CAUSATION – SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. Substantial evidence in the record supports the compensation judge’s determination that the employee’s right knee condition and need for surgery are causally related to the work injury.
Compensation Judge: Rolf G. Hagen
Attorneys: Michael G. Schultz, Sommerer & Schultz, PLLC, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for the Respondent. Deborah L. Crowley, McCollum, Crowley, Moschet, Miller & Laak, Ltd., Minneapolis, Minnesota, for the Appellant.
Affirmed.
GARY M. HALL, Judge
The self-insured employer appeals the compensation judge’s conclusion that her right knee condition and need for surgery are related to her work injury. The self-insured employer argues that the compensation judge ignored and/or mischaracterized medical evidence, and therefore, his conclusions are not supported by substantial evidence in the record as whole. We affirm.
The employee, Mary Clark, was employed as a bus driver for Metro Transit. On February 10, 2014, the employee was injured when she slipped and fell while traversing the employer’s parking lot. The employee sustained a number of injuries to her right upper extremity which were the subject of prior litigation. At issue currently is the employee’s claim that her right knee condition and need for arthroscopic repair are related to the February 10, 2014, slip and fall incident.
A few months prior to the work injury, the employee was referred for an arthritis evaluation for issues she was having with her hands. The evaluation encompassed most of her joints, including her knees. The employee denied reporting chronic issues with her knees, and denied any discussion about osteoarthritis in the knee or any treatment recommendation with respect to her knees. The employee testified that prior to the February 10, 2014, slip and fall incident, she had no problems with her right knee and was not limited in her ability to perform her job duties as a bus driver. When she fell on February 10, 2014, she hit her right knee on the pavement, and has since experienced constant pain as well as weakness and a catching sensation. The employee testified that her knee has given out on two occasions following the work injury.
Immediately after the work injury, the employee’s medical care and treatment focused primarily on her right upper extremity, though the records reflect intermittent mention of knee pain. She had been assessed with right knee strain, and an MRI of the right knee was performed in January 2015 which showed degenerative conditions. In February 2015, the employee’s treating orthopedist, Dr. Victor Van Hee, related her knee pain to the work injury, diagnosed strain and an exacerbation of osteoarthritis, and recommended therapy. Dr. Van Hee referred the employee to Dr. Douglas Becker for an evaluation of her right knee, which occurred on July 27, 2015. At that time, she reported ongoing pain, weakness, and a catching sensation. She also reported having fallen since her previous MRI. Dr. Becker ordered a second MRI and recommended she use a supportive brace. The employee underwent a second MRI on August 6, 2015, which showed a meniscus tear and chondromalacia.
Dr. Becker issued a narrative report dated December 16, 2015. Therein, he expressed his opinion that the employee suffered a direct contusion to the right knee and a twisting injury on February 10, 2014, which led to patellofemoral chondromalacia symptoms and medial meniscal tearing. Dr. Becker believed a right knee arthroscopic evaluation with probable patellar chondroplasty and release with partial medial meniscectomy with possible microfracture followed by postoperative physical therapy was indicated.
The employee underwent an independent medical evaluation by Dr. Edward Kelly in May of 2015. Dr. Kelly issued three reports. It was the opinion of Dr. Kelly that the employee suffered from osteoarthritis in both knees and had been symptomatic prior to the work injury, that she sustained only a sprain or contusion of the right knee as a result of her work injury which has since resolved, and that her current condition relates to her pre-existing arthritic condition and not the February 10, 2014, work injury.
This matter came on for hearing before Compensation Judge Rolf Hagen on January 19, 2016. The compensation judge found that in addition to other injuries, the employee sustained a direct contusion and twisting injury of the right knee on February 10, 2014, as a result of a slip and fall, and that the surgery recommended by Dr. Becker is causally related to the work injury, is reasonable and necessary, and should be approved. The self-insured employer 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 (2014). 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 self-insured employer asserts that the decision of the compensation judge is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. Specifically, they argue that the compensation judge ignored or mischaracterized evidence submitted with regard to the condition of the employee’s right knee prior to the work injury, and that his reliance on the opinion of Dr. Becker was in error due to lack of foundation. We are not persuaded.
The employee was evaluated for arthritis approximately one month prior to her work injury. The self-insured employer asserts that because this date of service is not mentioned by the compensation judge in his findings, he ignored this evidence. The self-insured employer also asserts that because this date of service was not considered by Dr. Becker in rendering his opinions, those opinions lack foundation. And, the self-insured employer asserts that because the employee in her testimony denied that this date of service focused on assessment and treatment of her knees, that her testimony was not credible. These arguments are not persuasive and do not warrant reversal of the compensation judge’s findings.
A compensation judge need not recite or refer to all medical evidence submitted at hearing. See, e.g., Regan v. VOS Nat’l Housing, 61 W.C.D. 142 (W.C.C.A. 2000). That the compensation judge did not specifically cite to the employee’s pre-injury arthritis evaluation does not establish that he ignored evidence or that his conclusions were based upon selective evidence. Similarly, whether Dr. Becker was aware of the arthritis evaluation does not render his opinions invalid. An expert need not review every medical report or be aware of every relevant fact for his or her opinion to have evidentiary value. Bossey v. Parker Hannifin, slip op. (W.C.C.A. Mar. 14, 1994). Lack of information, as is asserted by the self-insured employer, goes only to the weight to be given to the opinion. Schulenburg v. Corn Plus, 65 W.C.D. 237 (W.C.C.A. 2005).
Ultimately, the compensation judge determined the employee to be credible, and he compared her functional abilities prior to the work injury with her symptoms and limitations after the work injury. The evidence in the record reflects that the employee had no functional limitations or restrictions with respect to her right knee and had no issues performing her job duties as a bus driver prior to the February 10, 2014 work injury. The role of this court is not to evaluate credibility of witness testimony or to substitute its inferences for those of the fact-finder. See, Krotzer v. Browning-Ferris/Woodlake Sanitation Serv., 459 N.W.2d 509, 43 W.C.D. 254 (Minn. 1990); Redgate v. Sroga’s Standard Serv., 421 N.W.2d 729, 40 W.C.D. 948 (Minn. 1988). Because substantial evidence in the record supports the conclusions of the compensation judge, including the testimony of the employee and the opinions of Dr. Becker, we affirm.