Thomas Shannon, the appellant in this matter, appeals from the compensation judge’s finding that he is not entitled to temporary partial disability benefits as he suffered no impairment in his earning capacity arising from the work injury on May 26, 2013.  We affirm.

Thomas Shannon was hired by McCormick & Schmick’s Seafood Restaurant as a dishwasher.  The position was part-time, and no specific hours were promised to Mr. Shannon.  While working his shift on May 26, 2013, he fell while carrying dishes, which shattered on the floor.  Mr. Shannon received lacerations on his right elbow and right middle finger.  He was immediately transported to the Hennepin County Medical Center (HCMC), where the lacerations were sutured by Nicolas Hall Jubert, M.D.  Mr. Shannon discussed his condition with Dr. Jubert, who advised him to take some time away from work.  Mr. Shannon declined to take that advice as he had just started the job.  No medical restrictions were put in place arising out of the May 26, 2013 work injury.  Mr. Shannon was discharged with instructions to watch for infection and return in two weeks for removal of the sutures.

Mr. Shannon returned to work the following day and worked 7.5 hours.  Mr. Shannon worked overtime hours in the three pay periods following his work injury.  Subsequently, Mr. Shannon worked his normal part-time hours through August 2013.  On June 17, 2013, he returned to HCMC and the sutures were removed.  No ongoing pain was identified as of that time.  On July 18, 2013, Mr. Shannon was examined by Nicole Kalscheur, R.N., C.N.P., on complaints of pain in his right elbow.  Mr. Shannon underwent two months of physical therapy.  Mr. Shannon indicated that he was experiencing moderate difficulty with work tasks and, later, that he was most affected when performing heavy lifting at work.  At no time was any medical restriction issued regarding Mr. Shannon’s work activities.

Mr. Shannon’s hours were consistent over the period from July 9 to August 19, 2013.  His wages over that span ranged from $514.60 to $675.40 per two-week pay period.  Mr. Shannon’s wages by pay period varied widely from August 20, 2013, to January 6, 2014, ranging from a low of $163.40 to a high of $956.75.  Mr. Shannon worked overtime in two consecutive pay periods over this stretch.  In addition, Mr. Shannon began work at another part-time job at Summit Brewing which he obtained through a temporary agency.  Mr. Shannon was working at both the position with the employer and at Summit Brewing when he underwent an annual physical examination conducted by Dr. Martin Stillman on October 17, 2013.  Dr. Stillman did not issue any restrictions on Mr. Shannon’s work activities.  Mr. Shannon was referred for hand therapy to address ongoing stiffness in his finger.  By January 17, 2014, Mr. Shannon concluded that he needed no further medical treatment arising out of the May 26, 2013 work injury.

Mr. Shannon filed a Claim Petition seeking temporary partial disability (TPD) benefits for wage losses experienced from August 20, 2013, to January 6, 2014.  Mr. Shannon alleged wage losses of $1,333.70, resulting in a TPD claim of $889.13.

The matter was heard before a compensation judge at the Office of Administrative Hearings on November 25, 2014.  The parties stipulated to an average weekly wage of $210.00 for Mr. Shannon.  Mr. Shannon testified in support of his claim.  The employer and insurer presented the testimony of John Ziegler, the restaurant general manager, regarding business practices and in particular, staffing practices when business was slow.  The compensation judge denied Mr. Shannon’s claim petition, finding that he had not shown any impairment in his earning capacity to support an award of TPD benefits.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

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 Products, 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.

In order to demonstrate entitlement to TPD benefits, an employee must show: 1) a work-related physical disability; and, 2) an actual loss of earning capacity which is causally related to that disability.  Krotzer v. Browning-Ferris, 459 N.W.2d 509, 43 W.C.D. 254 (Minn. 1990); Schjenken v. Bermo, Inc., slip op. (W.C.C.A. May 13, 2004).  The existence of physical restrictions arising from the work injury and the impact of those restrictions on the employee’s ability to work has been held to be a “central consideration in determining entitlement to wage loss benefits.” Schjenken, slip op. (citing Kautz v. Setterlin Co., 410 N.W.2d 843, 40 W.C.D. 206 (Minn.1987)); see also Pacyga v. FMC Corp., 581 N.W.2d 859, 58 W.C.D. 373 (Minn. 1998) (lack of medical restriction formed sufficient basis for finding lack of work-related disability).

In this case, Mr. Shannon had no medical restrictions imposed arising out of the work injury.  Mr. Shannon testified that he was able to perform the duties of the position, but “at a slower pace.”  He told a co-worker that he was experiencing continued pain from the injury, but he did not seek any accommodation in how his job was to be performed.  Mr. Shannon did not identify any instance where his physical condition was a factor in whether he was scheduled to work.  From this evidence, the compensation judge could reasonably conclude that the employee lacked a physical impairment that would form the basis of TPD benefit claim.

The standards to be applied regarding reduced earning capacity in a TPD benefit claim were set out in Borchert v. American Spirits Graphics, 582 N.W.2d 214, 215, 58 W.C.D. 316, 318 ( (Minn. 1998) as follows:

Over the span that Mr. Shannon claimed TPD benefits, his earnings fell below the stipulated average weekly wage (AWW) of $210.00 in seven pay periods.  But in several pay periods within this span, Mr. Shannon worked overtime and his actual earnings were double the AWW figure.  Mr. Ziegler described the restaurant’s practice of flexible scheduling which tailored staffing to the anticipated amount of business being done.  Mr. Shannon acknowledged that the restaurant’s business was slow over the periods when he was not scheduled to work.

Additionally, Mr. Shannon took on a second part-time job over the period for which he is claiming TPD benefits are payable.  Although Mr. Shannon worked in that other position for only a short period of time, taking on additional work rebuts the presumption that his actual earnings were the appropriate measure of his earning capacity.  See Borchert at 214, 58 W.C.D. at 316.

The compensation judge found that the employee’s reduced earnings arose from economic factors, not any reduction in earning capacity arising from Mr. Shannon’s work injury.  There are a number of facts in the record which support this finding.  Mr. Shannon worked nearly a full 8-hour shift on the day following the work injury.  He experienced no identifiable wage loss for over three months after the date of the work injury.  Mr. Shannon’s identified period of claimed wage loss coincides with a period of business downturn.  Mr. Shannon had pay periods where his weekly earnings greatly exceeded his AWW.  Mr. Shannon obtained a second job through a temporary agency.  All of these factors constitute substantial evidence to support a conclusion that Mr. Shannon did not experience any reduction in earning capacity arising out of the May 26, 2013 work injury.

Mr. Shannon bore the burden of proof to show that he experienced a physical limitation arising from the work injury which had the effect of limiting his earning capacity.  While he continued to experience the effects of that injury, there is no evidence that he was prevented from performing the duties of his job.  The employer presented evidence that the reduced hours given to Mr. Shannon arose from economic conditions, not any impairment arising from the work injury.  This court gives deference to the compensation judge’s assessment of such issues.  Tolzmann v. McCombs Knutson Assocs., 447 N.W.2d 196, 42 W.C.D. 421 (Minn. 1989).  Having carefully reviewed the record, we cannot conclude that the compensation judge’s finding that the claimant failed to prove that he experienced a loss of earning capacity from the work injury that would entitle him to an award of temporary partial disability benefits is unsupported by substantial evidence or clearly erroneous.  We must therefore affirm.