The employee appeals the compensation judge’s finding that the employee’s November 18, 2016, work injury resolved within three months. We affirm.

Robert Matson, the employee, worked for Coca Cola Bottlers for over thirty years and sustained various work injuries during that time. The company was owned by different corporations over those years. In 1998, the employee injured his low back while working for Coca Cola Enterprises, Inc., insured by Broadspire. He had surgery on the L5-S1 disc and was awarded 10 percent permanent partial disability (PPD). Three months later, he was released to work without restrictions. In 2007, he had another low back injury while working for self-insured Coca Cola Refreshments USA, Inc. He had another surgery at the same level, was awarded 11 percent PPD, and returned to work with no restrictions. In about 2014, the employee started working as a forklift driver for the company. He had some back and neck pain with that work until some modifications were made. A July 2014 lumbar spine MRI scan indicated bulging discs and neural foraminal narrowing at levels L1 through L5 and evidence of previous surgery at L5-S1. He had no restrictions from 2014 through 2016.

On November 18, 2016, the employee injured his low back lifting a heavy overhead warehouse door while working for Great Lakes Coca Cola Distribution, LLC, self-insured and with claims administered by Sedgwick Claims Management, Inc. (Great Lakes). The injury was assessed that day as a lumbar strain at Minnesota Occupational Health. On November 27, 2016, the employee underwent a lumbar spine MRI scan, which when compared to the July 2014 MRI scan, indicated no significant change to the degenerative findings present in 2014, including the disc bulges and neural foraminal narrowing.

In December 2016, the employee was treated at TRIA Orthopaedics with an injection and was prescribed a 12-week Med-X course, which he began in January 2017. He was given work restrictions of no lifting over 30 pounds and no overtime, which resulted in a wage loss. The employee underwent an independent medical examination (IME) by Dr. Paul Wicklund at the request of Great Lakes in August 2017. After obtaining a history from the employee, performing a physical examination, and reviewing medical records from 16 medical providers, Dr. Wicklund prepared a report dated August 13, 2017. In the report, Dr. Wicklund opined that the employee sustained a temporary low back strain on November 18, 2016, that resolved in February 2017, three months after the injury. Dr. Wicklund also opined that the employee was at maximum medical improvement with no restrictions and no permanent partial disability due to the 2016 work injury. In addition, he stated that employee had pre-existing chronic degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine before the injury and that this underlying condition was not caused, aggravated, or accelerated by the November 18, 2016, injury.

On November 21, 2017, the employee underwent a lumbar discography of the L3-4 and L4-5 levels. The discography revealed mild pressure sensation but no reproduction of concordant pain symptoms and abnormal disc morphology at the L4-5 level, and no pressure and pain reproduction with abnormal disc morphology at the L3-4 level. The employee continued to treat for his low back and was referred to Twin Cities Pain Clinic in January 2018.

On April 30, 2018, Dr. Eric Deal conducted an IME of the employee at the request of Coca Cola Refreshments, the employer at the time of the employee’s 2007 work injury. Dr. Deal opined that the employee had sustained a lumbar strain in November 2016, that treatment was reasonable through the date of Dr. Deal’s examination, and that the employee was at MMI with no restrictions and no permanent partial disability. Dr. Deal and Dr. Wicklund agreed that the 1998 and 2007 injuries were not substantial contributing factors to the employee’s need for treatment.

Following his earlier report, Dr. Wicklund was provided with additional medical records, including scans of the lumbar spine, records from Twin Cities Pain Clinic and Summit Orthopaedics, and rehabilitation reports. Dr. Wicklund then issued an addendum report dated May 26, 2018, stating that his diagnosis of the employee’s low back condition remained unchanged. Dr. Wicklund also opined that the 1998 and 2007 work injuries to the employee’s L5-S1 disc did not contribute to the employee’s ongoing complaints of back pain because of the lack of positive findings at the L5-S1 level. Dr. Wicklund reiterated his opinion that the employee’s current low back condition is degenerative in nature and unrelated to his 2016 work injury.

Procedurally, Great Lakes filed a rehabilitation request in August 2017 and the employee filed a rehabilitation response. After a mediation decision, Great Lakes filed a request for formal hearing and the employee filed a medical request. Great Lakes filed a motion for joinder of Coca Cola Refreshments for the 2007 work injury and of Coca Cola Enterprises for the 1998 work injury, which was granted by the compensation judge. The judge also consolidated the proceedings for hearing and the parties agreed to include the employee’s claim for temporary partial disability (TPD) benefits as an issue to be resolved.

A hearing was held on October 25, 2018, to determine which injuries contributed to the employee’s ongoing wage loss and need for treatment.^[1] At hearing, both of Dr. Wicklund’s reports were introduced and accepted into evidence without objection. Relying on Dr. Wicklund’s opinion, the compensation judge found that the employee had degenerative changes before the 2016 injury and concluded that the 2016 injury was a temporary lumbar strain that had resolved within three months. The judge denied the employee’s TPD claim and awarded medical expenses for treatment up to March 3, 2017, to be paid by Great Lakes. 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 Findings and Order of the compensation judge, claiming that substantial evidence does not support the compensation judge’s determination that the employee’s 2016 work injury was no longer a contributing factor to his low back condition as of three months after that injury. The employee asserts that the judge’s acceptance of Dr. Wicklund’s medical opinions was contrary to “all relevant evidence” presented in this case, pointing out that the employee was working without restrictions in November 2016, that three months after the injury the employee was in the middle of a 12-week Med-X course, and that Dr. Wicklund did not explain the basis of his opinion that the November 2016 injury was a temporary strain.

Coca Cola Refreshments and Coca Cola Enterprises argue that the employee is essentially challenging the foundation of Dr. Wicklund’s opinion, but that the employee did not raise an objection to foundation at the hearing, and therefore, he has waived that issue on appeal. Great Lakes argues that substantial evidence supports the judge’s finding, including Dr.Wicklund’s adequately founded medical opinion, Dr. Deal’s opinion, and the comparison of MRI scans before and after the 2016 injury indicating there was no change in the employee’s low back condition.

As a general rule, this court will not overturn a finding unless it is “clearly erroneous” as that term is defined in caselaw and statute. Northern States Power Co., 304 Minn. at 201, 229 N.W.2d at 524. The compensation judge is the finder of fact who has the discretion to choose between competing and conflicting medical expert reports and opinions. See Ruether v. State, Mankato State Univ., 455 N.W.2d 475, 478, 42 W.C.D. 1118, 1123 (Minn. 1990) (citing Fryhling v. Acrometal Prods., Inc., 269 N.W.2d 744, 747, 31 W.C.D. 85, 89 (Minn. 1978)). A compensation judge’s choice between conflicting medical opinions will be upheld unless the facts assumed by the expert in giving the opinion are not supported by substantial evidence. In other words, where adequate foundation for the medical opinion exists, we will uphold the judge’s choice of the medical expert. See Nord v. City of Cook, 360 N.W.2d 337, 342-43, 37 W.C.D. 364, 372-73 (Minn. 1985). Where evidence conflicts, or more than one inference may reasonably be drawn from the evidence, the findings will generally be affirmed. Hengemuhle, 358 N.W.2d at 60, 37 W.C.D. at 240.

At hearing, both of Dr. Wicklund’s reports were introduced and accepted into evidence without objection. In his brief, the employee admits Dr. Wicklund had adequate foundation for his opinion, but contends that his opinion is contrary to the medical evidence. Dr. Wicklund opined the employee’s ongoing low back problems are related to his underlying degenerative disc disease of his lumbar spine and not due to a work injury since the employee’s problems are multi-level in nature and the 2016 MRI scan showed no change from the 2014 MRI scan. Dr. Wicklund’s expert medical opinion is supported by evidence in the record and the compensation judge was within his discretion to accept that opinion. The compensation judge’s determination as to the nature and extent of the November 18, 2016, injury is not clearly erroneous and is supported by substantial evidence in the record. Accordingly, we affirm.