ROBERT M. DEXTER, Employee/Respondent, v. HUBBARD CNTY. DEV. ACHIEVEMENT CTR. and SFM MUT. INS. CO., Employer-Insurer/Appellants, and ESSENTIA HEALTH – DULUTH CLINIC, MINN. DEP’T OF LABOR & INDUS./VRU, SPINAL HEALTH PROF’LS, ST. JOSEPH’S AREA HEALTH SERVS., and MINN. DEP’T OF HUMAN SERVS., Intervenors.

The employer and insurer appeal the compensation judge’s award of permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits and order for reimbursement of an intervenor. Because the judge’s award of PPD benefits improperly expanded the issues as such benefits were neither claimed by the employee nor supported by evidence in the record, and because the employer and insurer were ordered to pay an intervention interest that was paid in full per documentation submitted at hearing, we vacate the Findings and Order in part as set forth below.

Robert Dexter, the employee, fell on both knees and hands on concrete while working for Hubbard County Developmental Achievement Center (DAC), the employer, on March 29, 2016. Before the injury, the employee had a history of right knee injuries and had already developed severe arthritis in his right knee. He claimed that he tore the right lateral meniscus as a result of the March 29, 2016, work injury. Due to the employee’s knee condition, total knee replacement surgery (arthroplasty) was recommended.

The employer and its insurer, SFM Mutual Insurance Company, admitted liability but disputed the nature and extent of the injury. They sought a medical opinion from orthopedic surgeon Gary Wyard, M.D., who opined that a total knee arthroplasty was reasonable, but not necessary, and that the March 29, 2016, work injury was not a substantial contributing factor to the need for surgery. Dr. Wyard found no ratable PPD, based on the absence of objective findings immediately after the accident so as to indicate a serious injury, and because of the employee’s long history of preexisting knee issues.

The employee underwent surgery on January 17, 2017, performed by Brennen Smith, D.O., at CHI St. Joseph’s Hospital. The operative report noted a pre- and post-operative diagnosis of right knee traumatic osteoarthritis. The operative report made a reference to a right anterior cruciate ligament tear. The procedure performed was a right total knee arthroplasty which included the removal of the anterior and posterior medial and cruciate ligaments.

A year after the surgery, the employee sought a medical opinion from orthopedic surgeon Colin Fennell, M.D., FRCSC. Dr. Fennell reviewed medical records and examined the employee. He opined that the employee’s preexisting pathology of the knee was the substantial contributing cause of the need for a total knee arthroplasty, but that the injury of March 29, 2016, led to a downward spiral of the right knee function. Dr. Fennell rated the employee’s condition under Minn. R. 5223.0510 as eight percent for an arthroplasty, total condylar under subp. 3.C.(2); seven percent for an arthroplasty, patella replacement under subp. 3.C.(3); and two percent for loss of range of flexion or extension, between 91 and 120 degrees under subp. 4.A.(1)(b). Dr. Fennell combined the PPD ratings for a total rating of 16.1512 percent. He further concluded that “the injury of the right knee is responsible for 10% of the right knee disability percentage.” (Ex. E.) He opined that the knee injury of March 29, 2016, was relatively minor in nature and by itself did not lead to any work restrictions or limitations. Dr. Fennell was the only physician who provided a PPD rating of the employee’s condition.

The employer and insurer disputed the PPD rating, among other issues. The matter was heard before a compensation judge on October 25, 2018. In his Findings and Order, the compensation judge awarded 16 percent PPD, not the 16.1512 percent claimed, and also ordered reimbursement to certain intervenors, including intervenor Essentia Health (Essentia). Upon receipt of the Findings and Order, the employer and insurer emailed the judge asking for an amendment to the findings on two issues. (Appellants Ex. A.) First, they sought clarification on the 16 percent PPD rating, which referenced no permanency rule and was different from the claimed 16.1512 percent. Second, they requested a modification of the judge’s order to pay the intervenor Essentia, because Essentia filed documents at the hearing which stated it had been paid and no longer had an intervention interest.

The judge issued an Amended Findings and Order on January 3, 2019. He added two percent PPD under Minn. R. 5223.0170, subp. 5.B.(2), which provides that rating for “a partial meniscectomy, up to 50 percent of the meniscus removed.” He again ordered payment to Essentia. The employer and insurer appeal the Amended Findings and Order, arguing that there was no PPD claim for a partial meniscectomy justifying an additional two percent rating, and that because Essentia had been paid in full prior to the hearing and claimed no intervention interest, no payment was due or owing. The employee did not file a responsive brief.^[1]

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).

On appeal, the employer and insurer argue that the judge erred by expanding the issues from a claim for PPD due to a total knee arthroplasty to one which also included surgical repair in the nature of a partial meniscectomy, when there was no claim or evidence that the employee underwent that procedure. They further argue that substantial evidence does not support the judge’s findings for the additional two percent rating. Finally, they argue that the judge erred in awarding payment to intervenor Essentia.

A judge is limited to resolution of issues raised at trial. Kulenkamp v. Timesavers, Inc., 420 N.W.2d 891, 40 W.C.D. 869 (Minn. 1988).^[2] As the Minnesota Supreme Court stated: “[b]asic fairness requires that the parties in a workers’ compensation proceeding be afforded reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard before decisions concerning entitlement to benefits can be made.” Id. 420 N.W.2d at 894, 40 W.C.D. at 872. Here, it is undisputed that the two percent rating for a partial meniscectomy was not raised as an issue by the employee. It is also undisputed that the evidence does not support the judge’s finding of an additional two percent PPD rating. Because there is no medical support for the judge’s finding associated with a partial meniscectomy, substantial evidence does not support the additional two percent rating. For these reasons, we vacate the judge’s finding 10 and order 2.

The judge also erred in ordering payment to intervenor Essentia. At the hearing, the judge admitted evidence from Essentia indicating they had been paid in full and that there was no outstanding balance or Spaeth claim. (Ex. 20.) There is no other evidence in the record disputing that payment was made. Because substantial evidence does not support this finding, we vacate finding 12 and order 7.