REHABILITATION – CONSULTATION; REHABILITATION – ELIGIBILITY; REHABILITATION – SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. Where the record reasonably supported the compensation judge’s conclusion that the employee failed to establish that he is subject to restrictions as a result of his work injuries, the judge’s denial of a rehabilitation consultation was not clearly erroneous or unsupported by substantial evidence.
APPEALS – SCOPE OF REVIEW. Where the hearing below only addressed the employee’s rehabilitation requests and the medical request was not heard, this court will not address the issue for the first time on appeal.
JURISDICTION; STATUTES CONSTRUED – MINN. STAT. § 175A.01, SUBD. 5. The authority of this court is limited to the determination of questions of law and fact arising under the workers’ compensation laws of Minnesota. Minn. Stat. § 175A.01, subd. 5. The employee’s arguments regarding his social disability claims, Texas workers’ compensation claims, union issues, and employment disability claims are outside of this court’s jurisdiction.
Compensation Judge: Stephen R. Daly
Attorneys: Pro Se Appellant. N. Amee Pham, Heacox, Hartman, Koshmrl, Cosgriff, Johnson, Lane & Feenstra, P.A., St. Paul, Minnesota, for the Respondents.
Affirmed.
GARY M. HALL, Judge
The pro se employee appeals the compensation judge’s denial of his claim for a rehabilitation consultation and rehabilitation services. We affirm.
On May 3, 1996, Jeffrey A. Larson, the employee, sustained a temporary injury when a ladder fell on his head while he was working as a union apprentice sprinkler fitter for Viking Automatic Sprinkler Company (Viking), which was insured for workers’ compensation liability by St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company, now known as Travelers Group (Travelers). The employee was seen at an emergency room, but he left before being treated by a doctor. At a general physical examination in January 1997, the employee reported the injury and having been disoriented for about a week, and the doctor stated that the employee had no residual neurological symptoms from the ladder injury.
On March 13 and March 29, 1997, the employee sustained additional work-related injuries to his neck and right shoulder while working as a cable installer for Atrex, Inc. On September 19, 1997, the employee underwent an MRI scan of his brain, which indicated “unremarkable brain parenchyma” and small remodeled mandibular condyles. On December 16, 1997, the employee was examined by Dr. Lloyd Leider at the request of Atrex and its insurer. Dr. Leider concluded that the injury in May 1996 was a bump on the head which did not result in any neck symptoms or any ongoing head pain. The employee was examined by Dr. Steven Lebow at the request of the employer and insurer. Dr. Lebow opined that the 1996 work injury resulted in a mild concussion that resolved “without residua.”
The employee settled with both employers and insurers, including retraining and rehabilitation benefits and except for certain medical expenses, for claims through February 3, 1998. An award on stipulation was served and filed June 3, 1998. In January 2000, the employee filed another claim against both employers and insurers for temporary partial disability benefits, retraining, and rehabilitation benefits. Viking and Travelers were dismissed by order of a compensation judge on October 3, 2000. The employee did not appeal that order for dismissal. Atrex and its insurer settled claims for wage loss, retraining, and rehabilitation on a full, final, and complete basis, except for certain medical expenses. An award on stipulation was served and filed December 7, 2000.
On April 14, 2011, the employee filed a rehabilitation request seeking vocational rehabilitation services. Both employers and insurers filed motions to dismiss the employee’s claims. The compensation judge dismissed the claim against Atrex and its insurer with prejudice on the basis that it was closed out by the terms of the 2000 settlement. The compensation judge dismissed the claim against Viking and Travelers (hereinafter the employer and insurer) without prejudice based on lack of evidentiary support for the claim. The employee attempted to appeal the dismissals, but his appeal was dismissed by this court for lack of jurisdiction. Larson v. Viking Automatic Sprinkler Co., 72 W.C.D. 131 (W.C.C.A. 2012).
On March 30, 2018, the employee filed a rehabilitation request against the employer and insurer for rehabilitation services. On April 19, 2018, the employee requested a rehabilitation consultation. The employer and insurer denied the requests, arguing that the employee’s work injury had resolved without restrictions. After an administrative conference on May 4, 2018, the mediator denied both rehabilitation requests. The employee filed a request for formal hearing.
A hearing was held before a compensation judge on September 5, 2018. The employee argued that he was entitled to rehabilitation services and requested medical treatment to review his health. The compensation judge noted that the only issue to be considered was the request for formal hearing on the rehabilitation requests and asked the employer and insurer if they agreed to expand the issues to include medical treatment claims, but they declined to do so. The judge found that the employee did not have any restrictions related to the 1996 work injury and denied the requests for a rehabilitation consultation and for services. 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).
On appeal, the pro se employee argues that he is entitled to rehabilitation services and temporary partial disability benefits under the 2000 award on stipulation. The employee is also requesting a medical review of his condition to update his disability status. The employer and insurer argue that the employee’s rehabilitation claims were the only issues at the hearing below, and that substantial evidence, including expert medical opinion, supports the compensation judge’s finding that the employee does not have restrictions related to the 1996 work injury and the judge’s denial of the employee’s rehabilitation claims.[1]
The employee has requested a rehabilitation consultation and services. Under the Minnesota workers’ compensation system, a “rehabilitation consultation is used to determine whether an employee is a qualified employee for rehabilitation services.” Minn. R. 5220.0130, subp. 1. A rehabilitation consultation generally must be provided to an injured employee upon request. Minn. Stat. § 176.102, subd. 4(a). An employer and insurer cannot defeat a request for a rehabilitation consultation by arguing that rehabilitation services are not vocationally necessary, but they may “assert other defenses and threshold liability issues.” Judnick v. Sholom Home West, slip op. (W.C.C.A. Aug. 4, 1995).
The employee, however, must first establish that there are employment restrictions resulting from the work injury. A determination that the employee has completely recovered from the work injury or has no employment restrictions from the injury may defeat a claim for a rehabilitation consultation. Id.; see also Hoffman v. Timberline Sports, 75 W.C.D. 419, 424 (W.C.C.A. 2015); Brownell v. Hibbing Taconite Mining Co., No. WC09-5036 (W.C.C.A. Apr. 8, 2010); Brew v. College of St. Scholastica, slip op. (W.C.C.A. Aug. 5, 2003).
The employer and insurer argue that the employee has not shown that he has any work restrictions related to his 1996 work injury. We agree. Dr. Lebow opined that the employee’s 1996 work injury had resolved, and the employee testified that he did not have any restrictions on his ability to work. Substantial evidence supports the compensation judge’s finding that the employee is not entitled to a rehabilitation consultation or services as result of his 1996 work injury under Minnesota workers’ compensation law, and we affirm.
The employee is also seeking a medical review of his 1996 head injury, claiming that a 1997 MRI scan indicates that he sustained a skull fracture at that time, but that the top view of that scan was misplaced and was disregarded by all involved in his workers’ compensation proceedings. The employee would like a new MRI scan performed in order to update his disability status related to his head injury.
After the administrative conference, the mediator noted in his decision that the issues being litigated at that time were the requests for a rehabilitation consultation and rehabilitation services, and that issues regarding medical treatment were beyond the scope of the conference. He added that such claims could be pursued by filing a medical request. At the hearing below, the compensation judge also noted that the only issue to be considered was the request for formal hearing on the rehabilitation issues.
The employee had filed a medical request for a new MRI scan on June 11, 2018. The employer and insurer did not agree to expand the issues to include medical treatment claims and assert that the only issues for review on appeal are the rehabilitation requests. We agree. The medical request was not at issue at the hearing and this court may not address issues for the first time on appeal. See Barnett v. Pillsbury Co., 34 W.C.D. 581 (W.C.C.A. 1982) (issue first raised at appellate hearing is not timely); Brandstrom v. Honeywell, slip op. (W.C.C.A. Mar. 7, 1997); Malinoski v. North Am. Cable Sys., slip op. (W.C.C.A. Dec. 14, 1989). Therefore, we will not address any medical treatment claims.
The employee also makes a variety of arguments regarding matters not related to this workers’ compensation matter, including social security disability issues, litigation in Texas, union issues, and employment discrimination claims.
These claims are outside of this court’s jurisdiction. The authority of this court is limited to the determination of questions of law and fact arising under the workers’ compensation laws of Minnesota. Minn. Stat. § 175A.01, subd. 5. These issues do not pertain to the employee’s workers’ compensation claims and, therefore, they will not be addressed by this court.
The compensation judge’s decision is affirmed.
[1] On July 8, 2019, the employee filed a motion for dismissal of this court’s May 28, 2019, order denying his untimely request for oral argument. We deny the motion.