After playing football at Ohio State University, the employee was drafted in the first round by the Atlanta Falcons for whom he played professional football from 2004 to 2010.  In 2011, the employee signed a 3-year contract with the employer, the Minnesota Vikings Football Club.  When he signed with the employer, he stated that he was in the best shape of his career.  During his tenure with the Falcons and the Vikings, his statistical performance for receptions was relatively consistent.  The Viking’s contract provided a salary of $1 million in 2011, $2.5 million in 2012, and $2.5 million in 2013.

On November 14, 2011, the employee was down on the playing field on his back with his knees and legs up in the air when a defender came and struck him on the inside or medial part of the left knee.  The employee felt pain on the lateral side of the left knee, but felt as though he could play at “full speed.”  He treated with the team doctors with ice and electrical stimulation.  He suffered no impairment.  Two weeks later on November 27, 2011, while playing a game in Atlanta, the employee felt a pop in his left knee, but he continued to play.  As the game went on, his knee became stiffer.  On the trip back to Minnesota, his knee was iced.  The next morning, he underwent an MRI scan which showed a complete tear of the lateral meniscus.  Dr. Joel Boyd performed arthroscopic surgery of the left knee.  According to the operative report, the meniscal tear was not repairable.  More than 50 percent of the meniscus was removed.  Post surgery, the employee treated three times a day for four weeks, and then two times a week.  He did not feel 100 percent because he developed swelling with fluid in his knee.  The employee did not play in the remaining four weeks of the 2011-2012 season.

In the off-season, the employee underwent multiple aspirations and injections to reduce swelling of the left knee.  The employee felt that his speed and agility were impaired due to the knee injury.  (It took him longer to run the 40-yard dash.)  In the summer of 2012, the employer approached the employee to obtain a reduction in the employee’s salary from $2.5 million to $1 million.  The employee believed that the reduced salary was due in part to the knee injury.  Nevertheless, the employee played all 16 games in the 2012-2013 season.  At the end of the season, he signed a statement provided by the employer stating that he was not suffering from any injury that would prevent him from playing football.  After receiving an incentive bonus for his performance, he was released from his contract with the employer.  He became a free agent.  The employee testified that he believed he was released because he could not perform at the level that the employer thought he should perform.

After receiving medical clearance to play, the employee signed a one-year contract with the New England Patriots in March 2013.  The Patriots paid him less money than the employer paid him.  His annual salary was around $825,000.00.  In training camp, starting in August 2013, the knee was fine until a scrimmage on the turf field at Gillette Stadium.  The employee awoke the morning after the scrimmage with severe swelling and fluid in his left knee.  He also injured his hamstring.  He resumed the regimen of fluid aspirations of the left knee.  Six months after he signed the contract, by mid-August 2013, the Patriots released the employee from the contract.

The employee was approached by the Indianapolis Colts and the Detroit Lions.  However, neither team cleared him to play, citing medical reasons.  No other teams contacted him. The employee retired from professional football due to the left knee condition.  His last game was played in January 2013 while with the employer.

After retiring from football in the fall of 2013, the employee spent time with his family.  While the employee was approached by two football teams following the release from the Patriots, there is no evidence that the employee actively worked or searched for work after he was released from his contract around August 2013.  In February 2015, the employee enrolled in an executive MBA program sponsored by the NFL.

The employee filed a claim petition alleging wage loss in the nature of temporary total and temporary partial benefits, and permanent partial disability due to the left knee injury sustained in November 2011.  The employer retained Dr. William Park who opined that the November 2011 injury did not prevent the employee from playing football.  He also opined that the employee did not suffer a career-ending injury in November 2011.

At the hearing, the parties agreed that the left knee injury arose out of and in the course and scope of employment with the Vikings.  They also stipulated to an average weekly wage of $19,179.13.  The compensation judge ordered payment of a 3% permanent partial disability for the left knee injury.  The compensation judge denied the employee’s claim for wage loss benefits.  The employee appeals the findings and order in its entirety, but specifically findings 6 and 10, that he retired from professional football and that he did not work in any capacity or engage in a reasonable and diligent job search.

The compensation judge denied both temporary partial and temporary total disability, but the employee appealed only the denial of temporary total benefits.  As an NFL wide receiver, the employee argues that he is in a unique situation.  His salary is substantial.  He must be in top physical condition.  And he maintains that a reasonable job search would have been futile because he had already been cut by three NFL teams.  The employer argues that the employee failed to show that he engaged in a reasonable and diligent job search following his retirement in August 2013.  The employer also argues that the employee failed to prove that he was totally disabled from working.

A basic tenet of the Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Act is to return the injured employee to work.^[1]  That underlying policy applies to all injured employees, regardless of their occupation.  A football player is no different than a car mechanic when it comes to application of the Workers’ Compensation Act.^[2]  The act requires an injured worker who has physical restrictions due to his work injury to conduct a reasonable and diligent job search within the employee’s restrictions.^[3]  If no doctor restricts the employee from working, then the employee is generally not considered disabled nor entitled to wage loss benefits.^[4]  If the employee has physical restrictions, he may be entitled to temporary total wage loss benefits if certain criteria are met pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 176.101, et seq.  It is the employee’s burden of proof to establish that due to his injury, he was unable to secure anything but sporadic employment resulting in insubstantial income.^[5]  Generally, when an employee disregards a search for other work within his physical ability, he is not awarded wage loss benefits.^[6]

The employee claims because he was a professional football player who earned a high salary and had to be in top physical shape, a reasonable and diligent job search was different or unique for him.  He argues that a job search would have been futile because he was already cut by three NFL teams.  We disagree.  There is no special rule which exempts the employee from searching for work outside of football.  From late-August until the date of the hearing, there was no evidence of a job search.  Having a career in football did not limit the employee from searching for work outside of football.  Therefore, we affirm the compensation judge’s finding that the employee failed to conduct a diligent job search resulting in a denial of temporary total disability benefits.

The compensation judge also found that the employee failed to provide evidence that he was medically restricted from working.  The employee argues that the fact he was rejected by three NFL teams establishes that he was medically disqualified to return to the NFL.  The employer argues that the employee was not disabled.  After all, the employee was able to play in all 16 games in the 2012-2013 season.  The employer further argues that the only medical opinion offered into evidence, Dr. Park’s, established that the November 2011 injury was not a career ending injury based on the absence of any objective findings of ongoing mechanical problems in the left knee.

Three teams rejecting the employee due to medical reasons may be enough evidence to establish that the employee’s left knee injury was a substantial contributing factor in the inability to play football.  But, it is not enough evidence to establish the inability to work.  In Senser v. Minnesota Vikings Football Club, 42 W.C.D. 688 (W.C.C.A. 1989), this court applied the Redgate rule^[7] to another professional football player.  We held then that “an employee is required to make a reasonable diligent effort to find employment within his physical limitations.”  And we conclude now that the employee has failed to meet his burden that his work injury medically limited him from work or looking for work.  We affirm the denial of the employee’s claim for temporary total disability.