WAYNE L. GERHARDT, Employee/Appellant, v. ENZYMOLOGY RESEARCH CTR., INC., and SECURA INS. COS., Employer-Insurer/Respondents, and MEDICA HEALTH PLANS, Intervenor.

The employee appeals the compensation judge’s failure to address the issue of whether the injured worker was entitled to temporary total disability benefits between July 12 and September 20, 2017. The compensation judge’s Amended Findings and Order, served and filed January 2, 2018, was issued after the compensation judge’s jurisdiction ended and has no legal effect. We vacate in part and remand in part.

On December 19, 2014, Wayne Gerhardt, the employee, injured his neck, low back, and both knees in a fall while walking between buildings at Enzymology Research Center, his employer, where he worked in the maintenance department. The employer and its insurer admitted liability but claimed the injuries were temporary aggravations of pre-existing conditions. After a hearing on May 31, 2016, the compensation judge found the employee’s work injury caused temporary aggravations of the employee’s pre-existing neck and low back conditions and a permanent aggravation of the employee’s bilateral knee condition in Findings and Order served and filed June 30, 2016, which was not appealed. The employee has ongoing restrictions for his knee condition, including no squatting or kneeling, no lifting over 20 pounds, and no walking or standing more than 30 minutes in an eight hour shift. The employee continued to work for the employer. His work hours had been reduced to 25 hours per week in March 2016, but this was not related to his bilateral knee condition. In January 2017, the employee began working in a more administrative position.

Before the employee was hired by the employer in 2008, he had a myocardial infarction which resulted in surgeries for stents and a pacemaker. On May 22, 2017, the employee underwent an additional heart surgery which included an aortic valve replacement and coronary artery bypass. On June 22, 2017, the employee was released to return to work with restrictions related to his heart surgery of working three hours per day, two days a week, and no lifting over 20 pounds, as of July 12, 2017. The cardiac restrictions were removed as of August 14, 2017, but his knee restrictions continued.^[1]

On August 28, 2017, the employer offered the employee a production floor position, which the employee declined because the position exceeded his work restrictions for his knee condition. The employer requested that the employee undergo a functional capacities evaluation (FCE), which was completed on September 20, 2017. Based on the results of the FCE, the employer did not offer the employee any further employment. About that time, the employee applied for unemployment compensation benefits and began a job search.

The employee claimed temporary partial disability benefits from April 2016 through May 2017, and temporary total disability benefits from July 12, 2017, through the date of the hearing and continuing. He did not claim any benefits from the date of his heart surgery in May 2017 through July 12, 2017, when he was released to work with restrictions for his heart condition. The employer and insurer denied the claims. A hearing was held before a compensation judge on October 6, 2017, and the record was closed on that date. The compensation judge found that the employee remained an employee of the employer. The judge denied the temporary partial disability claim and awarded temporary total disability benefits from and after September 20, 2017. The judge did not specifically address the employee’s claim for temporary total disability benefits between July 12 and September 20, 2017, which the employee appeals.

After the hearing, the employer and insurer gave notice to the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) of its right to intervene due to the employee’s receipt of unemployment compensation benefits. On October 26, 2017, DEED’s motion to intervene was received at the Department of Labor and Industry. The employer and insurer objected to the motion on November 1, 2017, and requested clarification of the Findings and Order to include an offset for the employee’s unemployment benefits on November 29 and December 6, 2017. On December 18, 2017, the employee appealed the November 20, 2017, Findings and Order. The compensation judge added the requested offset in an Amended Findings and Order, served and filed on January 2, 2018.

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(3). 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).

A decision which rests upon the application of a statute or rule to essentially undisputed facts generally involves a question of law which the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals may consider de novo. Krovchuk v. Koch Oil Refinery, 48 W.C.D. 607, 608 (W.C.C.A. 1993), summarily aff’d (Minn. June 3, 1993).

The judge awarded temporary total disability benefits from and after September 20, 2017. The employee argues that the judge erred by not addressing his arguments regarding his work restrictions between July 12 and September 20, 2017, and requests a remand for findings and order on his claim for temporary total disability benefits for that time. The employer and insurer argue that by not specifically addressing the temporary total disability claim between July 12 and September 20, 2017, the judge denied that claim, and that substantial evidence supports the denial. They assert that they were attempting to ascertain the employee’s capabilities and intentions regarding his return to work during that time.

Between July 12 and August 14, 2017, the employee had cardiac restrictions of working three hours per day, two days a week, and no lifting over 20 pounds. The 20-pound lifting restriction was also still in place for the employee’s knee condition. After August 14, 2017, the employee’s work restrictions were solely based on his knee condition. As the employer and insurer admit, the employee was still employed by the employer between July 12 and September 20, 2017, and they were unable to determine he would not return to work for the employer until the FCE on September 20, 2017. The employee was not offered a position within his restrictions during that time.

Under Minn. Stat. § 176.371, "[a]ll questions of fact and law submitted to a compensation judge at the hearing shall be disposed of” by the judge. The statute also states that the “compensation judge's decision shall include a determination of all contested issues of fact and law and an award or disallowance of compensation or other order as the pleadings, evidence, this chapter and rule require.” Id. This court has previously stated that a compensation judge should “state with clarity and completeness the facts essential to the ultimate decision so that a reviewing court can determine from the record whether the facts support the judge’s decision” and “should not leave the reviewing court the obligation to seek or spell out the facts supporting the judge’s decision or choose between conflicting testimony and inferences.” Mendez-Merino v. Farmstead Foods, slip op. at 7-8 n.7 (W.C.C.A. Aug. 7, 2001); see also Hart v. EVTAC Mining Co., No. WC05-166 (W.C.C.A. Oct. 31, 2005).

In this case, the compensation judge’s findings are not adequately specific for this court to ascertain the basis for temporary total disability benefits not being awarded from July 12 to September 20, 2017, or to permit meaningful appellate review of that decision. We therefore vacate the portion of Finding 14 stating that the employee’s entitlement to temporary total benefits commenced on September 20, 2017, and remand for further consideration and findings on the employee’s claim for temporary total disability benefits from July 12 to September 20, 2017.

Generally, a compensation judge retains jurisdiction of a case for 30 days after issuance of a findings and order or until a notice of appeal is filed, and may issue amended findings during that time. See Minn. Stat. § 176.421, subd. 1; Minn. R. 1420.3150, subp. 1. “Upon issuance of findings and orders after a hearing, the judge’s jurisdiction over the case continues until a notice of appeal is filed or the appeal period expires, whichever occurs first. While jurisdiction continues, amended findings may be issued as needed to fully and fairly decide all issues litigated.” Minn. R. 1420.3150, subp. 1. The employee’s appeal of the November 20, 2017, Findings and Order was filed on December 18, 2017. The compensation judge’s Amended Findings and Order, served and filed January 2, 2018, allowing an offset for unemployment compensation benefits paid, was therefore issued after the compensation judge’s jurisdiction ended.

Subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time, and an appellate court may raise and determine jurisdiction on its own motion, even though none of the parties has raised the issue. Rhoades v. K & C Distrib., 51 W.C.D. 305, 321 (W.C.C.A. 1994) (citing Davidner v. Davidner, 304 Minn. 491, 493, 232 N.W.2d 5, 7 (1975)), summarily aff’d (Minn. Aug. 3, 1994). “Whether a court has subject matter jurisdiction depends on the court’s power to deal with the subject matter involved.” Id. Parties cannot confer subject matter jurisdiction on a court by action or agreement. Id.; see also Zanmiller v. Montgomery Ward, 361 N.W.2d 59, 37 W.C.D. 391 (Minn. 1985).

The compensation judge did not have jurisdiction to issue the Amended Findings and Order served and filed January 2, 2018, and therefore it is null and of no effect. In light of this court’s remand on the issue of temporary total disability benefits from July 12 through September 20, 2017, the compensation judge may also address all issues relating to DEED’s intervention motion.