JEAN M. GOEHRING, Employee/Appellant, v. PATRICIA BOUWMAN D/B/A GINGERBREAD HOUSE CAFÉ and RAM MUTUAL INS. CO., Employer-Insurer/Respondents, and HEARTLAND ORTHOPEDIC SPECIALISTS, GLACIAL RIDGE HEALTH SYS., HENNEPIN CNTY. MED. CTR., BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF MINN./BLUE PLUS, Intervenors.

The employee appeals from the compensation judge’s conclusion that her injury did not arise out of her employment. We affirm.

The employee, Jean Goehring, worked as a waitress for the employer, Gingerbread House Café. The café is a small business with seating for about 50 customers. Attached to the café is a separate bakery. From time to time, café customers ordered goods from the bakery which were obtained by waitresses, such as the employee. In doing so, the waitresses would walk into and out of the bakery.

On June 9, 2017, the employee was in the course of her regular duties as a waitress for the employer. She had no difficulties walking, balancing, or coordinating on that day. She was standing in a corridor area waiting for some other people to pass, where the floor was flat, dry, and non-slippery. When she began to walk, her left foot stuck to the floor. She used some extra exertion to lift her foot up and at that point lost her balance and fell down. She struck her left knee and her head on the floor and suffered a complex fracture to her left knee. She was transported by ambulance to the emergency room in Glenwood and then to Hennepin County Medical Center (HCMC), about 130 miles away. After the swelling subsided over the next six days, she underwent a total knee replacement.

The medical records contain a number of different explanations for the fall suffered by the employee. Some of the records indicate that the employee slipped on a wet floor. Others indicate she lost her balance and fell backwards. None of the contemporaneous medical records described a history of the employee’s foot sticking to the floor. The employee testified that due to the effects of the pain and the medications that she was taking while hospitalized, she was not clear-headed and did not recall telling any of her medical providers these other explanations for her fall. Instead, the employee recalled telling providers that her foot stuck to the floor.

According to the employee’s husband, hospital personnel at the emergency room in Glenwood gave him the employee’s shoes, already in a plastic bag. The shoes were white lace-up sneakers. He put the plastic bag in the trunk of his car. A few days later, after visiting his wife on several occasions at HCMC and hearing her explanation of her foot sticking on more than one occasion, he looked at the shoes and discovered a substance the size of a half-dollar coin stuck to the bottom of her left shoe. This substance was later tested and found to contain zein, a substance often used in baking.

The employer and insurer denied primary liability, asserting the employee’s injury did not arise out of employment. The employee filed a claim petition seeking benefits resulting from her knee injury. The matter came on for hearing before a compensation judge.

At trial, the employee testified that she was wearing her white lace-up sneakers, the shoes with the zein substance on the sole, when she fell. She surmised that although she did not know where the substance came from, it must have come from her place of employment, specifically the bakery.

At the hearing, a co-worker of the employee testified that although she did not see the employee fall, she saw the employee on the floor. She recalled looking at the employee’s shoes to see if perhaps the employee tripped over her shoelaces. The co-worker testified that the employee was wearing slip-on shoes, not lace-up shoes, as the employee claimed.

The compensation judge issued his Findings and Order on October 2, 2018. He relied upon the testimony of the co-worker in finding that the employee was not wearing the white lace-up sneakers that contained the zein, but instead, was wearing slip-on shoes. The compensation judge also found that regardless of which shoes the employee was wearing, there was no evidence that the zein came from her place of employment. Specifically, he found “the employee did not introduce any evidence that the bakery attached to the café used zein.” (Finding 9, emphasis in original.) The compensation judge went on to find that because he did not accept the employee’s theory that her foot stuck to the floor due to zein originating from her place of employment, and because the employee’s fall was otherwise unexplained, her injury did not arise out of employment and she was not entitled to benefits. The employee 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(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 employee appeals the compensation judge’s finding that she was not wearing the white lace-up sneakers at the time of the injury, arguing this finding is not supported by substantial evidence. The employee asserts that she was wearing her white lace-up sneakers and because those shoes had zein on the bottom, the only reasonable conclusions are that the zein came from work, the zein caused the bottom of her shoe to stick to the floor, and the stickiness caused her to fall. Consequently, the employee argues her injury arose out of employment and requests a remand for further findings on benefits owed to her as a result of her injury. We are not persuaded by the employee’s contentions.

First, the compensation judge’s finding that the employee was not wearing her white lace-up sneakers is supported by the testimony of the employee’s co-worker. The employee argues that there would be no reason for her or her husband to fabricate a story as to what shoes she was wearing. By contrast, she argues the employer and insurer coerced the co-worker into fabricating the testimony. This is simply an argument regarding credibility. The compensation judge had the opportunity to hear testimony and observe all of the witnesses, including the employee, the employee’s husband, and the co-worker, as well as review all of the evidence, including the medical evidence.

The assessment of a witness’s testimony is the unique province of the trier of fact. Even v. Kraft, Inc., 445 N.W.2d 831, 835, 42 W.C.D. 220, 225 (Minn. 1989). This court will not disturb a finding based on credibility unless clearly contrary to the evidence. Northern States Power Co. v. Lyon Food Prods., Inc., 304 Minn. 196, 201, 229 N.W.2d 521, 524 (1975); Folstrom v. Northgate Liquors, 77 W.C.D. 955 (W.C.C.A. 2017); Strohecker v. Mike’s Auto Repair & Tire, LLC, No. WC12-5437 (W.C.C.A. Aug. 7, 2012). The compensation judge is in the unique position to assess the demeanor of witnesses in matters of credibility. See Brennan v. Joseph G. Brennan, M.D., 425 N.W.2d 837, 839-40, 41 W.C.D. 79, 82 (Minn. 1988). While the compensation judge could have found the employee and her husband to be credible regarding which shoes she was wearing, and rejected the testimony of the co-worker, the compensation judge was also free to believe the co-worker. The compensation judge found the co-worker’s testimony credible and found the employee’s testimony not credible.

Moreover, contemporaneous medical records are inconsistent and do not support the employee’s argument that she was wearing her white lace-up sneakers. While the employee may have been in extreme pain and/or affected by pain medication, there is no indication that the history she provided to some of her doctors was necessarily inaccurate.^[1] Regardless, whether the employee’s accounting of the incident to her doctors was accurate, it was within the compensation judge’s discretion to weigh the testimony of the employee and the co-worker to determine which shoes the employee was wearing at the time of her injury. He chose to believe that she was wearing slip-on shoes and not her white lace-up sneakers. We will not disturb this finding on appeal.

Second, regardless of which shoes the employee was wearing, there is no evidence that zein came from the employer’s premises or caused the employee’s fall. There was no evidence of any sticky substance, zein or otherwise, on the employer’s floor. While it is true that zein is a substance that is used in the baking process, and there was a bakery adjacent to the employer’s premises which the employee entered from time to time, there is no evidence that the employer (or the bakery) used zein in their baking process.

The compensation judge found the employee encountered no increased risk of injury from a hazard on the employer’s premises. Without proving a hazard from the employer’s premises, and without offering any other evidence, theory, or argument, as to the cause of her fall, the employee’s fall was unexplained. Unexplained falls are not compensable as they do not arise out of employment. See Dykhoff v. Xcel Energy, 840 N.W.2d 821, 827, 73 W.C.D. 865, 874 (Minn. 2013). The Findings and Order of the compensation judge is affirmed.