STATUTES CONSTRUED – MINN. STAT. § 176.155; EVIDENCE – EXPERT MEDICAL OPINION. Minn. Stat. § 176.155 does not restrict the employee from offering reports from medical experts whose opinions were solicited for purposes of litigation, and whether more than one such report may be received into evidence in support of the employee’s claims is a question committed to the discretion of the compensation judge.
PERMANENT PARTIAL DISABILITY - WEBER RATING. A supplemental permanent partial disability rating under Weber v. City of Inver Grove Heights, 461 N.W.2d 918, 43 W.C.D. 471 (Minn. 1990), is not permissible where an employee’s impairment is included in the schedule. The employee’s patella fracture condition is specifically addressed in Minn. R. 5223.0510, subp. 3.I., and the compensation judge erred in awarding two percent permanency under Weber.
PERMANENT PARTIAL DISABILITY – SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. Substantial evidence, including expert medical opinion, supported a 12 percent rating of the employee’s loss of range of motion to the right knee and the associated award of permanent partial disability benefits.
MEDICAL TREATMENT & EXPENSE - MEDICAL MILEAGE; MEDICAL TREATMENT & EXPENSE – REASONABLE & NECESSARY. Substantial evidence, including lay testimony, medical records, and expert medical opinion, supports the compensation judge’s finding that the employee’s treatment in the Deer River area, and the mileage associated with that treatment, were reasonable, necessary, and causally related to the work injury.
REHABILITATION – SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. Substantial evidence, including rehabilitation records, medical records, lay testimony and expert vocational opinion, supported the compensation judge’s award of the expenses of vocational rehabilitation for the period in question.
PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – MATTERS AT ISSUE; INTERVENORS – STANDING. The compensation judge erred as a matter of law in awarding reimbursement to a medical provider which had failed to intervene.
Compensation Judge: Jerome G. Arnold
Attorneys: Mark L. Rodgers, Kristen M. Rodgers, and James H. Perkett, Rodgers Law Office, P.L.L.C., Bemidji, Minnesota, for the Respondent. John S. Pasowicz, McCollum, Crowley, Moschet, Miller & Laak, Ltd., Minneapolis, Minnesota, for the Appellant.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and vacated in part.
SEAN M. QUINN, Judge
The employer and insurer appeal the compensation judge’s award of permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits. They also appeal the compensation judge’s award of medical mileage and certain intervention interests. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and vacate in part.
On November 20, 2014, the employee, Michelle Wilson, tripped over a box while in the course and scope of her employment with the employer, Holiday Stationstore, striking her right knee on the ground. The employee went to the emergency room at Essentia Health – Deer River (Essentia) where she was diagnosed with a non-displaced fracture of her right patella. The employee then began a course of medical care with Dr. Diane Palkert, an orthopedic surgeon, at the Essentia Clinic. Dr. Palkert immobilized the employee’s right knee. By December 16, 2014, the employee had progressed from crutches to a cane, was wearing a knee brace, and was showing improvement in her right knee function with reduced swelling of her right knee. The range of motion of the employee’s right knee showed full extension, with flexion of 90 degrees.[1] X-rays taken indicated normal healing of her knee.
On January 13, 2015, Dr. Palkert released the employee to return to work in a sedentary capacity with no squatting and no kneeling. The employee’s right knee flexion had improved to 110 degrees of motion. Two weeks later, the employee’s right knee flexion had improved to 130 degrees. Dr. Palkert released the employee to medium level work, limiting to four hours per day.
By February 17, 2015, Dr. Palkert noted the employee still had some fatigue with her right knee and trouble squatting. The employee demonstrated full flexion, extension, and strength on examination. Dr. Palkert advised the employee to return to the clinic on an as-needed basis. Dr. Palkert released the employee to return to work without restrictions.
On March 10, 2015, the employee noted she still had pain at the right knee which was worse with activities. Dr. Palkert assessed this pain as probably relating to muscle weakness and recommended more aggressive physical therapy. She measured the employee’s right knee flexion at 140 degrees. Dr. Palkert completed a health care provider report about two weeks later stating the employee had reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) without PPD. When seen on May 7, 2015, the employee told Dr. Palkert she still had the inability to kneel, but otherwise had no right knee pain with walking or doing activities of daily living. She also told Dr. Palkert that she was not engaged in formal physical therapy as she could do the exercises at home.
Mesabi Rehabilitation provided QRC services to the employee from April 8, 2015, through May 13, 2015. The QRC reported that the employer and insurer had approved the initial consultation. The employer and insurer’s attorney wrote to the QRC on April 23, 2015, objecting to rehabilitation services. The QRC then suspended rehabilitation.[2]
After almost a year, the employee returned to Dr. Palkert on February 9, 2016. She demonstrated no swelling of the right knee, as well as full extension and flexion of 145 degrees. X-rays suggested complete healing of the right knee. On February 23, 2016, the employee demonstrated full right knee extension to Dr. Palkert.[3] Dr. Palkert observed no swelling of the employee’s right knee. However, Dr. Palkert suspected a meniscus injury to the employee’s right knee occurring “at the time of her patellar injury.” She recommended an MRI.
An MRI of the employee’s right knee was done at CDI-Deer River on April 25, 2016. The MRI showed complex tearing of the central two-thirds of the lateral meniscus, a small area of a full thickness cartilaginous fissuring of the articular cartilage of the posterolateral tibia, and some mild hypertrophic spurring at the apex of the lateral tibia spine. The employee did not follow up with Dr. Palkert, who had left the Essentia Clinic. The employee testified that she did not see another doctor because she had no insurance. There is no evidence in the record to suggest that any treating doctor reviewed this MRI or made treatment recommendations based upon the results.
Several months later, the employee, at the suggestion of her mother, saw Dr. Bruce Piatt at the Sanford Medical Center in Fargo. The distance from the employee’s home to Dr. Piatt’s office was approximately 175 miles each way.
On the employee’s first visit on February 16, 2017, Dr. Piatt took a history of the employee’s work injury. On exam, he noted the employee had no effusion of the right knee, but the knee was exquisitely tender, with pain on flexion and extension. He did not record any range of motion measurements. He stated that he considered the employee’s symptoms disproportionate to his examination findings.
Dr. Piatt again saw the employee on March 23, 2017. He noted that she had full extension of the right knee, with flexion of 125 degrees, although she complained of pain on resisted right knee extension. Dr. Piatt noted that the employee had crepitus doing knee bends and thought she was suffering from chondromalacia of the patella. Because the previous MRI was about a year old, a new MRI was done on March 27, 2017. It showed a mildly complex tear of the lateral meniscus, mild degenerative changes in the lateral compartment, full thickness retropatellar cartilage fissuring, minor osteophytosis in the medial compartment, and small effusion in the knee joint.
There are no records of any additional medical care of the employee’s right knee after the 2017 MRI. As with the previous MRI, there is no evidence that a treating doctor reviewed the 2017 MRI or made treatment recommendations based upon it.
The employee also had complaints of low back pain which she attributed to altered gait. Consequently, she was referred by her attorney to Dr. Larry Stember, a chiropractor, for an evaluation. During that evaluation, Dr. Stember also examined the employee’s right knee. On April 25, 2017, Dr. Stember sent his report to the employee’s attorney. In that report, he stated that the employee had flexion of 68 degrees of her right knee as measured by computerized inclinometry. Dr. Stember diagnosed a meniscus tear and cartilage fissuring, which he attributed to the work injury. He opined that the employee was entitled to a 12 percent PPD rating pursuant to Minn. R. 5223.0510, subp. 4.A.(1)(c).[4]
Dr. Stember concluded that a patella fracture was not listed under the PPD schedules, and offered a two percent Weber[5] rating, as he opined that a patella fracture was similar to an undisplaced fracture of the plateau as rated under Minn. R. 5223.0510, subp. 2.A.(1). He offered an additional two percent Weber rating for the meniscal tear. Dr. Stember opined that although the employee had not undergone surgical removal of the meniscus, her meniscal tear was equivalent to the rating provided under Minn. R. 5223.0510, subp. 3.B.(1), which applies where up to 50 percent of the meniscal cartilage has been removed.
On August 21, 2017, Dr. Ross Paskoff conducted a medical examination of the employee on behalf of the employer and insurer. Dr. Paskoff measured 135 degrees of flexion of the employee’s right knee. He agreed with Dr. Palkert that the employee was entitled to a zero percent PPD rating for a minor non-displaced right patella fracture with no loss of range of motion. Dr. Paskoff considered the employee’s right knee to have fully healed without any resulting disability.
The employee’s attorney had the employee evaluated by Dr. Vern Prochaska, who saw her on March 15, 2018. Dr. Prochaska measured the range of motion of the employee’s right knee and measured flexion at 84 degrees. Dr. Prochaska diagnosed a healed, non-displaced fracture of the right patella, but also diagnosed symptomatic chondromalacia of the right patella and degenerative changes of the right knee including a meniscal tear. He attributed these conditions, as well as the employee’s loss of range of motion, to the work injury.
Dr. Prochaska, like Dr. Stember, found the employee had a 12 percent PPD due to loss of range of motion. Also, like Dr. Stember, Dr. Prochaska offered a two percent Weber rating for the employee’s unscheduled patella fracture, which he considered to be similar to a fracture of either the tibial plateau or femoral condyle, which are rated at two percent under Minn. R. 5223.0510, subps. 2.A.(1) and 2.B.(1), respectively.
Dr. Prochaska submitted a follow-up letter on August 9, 2018, in which he retracted the two percent Weber rating, noting that a patella fracture was not unrated, instead, Minn. R. 5223.0510, subp. 3.I., provides a zero percent rating for a patella fracture.
On November 27, 2018, the matter came on for a hearing before a compensation judge. Issues included whether the employee was entitled to temporary partial disability benefits and whether she suffered a consequential low back injury. In his Findings and Order issued on February 20, 2019, the compensation judge denied both the wage loss and low back injury claims. No appeal was taken from that portion of the Findings and Order.
Also, at issue was the appropriate PPD rating for the employee’s injured right knee. At the hearing, the employee testified that she received temporary total disability benefits during her initial time off work but eventually returned to work without restrictions. She described ongoing symptoms of cracking sounds when bending, trouble standing up from a squat, aching at night, difficulty going up and down stairs, and difficulty kneeling. She also testified that her right knee had never been free of symptoms since the work injury and that she still used a cane to walk on slippery surfaces. The compensation judge found the employee was entitled to a Weber rating of two percent PPD due to her patella fracture, and an additional 12 percent PPD rating under Minn. R. 5223.0510, subp. 4.A.(1)(c), due to her loss of range of motion. The employer and insurer have appealed from the award of PPD benefits.
The remaining issues before the compensation judge were the employee’s claims for medical mileage to and from her doctors in the Deer River and Fargo areas, and the claims of various intervenors.
According to the record before this court, there were five intervenors: Essentia Health, Mesabi Rehabilitation, Itasca Medical Care (Itasca), Sanford Health, and PreferredOne. According to the evidence submitted by the employee, other potential intervenors who were given proper notice included the Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS) and CDI.
Sanford intervened over payment for the services provided by Dr. Piatt in Fargo on February 16, 2017, and March 23, 2017, and the March 27, 2017, MRI. PreferredOne’s intervention claim was predicated on having paid portions of those Sanford charges.
In his Findings and Order, the compensation judge found that the care provided by Essentia was reasonable, necessary, and causally related to the work injury. He awarded their intervention claim. The compensation judge also awarded medical mileage to the employee for her trips to and from her doctors in and around the Deer River area.
The compensation judge did not address the intervention interests of Itasca, but awarded the intervention claims of the DHS, which did not intervene. A close review of the intervention paperwork of Itasca, however, shows that it is a managed care organization affiliated with DHS. Itasca paid for at least part of the services provided to the employee at Essentia.
The compensation judge found Mesabi Rehabilitation provided services which assisted the employee in returning to work and that it was entitled to payment.
The compensation judge found that the care provided by Sanford Health on March 27, 2017, was not compensable, finding that the distance between the employee’s home and the Sanford clinic in Fargo was excessive and that the employee had access to other orthopedic doctors closer to home. As its intervention claim was tied to payments to Sanford Health in Fargo, the compensation judge similarly denied compensation to PreferredOne, again due to the distance between the employee’s home and Fargo. He likewise denied the employee’s claims for medical mileage for her visits to providers in Fargo. However, in a different finding, the compensation judge found that the care provided by Sanford Health was generally reasonable, necessary, and causally related to the work injury.
Although there is no evidence that CDI intervened, the compensation judge found them entitled to payment.
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 contend that the compensation judge erred: 1) in admitting the opinions of Dr. Stember and Dr. Prochaska, 2) in awarding PPD benefits to the employee, 3) in awarding various intervention claims that are not supported by substantial evidence in the record, and 4) in awarding certain medical mileage that is not supported by substantial evidence in the record.
At the hearing below, the employer and insurer objected to the admission of the reports of both Dr. Stember and Dr. Prochaska on the basis that the reports lacked foundation, were duplicative, and violated Minn. Stat. § 176.155. We are not persuaded by the employer and insurer’s arguments.
Minn. Stat. § 176.155 addresses the obligation on the part of an injured employee to attend medical examinations scheduled by the employer and insurer. Neither Dr. Stember nor Dr. Prochaska were hired by the employer and insurer. Instead, they were physicians hired by the employee. Minn. Stat. § 176.155 does not apply in this case.
Both Dr. Stember and Dr. Prochaska conducted an examination of the employee’s right knee, measured her range of motion, and rendered PPD opinions regarding the right knee. The reports are otherwise not duplicative. Moreover, there is no rule prohibiting admission of multiple opinions offered by the same party from different experts.[7] It was within the compensation judge’s discretion whether to admit multiple medical opinions offered by a party. We cannot conclude here the compensation judge abused his discretion in this regard.
As support for their foundational objection, the employer and insurer point out that the foundational letter to Dr. Prochaska was not offered into evidence. Whether a foundational letter is in the record does not, in and of itself, require the conclusion that Dr. Prochaska’s report lacks foundation. Dr. Prochaska’s report sets out the medical records he reviewed, which included the medical records of Dr. Palkert and Dr. Piatt, the report of Dr. Stember, and the report of Dr. Paskoff. Dr. Prochaska also summarized the history he took from the employee, as well as his examination findings. An expert opinion which includes the facts upon which the expert relied and the basis for the opinion is generally sufficient to establish foundation. An opinion need only be based on “enough facts to form a reasonable opinion that is not based on speculation or conjecture.” Gianotti v. Indep. Sch. Dist. 152, 889 N.W.2d 796, 802, 77 W.C.D. 117, 124 (Minn. 2017) (citing Wenner v. Gulf Oil Corp., 264 N.W.2d 374, 381 (Minn. 1978)). There was sufficient foundation for the opinions of both Dr. Stember and Dr. Prochaska. The compensation judge did not abuse his discretion, and did not err as a matter of law, in admitting either report.
The employer and insurer argue the compensation judge erred as a matter of law in awarding the employee benefits for a two percent Weber[8] rating for her right knee. They also allege the compensation judge’s award of 12 percent PPD benefits to the employee for loss of motion of her right knee was not supported by substantial evidence.
As to the two percent Weber rating, we agree with the employer and insurer’s argument on appeal. A Weber rating is used when the employee’s condition is not covered by the disability schedule. It is not used to supplement the rating for a condition which is covered because the rating from the schedule is felt to be inadequate. Clasen v. Pro Floor, Inc., slip op. (W.C.C.A. Mar. 25, 2008). The statute and the Weber decision are not intended to be used in cases where the injuries to a particular part of the body are rated in the schedules but the employee’s objective findings do not satisfy the requirements of the schedules. Warner v. Luther Haven Nursing Home, slip op. (W.C.C.A. Oct. 14, 1993). Minn. R. 5223.0510, subp. 3.I., clearly provides a zero percent rating “for dates of injury on or after August 9, 2010, [for] fracture or dislocation involving the patella not otherwise rated under this subpart, subpart 2, or part 5223.0500 or part 5223.0520 . . .”
The employee alleged there was no rating for a patella fracture, and she should be entitled to a Weber rating for that condition. This argument was initially supported by both Dr. Stember and Dr. Prochaska. However, Dr. Prochaska later retracted that opinion, noting the applicable rule actually did provide a rating for the patella fracture, that rating being zero percent.
Because the rules clearly set out a rating for a patella fracture, the employee is entitled to that rating, and not a Weber rating. Finn v. Homecrest Indus., Inc., 61 W.C.D. 534 (W.C.C.A. 2001). The rating for a patella fracture is zero percent. The compensation judge erred as a matter of law in awarding benefits for a Weber rating of two percent for the patella fracture.
The employer and insurer also appeal from the compensation judge’s finding of a 12 percent rating for the employee’s loss of range of motion pursuant to Minn. R. 5223.0510, subp. 4.A.(1)(c). That rating requires that flexion is limited to between 51 and 90 degrees. Items (a) and (b) of the rule provide a 0 percent rating where flexion is greater than 120 degrees, and a two percent rating where flexion is between 91 and 120 degrees. Dr. Stember, who offered the 12 percent rating, states in his report that he measured the flexion of the employee’s right knee at 68 degrees. Dr. Prochaska, who also rated the employee with a 12 percent permanency under this provision, states that he measured the flexion of the employee’s knee at 84 degrees.
The employer and insurer point out every other recorded measurement since December 2014, a month after the injury, noted flexion of the employee’s right knee at 90 degrees or greater. On January 13, 2015, Dr. Palkert noted the employee’s right knee flexion had improved to 110 degrees. Two weeks after that, on January 27, 2015, it was noted to have improved to 130 degrees, and on March 10, 2015, Dr. Palkert measured right knee flexion at 140 degrees. Dr. Piatt recorded the employee’s right knee flexion as 125 degrees on March 23, 2017. It was just one month later that Dr. Stember measured flexion at only 68 degrees. A few months after that, in August 2017, Dr. Paskoff, the employer and insurer’s medical expert, measured flexion of 135 degrees. Finally, on March 15, 2018, Dr. Prochaska measured right knee flexion at 84 degrees.
The employer and insurer argued below, as they do on appeal, that because the range of motion measurements of Dr. Stember and Dr. Prochaska were completely inconsistent with every other doctor’s range of motion measurement of the employee’s right knee, those measurements should be disregarded. The compensation judge, however, accepted the opinions of Dr. Stember and Prochaska regarding the 12 percent rating. It was for the compensation judge to resolve any inconsistencies in the measurements when determining the employee’s entitlement to PPD benefits. We note that the judge could reasonably have concluded that the most recent measurement, that of Dr. Prochaska, was the most reliable indicator of the employee’s disability resulting from the work injury. Further, while the initial injury to the employee was diagnosed as a patella fracture, which healed without sequalae, there is also evidence of a meniscal tear and of chondromalacia resulting from the employee’s injury. The judge could reasonably have concluded this resulted in reduced flexion of the employee’s knee.[9] Although there was evidence which could reasonably support a contrary finding, substantial evidence supports the compensation judge’s finding, and we will not disturb it on appeal.
We affirm the compensation judge’s award of the intervention interest of Essentia Health. It does not appear that any party disputes the compensability of the care the employee received at Essentia (Dr. Palkert) through February 2015. As to the care after February 2015, the employer and insurer argue that Dr. Palkert released the employee to return to work without restrictions on February 17, 2015, and shortly thereafter completed a health care provider report indicating that no further care was necessary and that no referral for more care was required. They argue that the judge should have denied any claims for medical expenses after that date.
Dr. Palkert did not indicate that the employee’s knee was completely healed and did not require further treatment. Instead, she said the employee should follow up on an as-needed basis. The doctor subsequently treated the employee for her ongoing symptoms and noted no new injuries. By early 2016, Dr. Palkert suspected there might be a meniscus tear from the work injury, a tear that was confirmed by subsequent MRI scans. This directly contradicts the employer and insurer’s argument that causation for the employee’s symptoms was never mentioned by any doctor after February 2015. The compensation judge’s finding that the care for the employee’s right knee provided at Essentia was reasonable, and necessary and causally related to the work injury, is well supported by the record.
For this reason, we also affirm the award of the intervention claims of DHS (Itasca), as the care DHS paid for was associated with the care provided by Essentia.
As to the intervention claims of Sanford[10] and PreferredOne, the compensation judge issued conflicting findings. The judge found that the MRI was unreasonable, that the associated claims of PreferredOne were unreasonable, and the employee’s mileage to Fargo was unreasonable due to the distance between the employee’s home and the clinic in Fargo. Neither the intervenors nor the employee appealed from these findings. However, the judge awarded Sanford’s intervention claims for services other than the MRI. Given his unappealed findings that such care was unreasonable due to the distance involved, we must reverse any part of the compensation judge’s award of reimbursement to Sanford and PreferredOne.[11]
We vacate the compensation judge’s order of payment to CDI. There is no evidence that CDI intervened.
The employer and insurer also appeal from the order to pay the intervention claim of Mesabi Rehabilitation. They argue that there should have been no rehabilitation services provided after Dr. Palkert had released the employee to return to work without work restrictions. Yet, there is evidence that Dr. Palkert also believed at that time that the employee needed additional physical therapy. She documented the employee’s subjective complaints of pain, including difficulty kneeling. Further, there was evidence that the employee’s job with the employer involved kneeling and squatting. From this, the compensation judge could reasonably have concluded that six weeks of rehabilitation services was necessary to assist the employee in her return to work. In addition, we note that the record indicates that the employer and insurer approved the initial consultation, and that services were provided for a period of about six weeks before any objection was made. Because substantial evidence supports the award of the QRC services, we affirm.
The employer and insurer dispute the award of reimbursement to intervenors subsequent to February 17, 2015, when Dr. Palkert released the employee to work without restrictions. On the same basis, they dispute the award of medical mileage to the employee for treatment subsequent to that date. As we noted above, substantial evidence supports the compensation judge’s award of reimbursement to intervenors for the medical care provided in and around the Deer River area. Accordingly, we also affirm the award of the associated mileage to the employee.
We reverse the two percent Weber rating as contrary to law, but affirm the award of 12 percent PPD benefits to the employee for loss of range of motion to her right knee. Likewise, we affirm the compensation judge’s award of payment for the medical care provided in and around the Deer River area, including the award of medical mileage to the employee and the awards to Essentia and DHS (Itasca) for those visits. We affirm the compensation judge’s award of reimbursement to Mesabi Rehabilitation. We reverse the award to Sanford and/or PreferredOne. Finally, we vacate the compensation judge’s award of reimbursement to CDI as unsupported by substantial evidence, as it does not appear CDI ever intervened.
[1] The generally acceptable normal range of motion for knee flexion of an adult is from 0 to 130 degrees. See, Alex Moraz, Physical Therapy (PT): Normal Values for Range of Motion of Joints. In: Merck Manual Professional Version (Robert S. Porter & Justin L. Kaplan, eds., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. 2019) https://www.merckmanuals.com/professional/special-subjects/rehabilitation/physical-therapy-pt (last visited August 9, 2019).
[2] After April 23, 2015, 1.1 additional hours of QRC services were performed by Mesabi amounting to $101.15 in claimed rehabilitation benefits.
[3] No flexion measurement was recorded on this visit.
[4] This rule provides a 12 percent PPD rating where extension is essentially full, but flexion is limited to between 51 and 90 degrees.
[5] Weber v. City of Inver Grove Heights, 461 N.W.2d 918, 43 W.C.D. 471 (Minn. 1990).
[6] Neither Sanford, PreferredOne, nor the employee have appealed from the judge’s denial of these intervention and mileage claims.
[7] Neither common law rules of evidence nor the Minnesota Rules of Evidence apply in workers’ compensation proceedings. Minn. Stat. § 176.411, subd. 1.
[8] Weber was codified under Minn. Stat. § 176.105, subd. 1(c), which provides that “[i]f an injury for which there is objective medical evidence is not rated by the permanent partial disability schedule, the unrated injury must be assigned and compensated for at the rating for the most similar condition that is rated.”
[9] There is also evidence of nearly full flexion after the discovery of this additional damage to the employee’s right knee.
[10] The compensation judge’s statement of the issues refers to a Sanford visit on April 27, 2017. This appears to be a typographical error. There was a visit on March 27, 2017, for the MRI ordered by Dr. Piatt.
[11] The employer and insurer also assert the employee’s switch from Dr. Palkert to Dr.Piatt was an unauthorized change of physician under Minn. R. 5221.0430, subp. 4. However, Minn. R.5221.0430, subp. 2, states the employee may change physicians if conditions beyond her control arise “such as retirement, death, (and/or) cessation from practice of the primary provider.” The employee testified that Dr. Palkert left the Essentia Clinic. This was not an unauthorized change of physician.