenses relating to treatment of his left knee and for approval of arthroscopic surgery were heard by Compensation Judge William Marshall on June 18, 2014.  The employee was the only witness at the hearing.  In his findings and order, the compensation judge found the employee sustained an injury to the left knee in his fall on December 29, 2011.  He also determined that the 1981 injury and the 2011 injury had both contributed to the employee’s need for treatment to the left knee and apportioned responsibility as 70 percent to the 1981 injury and 30 percent to the 2011 injury.  Home Depot/Helmsman have appealed.

On appeal, Home Depot and Helmsman contend that the compensation judge’s determination that the employee sustained a left knee injury when he fell on December 29, 2011 is not supported by substantial evidence.  Specifically, appellants argue that the compensation judge erred in finding the employee to be credible and that the compensation judge erred in accepting the opinions of Drs. Bovard and Wengler because their opinions lacked requisite foundation.  We consider each of these arguments in turn.

At the hearing, the primary argument made by the appellants was that the employee was not credible.  The alleged inconsistencies between his testimony and the medical records, especially the length of time between the injury and treatment for the left knee, were stated to be reasons why any connection between the work injury and left knee problems could not be made.  Both the independent medical examiners, Drs. Park and Paskoff, based their opinions in significant part on the claimed conflict between the medical records and the employee’s history.  The appellants argue here that the compensation judge erred in accepting the employee’s testimony over the medical records.

In reviewing decisions made when there were conflicts in testimony, this court has often held that a determination of credibility is uniquely a function of the compensation judge (Brennan v. Joseph G. Brennan, M.D. P.A., 425 N.W.2d 837, 839-40, 41 W.C.D. 79, 82 (Minn. 1988); Redgate v. Sroga’s Standard Serv., 421 N.W.2d 729, 734, 40 W.C.D. 948, 957 (Minn. 1988); see also Lopez v. Dura Supreme, Inc., 70 W.C.D. 179 (W.C.C.A. 2010); Jerikovsky v. Lakes & Pines Cmty. Action Council, No. WC12-5537 (W.C.C.A. May 22, 2013).  We discussed the rationale for deference to a compensation judge’s determination on credibility in Baker v. T. Maxwells, Inc., No. WC09-5003 (W.C.C.A. Feb. 8, 2010), stating “[t]his court reviews a written record but a compensation judge is able to view the witnesses as the evidence is given and is able to evaluate their demeanor and behavior.”

On appeal, the appellants have renewed their argument on the credibility of the employee.  They allege his description of his fall is “implausible, if not impossible.”  Exactly why the employee’s description of his fall should be considered impossible is not explained by the appellants.  The employee has consistently stated that he slipped on ice, fell forward landing on his hands and knees, and then fell on his left hip as he slid, ramming his left hand into a crack in the pavement.  The force of the fall may be inferred by the dislocation and fracture he sustained to his left little finger.  It is apparent from the findings that the compensation judge found the employee’s description of his fall to be plausible.

The appellants also argue that the compensation judge erred in accepting the employee’s testimony despite the conflicts with the medical records.  The compensation judge listened to the employee’s direct and cross-examination on this point, considered the IME reports that relied on this point, and heard the arguments of counsel on this point.  After due consideration, the compensation judge made his determination as to credibility and we find no basis to reverse that finding.  We are not aware of any rule that medical records must always be given precedence over the testimony of a witness.

The second argument of the appellants is that the opinions of Dr. Bovard and Dr. Wengler lack foundation and the compensation judge erred in relying on those opinions in making his decision.  Dr. Bovard and Dr. Wengler examined the employee, took a history from him, and reviewed medical records.  In addition, Dr. Wengler reviewed the IME reports of Dr. Park and Dr. Paskoff.  This information provides adequate foundation for an expert medical opinion.  See Smith v. Quebecor Printing, Inc., 63 W.C.D. 566 (W.C.C.A. 2003), summarily aff’d (Minn. Aug. 15, 2003); Petty v. Zayre Shoppers City, 69 W.C.D. 172 (W.C.C.A. 2009).  We also note in this regard that the information reviewed by Dr. Bovard and Dr. Wengler is the same information used by Dr. Park in reaching his opinion.

Although the appellants have framed their objection to the opinions of Dr. Bovard and Dr. Wengler as being one of foundation, their argument is essentially that Dr. Bovard and Dr. Wengler did not adopt the opinion of Dr. Park given the information available to them.  Appellants discuss on this issue the claimed inconsistencies in the records and the claimed failure of the employee to seek medical care on an expeditious basis.

The compensation judge here, as is often the case in contested hearings, was presented with conflicting medical opinions with adequate foundation.  In support of their position, the appellants have cited Nord v. City of Cook, 360 N.W.2d 337, 37 W.C.D. 364 (Minn. 1985).  The significance of Nord, however, is not that the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals reversed a compensation judge’s decision because it found the medical opinion relied upon to be inadequate, a result which was very specific to the facts of that case.  The key holding of Nord is that “[while] the trier of fact’s choice between experts whose testimony conflicts is usually upheld, that choice is not upheld where the facts assumed by the expert are not supported by the evidence.”  360 N.W.2d at 342-43, 37 W.C.D. at 372 - 73.  As we have already discussed, however, the evidence used by Dr. Bovard and Dr. Wengler in reaching their opinions is the same evidence used by Dr. Park to reach a contrary opinion.  The compensation judge found the credible testimony of the employee as well as the evidence relied upon by Drs. Bovard and Wengler to be more persuasive.  The decision of the compensation judge which is based on a medical opinion with adequate foundation will generally be affirmed by this court.  We do so here.  See Kranz v. Coca Cola Enters., Inc., 73 W.C.D. 631, (W.C.C.A. 2013); Donahue v. Top Temp, Inc., No. WC08-150 (W.C.C.A. Jan. 2, 2009).

The appellants have also appealed the apportionment of liability for the left knee condition made by the compensation judge.  Their argument is that there is no basis for apportionment because there was no injury to the left knee on December 29, 2011.  Our conclusion that the finding of a left injury on December 29, 2011, is supported by substantial evidence therefore determines the apportionment issue as well.

The decision of the compensation judge is affirmed.