ALI A. MOHAMMED, Employee/Appellant, v. MINN. VETERANS HOME, STATE OF MINN., SELF-INSURED, Employer/Respondent, and MINN. VOCATIONAL REHAB. SERVS./EMPLOYEE DEV. CORP., MINN. DEP’T OF HUMAN SERVS., MINN. DEP’T OF EMPLOYMENT & ECON. DEV., HEALTHPARTNERS, FAIRVIEW HEALTH SERVS., BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD, ALLINA MED. CLINIC, ABBOTT NW. HOSP., THERAPY PARTNERS/PTOSI, and SPORTS & ORTHOPAEDIC SPECIALISTS, Intervenors.

The pro se employee appeals multiple findings on the assertion that the compensation judge misunderstood the facts of the case and that his findings were due, in part, to coercion.^[1] We affirm.

The employee^[2] started working as a human services technician for the Minnesota Veterans Home in January 2001. During the course of his employment he had multiple injuries, some work-related, others not.^[3] Some injuries the employee reported to the self-insured employer and some he did not report.

On June 29, 2002, the employee was kicked in the left knee while assisting a resident out of bed. The employee did not report this incident to the self-insured employer until December 2003. The self-insured employer denied primary liability for lack of notice. The record contains no medical documentation of any knee injury until December 29, 2003, during a medical appointment with Dr. William Isaksen. Dr. Isaksen did not provide any diagnosis or prescribe any treatment for the knee. After this appointment, there is no further evidence in the medical records of any knee complaints until September 2005.

On October 31, 2002, the employee was helping a total care patient sit up in bed. The resident, weighing approximately 230 pounds, fell backwards while the employee’s right arm was behind the resident’s back. The employee developed immediate pain in his right shoulder and arm and low back. The incident was reported to the self-insured employer and liability was accepted. The employee was seen at HealthPartners Clinic by Dr. Nelson Paguyo on November 8, 2002, who noted full range of motion in the right shoulder, diagnosed a sprain/strain of the low back, right shoulder, and right arm, and prescribed stretching exercises, Flexeril, and ibuprofen. On December 11, 2002, the employee was referred for physical therapy and work restrictions were assigned of no lifting over 20 pounds and avoidance of high force or repetitive pushing or pulling activities for the next two weeks. When seen by Dr. Paguyo on January 22, 2003, the employee reported his low back pain had subsided, but he continued to experience right shoulder problems. Physical therapy was continued, and restrictions were modified limiting lifting to 30 pounds, avoidance of heavy or repetitive pushing or pulling, and breaks as needed. The employee continued to work for the self-insured employer in a light-duty capacity.

By April 2, 2003, the employee reported 80% improvement in his shoulder pain. On examination, there was full range of motion in both shoulders with some mild discomfort with lateral abduction in the right shoulder and minimal tenderness over the acromioclavicular (AC) joint. The employee was seen by Dr. Fozia Abrar in occupational medicine for a functional evaluation on April 11, 2003. The doctor noted full range of motion in the right shoulder without tenderness or evidence of impingement or instability of the shoulder. Dr. Abrar prescribed pool therapy and released the employee to work without restrictions related to the right shoulder.

The employee continued to complain of right shoulder pain with activity and reported a click when lifting his right arm above shoulder level. Dr. Abrar referred the employee to an orthopedic specialist for a second opinion. The employee was seen by Dr. Bradley Edwards, Minneapolis Sports Medicine Center, on June 3, 2003. The doctor noted full range of motion, intact rotator cuff, no AC joint symptoms, and no signs of instability or labral pathology. Dr. Edwards diagnosed rotator cuff tendinitis and provided an injection into the subacromial space. The employee returned on July 25, 2003, stating he was no better. Dr. Edwards ordered an MRI scan and referred the employee to a shoulder specialist for further evaluation.

On August 1, 2003, the employee was examined by Dr. Michael Freehill, Sports & Orthopaedic Specialists, at Abbott Northwestern, who ordered additional physical therapy. When seen in follow-up on October 21, 2003, the employee reported improved strength but complained of continuing shoulder pain. Dr. Freehill observed the July 25, 2003, MRI scan was unremarkable without demonstration of partial or full-thickness rotator cuff tear or frank tendinopathy. The doctor concluded the shoulder did not require surgical intervention and stated the employee was probably as good as he was going to get. Dr. Freehill placed the employee at maximum medical improvement and provided permanent work restrictions of no lifting over 10 to 20 pounds above shoulder height and no repetitive use above shoulder height. The employee returned to his regular work as a human services technician with the self-insured employer.

On January 5, 2004, Dr. Paguyo referred the employee to physical medicine for evaluation of chronic pain management. The employee was seen by Dr. Richard Timming on February 6, 2004, who assessed deconditioning syndrome and referred the employee back to occupational medicine. The employee was seen by Dr. Ralph Bovard on March 11, 2004. The doctor’s impression was right shoulder pain with an essentially normal examination. He also concluded the employee was at maximum medical improvement. But unlike Dr. Freehill, Dr. Bovard released the employee to regular duty work without restrictions. The employee was to follow-up with Dr. Paguyo for preventive care as necessary.

The employee on occasion noted residual right shoulder pain, but no medical records were submitted evidencing medical treatment specifically for the right shoulder between April 2004 and February 2010. The employee continued to work for the self-insured employer until July 1, 2008. Except for one month working for the Census Bureau, the employee did not work thereafter until October 2010 when he began self-employment as an insurance agent.

On February 22, 2010, the employee sought a right shoulder evaluation from Dr. Jonathan Braman at the University of Minnesota Physicians Orthopaedic Surgery Clinic. He reported shoulder pain for the past 7 or 8 years beginning in 2002. The employee stated he was doing well until the past year when he began having weakness and a shaking sensation in the shoulder as well as sharp pain in the lateral aspect. The doctor reviewed the 2003 MRI scan noting there was no evidence of rotator cuff tear or tendinopathy, biceps tendinopathy, or any other intraarticular pathology. Dr. Braman assessed rotator cuff tendinopathy/bursitis and referred the employee for physical therapy. In follow-up on September 20, 2010, Dr. Braman noted the employee had failed to complete physical therapy and had continuing right shoulder pain with a positive O’Brien’s test. The doctor assessed questionable posterior labral tear and recommended an MRI arthrogram. The October 1, 2010, MRI study with intraarticular contrast was interpreted as showing a large anterior and posterior labral tear inferiorly. Dr. Braman recommended arthroscopic surgery to repair the labral tear that was performed on July 27, 2011.

On November 23, 2011, the employee was examined by Dr. Nolan Segal, an orthopedic surgeon, at the request of the self-insured employer. By report dated January 26, 2012, Dr. Segal reported the employee was still recovering from the July 2011 shoulder surgery and felt worse than he did before. The doctor stated the July 25, 2003, MRI scan was completely normal and opined that any significant labral injury, if it had been present at that time, clearly would have been seen on the study performed at the Center for Diagnostic Imaging (CDI). Dr. Segal opined the employee’s October 31, 2002, right shoulder injury was temporary and had resolved by February 27, 2003, when he completed physical therapy and was released to return to work with no restrictions.^[4]

A repeat MRI arthrogram was performed on January 30, 2012. On February 15, 2012, Dr. Braman concluded the study showed a recurrent posterior superior labral tear. The doctor stated there was no guarantee that further surgery would be helpful, and advised the employee to get a second opinion. On October 15, 2012, Dr. Michael D’Amato, an orthopedic surgeon, agreed there was no way to say that further surgery would provide predictable relief and advised conservative treatment. On March 3, 2014, the employee was seen by Dr. David Labadie at Allina Health Mercy Orthopedics Clinic wondering if anything else could be done surgically. Dr. Labadie did not think surgery reliably would improve the employee’s pain and also recommended a non-operative approach.

Dr. Braman provided a letter report on June 28, 2013. The doctor concluded, based on the medical records, that the October 31, 2002, injury was a substantial contributing aggravating and accelerating factor in the employee’s right shoulder condition. He opined the July 27, 2011, surgery was related to the 2002 work injury and anticipated that the employee would likely continue to have some shoulder symptoms, with or without revision surgery.

Dr. Edward Szalapski examined the employee on November 24, 2015, at the request of the self-insured employer. The doctor noted the employee had full range of motion and full strength when seen by Dr. Paguyo only eight days after the incident, that at no time during his treatment was he noted to have loss of motion, muscle atrophy, or loss of strength, and that the 2003 MRI scan was normal. The doctor opined the employee sustained a temporary injury to the right shoulder on October 31, 2002, and that maximum medical improvement occurred on or before October 21, 2003. The doctor agreed the employee’s current condition was either a recurrent or residual tear of the posterior labrum of the right shoulder, but opined the 2002 work injury was not a substantial contributing factor to the employee’s current right shoulder condition.

The case was heard by a compensation judge on April 8, 2016. In Findings and Order issued on June 21, 2016, the judge found the employee failed to establish mental incapacity within the meaning of Minn. Stat. § 176.151, subd. 3, sufficient to toll the statute of limitations; that the employee failed to initiate a claim for the left knee injury on June 29, 2002, within six years after the incident, and his claim was barred by the statute of limitations; and that the October 31, 2002, right shoulder injury was temporary in nature and had fully resolved by March 11, 2004. The pro se employee appealed.

The Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals will uphold the factual findings of the compensation judge if they are supported by substantial evidence and were reached through application of the correct legal standard. Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.^[5] In reviewing a case for substantial evidence to support the judge’s findings, we do not make credibility determinations.^[6] The judge’s factual findings, including the weighing of the evidence as it relates to credibility, are reviewed based on a substantial evidence standard. Where evidence allows reasonable minds to differ as to whether the employee’s injuries are temporary or permanent, the responsibility for that decision rests with the compensation judge.^[7] With this standard of review in mind, we consider the employee’s arguments that the compensation judge erred in finding the employee did not establish mental incapacity within the meaning of Minn. Stat. § 176.151, subd. 3, and that the work injury to the right shoulder was temporary and had resolved by March 11, 2004.

The employee claimed a work-related left knee injury on June 29, 2002. He did not report this incident to the self-insured employer until December 1, 2003. The self-insured employer denied primary liability by letter dated January 14, 2004, for lack of notice, and no workers’ compensation benefits were ever paid. The employee initiated no action or proceeding to recover workers’ compensation benefits for the left knee injury until March 30, 2010.

Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 176.151(1), actions to determine or recover workers’ compensation must be initiated within three years after the self-insured employer has made a written report of the injury to the Department of Labor and Industry, and not more than six years from the date of the incident. The employee clearly did not bring a claim within six years from the date of the alleged June 29, 2002, left knee injury.

At the hearing and on appeal, the employee argued he received medical treatment for the knee immediately after the incident, and maintained that following the left knee injury, in combination with his right shoulder injury, he suffered mental anguish and psychological problems to such a degree that the time to assert his claim should be extended for three years from the date any incapacity ceased under Minn. Stat. § 176.151 subd. 3.^[8]

Here, the record contains no medical documentation of any knee injury until December 29, 2003, when the employee was seen by Dr. William Isaksen. The employee reported pain in his right knee off and on since March 2002 when a resident kicked him in the knee. The employee stated he had not reported he was still having problems and admitted he had been able to work regular duty despite episodic knee symptoms.^[9] Although Dr. Segal, in his 2012 report, offered the possibility of a “contusion when kicked in the left knee at that time,”^[10] the only documentation of any left knee complaints follow the employee’s 2005 motor vehicle accident. Moreover, as noted by the compensation judge, the employee submitted no records or reports from a physician, psychologist, or other medical provider to support his claim of psychological problems following the June 2002 left knee injury.

The employee is now asking this court to reconsider his case, asserting the facts were either misunderstood or misinterpreted by the compensation judge. We see no indication that the judge misunderstood or misinterpreted the evidence. It is not the role of this court to reevaluate the credibility and probative value of witness testimony and choose inferences from the evidence different from those of the compensation judge. Whether this court might have viewed the evidence differently is not the point, the question is whether the findings of the compensation judge are supported by evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate.^[11] During the period of claimed incapacity, after the June 2002 knee incident, the employee completed a first report of injury and provided timely notice of the October 21, 2002, right shoulder injury; continued to work as a human services technician for the self-insured employer, without restrictions related to the knee, until July 1, 2008; attended the University of Minnesota and graduated with a degree in political science in 2008; and became a United States citizen in 2009. These facts and circumstances reasonably support the conclusion that the employee was not mentally incapacitated to such a degree that he was incapable of performing the acts required to initiate a claim within the six years following the knee incident. Substantial evidence in the record supports the findings of the compensation judge and we affirm the determination that the employee’s claim of a left knee injury on or about June 29, 2002, is barred by the statute of limitations.

The employee argues the compensation judge’s determination that his right shoulder injury was temporary and resolved by March 11, 2004, is not supported by the evidence. First, the employee contends the finding that the employee was not seen by a medical provider for any specific right shoulder symptoms and had no right shoulder treatment for nearly six years is factually false.^[12] The employee maintains he has had standing orders for pain management medication and was told by his treating doctor he would have to live with the pain and nothing could be done to improve it. The self-insured employer, in contrast, points to countless medical appointments between March 2004 and February 2010 with no right shoulder complaints. Except for brief mention of some unspecified right shoulder pain in Oda Chiropractic records of September 2008, the employee’s medical records note no right shoulder symptoms and contain no evidence of any right shoulder treatment between March 12, 2004, to February 22, 2010. The compensation judge’s finding is supported by substantial evidence of record.

The employee additionally argues the compensation judge erred in rejecting the opinion of his treating orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Braman. In his letter report of June 28, 2013, Dr. Braman opined the October 31, 20002, injury was a “substantial contributing, aggravating, and accelerating factor in his [current] right shoulder condition” and that the July 27, 2011, surgery was related to the 2002 work injury.^[13] The employee argues that Dr. Braman, who first saw the employee on February 22, 2010, was the first treating doctor who was able to diagnose his right shoulder problem correctly using the more scientific diagnostic procedure of an MRI arthrogram.^[14] The employee maintains the July 25, 2003, MRI scan missed a large labral tear found in the October 1, 2010, MRI arthrogram, and argues the judge failed to give due weight to Dr. Braman’s more scientifically accurate opinion.^[15] We are not persuaded by this argument.

Dr. Hollis Fritts, the CDI radiologist, Dr. Freehill, an orthopedic surgeon and shoulder specialist, and Dr. Braman all interpreted the July 2003 MRI scan as essentially unremarkable. On review of the 2003 scan, Dr. Braman concluded the employee had no evidence of rotator cuff tear or tendinopathy, biceps tendinopathy, or any other intraarticular pathology, and advised the employee “there was nothing sinister seen on his old MRI.”^[16] The interpretation of the 2003 MRI study is consistent with the employee’s findings noted in multiple examinations during that same period until the employee was released to return to work without limitation by Dr. Bovard in March 2004. Dr. Segal concluded the 2003 scan was completely normal and opined that any significant labral injury would have been noticed by the CDI radiologist if it were present at that time. Dr. Szalapski also concluded the 2003 MRI study was normal, and observed the employee had full range of motion, no muscle atrophy, and no loss of strength during his treatment for the right shoulder. The doctor explained that, in his opinion, it was extremely unlikely that enough force could have been transmitted to the employee’s right shoulder by the mechanism described on October 31, 2002. Secondly, a labral tear is very painful and the employee would not have had full range of motion as evidenced on examination shortly after the injury. Finally, Dr. Szalapski stated that while an MRI arthrogram is more sensitive than a regular MRI, a regular MRI scan would not have missed the extensive labral tearing found on the October 2010 MRI arthrogram more than seven years later.

The compensation judge found the opinions of Dr. Bovard and Dr. Szalapski — that the employee’s October 31, 2002, injury was temporary and had resolved — more persuasive. The question before this court is not whether there is evidence in favor of the employee’s position, but whether there is substantial evidence to support the decision of the compensation judge.^[17]

The employee asserts he was seen by Dr. Bovard on one occasion only and that the doctor was not one of his “own doctors.”^[18] He maintains he was seen on referral by the self-insured employer and contends that Dr. Bovard’s one time examination should not be given more weight than those of the doctors who treated him over time and who were familiar with him and his right shoulder condition. On January 5, 2004, Dr. Paguyo, a primary care physician, referred the employee to Dr. Timming in the physical medicine department of the HealthPartners Clinic. Dr. Timming, in turn, referred the employee to Dr. Bovard in occupational medicine at HealthPartners/Regions Hospital for further evaluation. Dr. Bovard concluded the employee was deconditioned with an essentially normal examination, found the employee had reached maximum medical improvement, and released the employee to regular duty without restrictions. Dr. Bovard is an occupational medicine physician, he was asked to see the employee by his physicians at the HealthPartners Clinic, the doctor took a history from the employee, did an examination, and had access to the employee’s HealthPartners Clinic records. This degree of knowledge is sufficient to establish adequate foundation for Dr. Bovard’s opinion in this case.^[19]

The employee was seen by Dr. Szalapski on November 24, 2015, at the request of the self-insured employer. In his narrative report, Dr. Szalapski outlined the foundation for his expert opinion that the right shoulder injury in October 31, 2002, was a temporary injury that was not a substantial contributing factor to the employee’s current right shoulder condition. Dr. Szalapski, as a board certified orthopedic surgeon, had the competency to render an opinion on this issue. He took a history from the employee, conducted an examination, and reviewed the employee’s extensive medical records, summaries of the employee’s depositions, and Dr. Segal’s report.^[20] This degree of knowledge is sufficient to establish foundation for Dr. Szalapski’s expert opinion in this case.^[21]

The issue of whether the employee’s right shoulder injury was temporary and had resolved or was permanent was a question of fact for the compensation judge. In answering that question the judge considered the employee’s testimony and reviewed the medical records and the expert medical opinions submitted at the hearing. When medical opinions present different views regarding the nature and extent of the injury, the compensation judge, as the finder of fact, is responsible for choosing between the competing medical opinions.^[22] When the medical opinions chosen by the judge have adequate foundation, the opinions constitute substantial evidence to support the judge’s decision and the decision will generally be accepted by this court.^[23] Looking at the totality of the evidence, it was not unreasonable for the judge to rely on the opinions of Dr. Bovard and Dr. Szalapski in making his determination. Substantial evidence supports the compensation judge’s determination that the employee’s right shoulder injury was temporary and had resolved by March 11, 2004.

The Findings and Order are in all respects affirmed.