ROWDA IBRAHIM, Employee/Appellant, v. PRESBYTERIAN HOMES AND SERVS., and BERKLEY RISK ADMRS., Employer-Insurer/Respondents, and NORAN NEUROLOGICAL CLINIC and HEALTHPARTNERS, Intervenors.

The pro se employee appeals the compensation judge’s finding denying her claim for benefits.  Substantial evidence supports the judge’s findings and we affirm.

Rowda Ibrahim, the pro se employee,^[1] worked as a dietary aide for Presbyterian Homes, the employer, beginning in March 2017.  On June 13, 2017, the employee fell at work, landing on her knees and hand and hitting her forehead on the floor.  Two days later, she sought care at Healthworks and was diagnosed with contusions of her forehead, left hand, and bilateral knees.  She denied memory issues or headache.  The next day, she returned to Healthworks with complaints of head pain, headache, occasional blurry vision on her left eye, and left knee pain.  The employee’s symptoms continued to improve, and it was anticipated that she would reach maximum medical improvement (MMI) by June 29, 2017.  However, on June 29, 2017, she returned complaining of pain on the left forehead, posterior neck, and left knee.  She also complained of dizziness and balance issues.  Due to the headache pain, the employee was referred to a neurologist and underwent a brain CT scan on June 29, 2017, the results of which were normal.

The employee saw neurologist Chris Evans, M.D., at the Noran Neurological Clinic beginning in July 2017.  Initially, his assessment was neck pain, neuritis supra-orbital, and cervicogenic headaches.  Over the next four months, the assessment expanded to include blurred vision, dizziness, and cognitive changes.  By February 2018, the employee’s complaints continued and expanded again to include abdominal pain and urinary problems, which she indicated began at the time of injury.  She also complained of left knee and thigh pain.  On examination in July 2018, Dr. Evans noted a normal cervical range of motion with spasm.  He ordered an MRI of the neck in September 2018.  The radiologist reported disc degeneration with left paracentral disc protrusion without nerve impingement.  (Ex. E, Oct. 2, 2018).  Dr. Evans diagnosed the employee with a herniated disc at C6-7 with no nerve impingement and no radiculopathy.  As the employee’s symptoms were ongoing, Dr. Evans concluded that her injury was permanent.

The employee was also examined by Dr. Janice Sinclair, of Northwest Eye Clinic, who concluded that there was no evidence of an ocular injury or cause for the employee’s headaches.  Over the course of the next nine months, the employee saw multiple medical specialists with complaints of increasing dizziness, headache pain, restricted neck motion, neck pain, shoulder pain, left-sided arm pain, left knee pain, difficulty swallowing, low back pain, abdominal pain, and urinary problems which she claimed to have noticed after the work injury.  She also complained of nausea, photophobia, and mild balance issues.  She also felt that she was unable to spell and read as well as she did before the work injury.  During this same time, the employee sought physical therapy with Courage Kenny with no improvement. She also was seen at Saunders Therapy Centers where she reported pain everywhere on her body, except the left posterior thoracic region.  She was discharged having made no progress in pain control, strength, or mobility.  Notes state that she was always pleasant and smiling, picking up her purse with ease and moving quite well despite the subjective report of high pain levels.  The University of Minnesota neuro-ophthalmic consult on December 7, 2017, revealed no evidence of convergence insufficiency.  On February 2, 2018, it was noted that the employee was hypersensitive to touch so manual therapy had not worked.  It was also noted that she displayed inorganic signs of pain.

On March 10, 2018, the employee suffered a second work injury at Presbyterian Homes when a resident in a power wheelchair backed over her right foot.  She felt pain and her foot became swollen. She sought treatment at the Mercy Hospital emergency department where x-rays taken of the right foot showed no fracture.  Due to ongoing pain, she underwent an MRI on May 10, 2018, which showed swelling, but no sign of a tendon or ligament injury.  An ultrasound on April 13, 2018, showed no evidence of deep vein thrombosis.  She was diagnosed with a contusion of the right foot and was released to work with restrictions limiting her to sitting work only.  Matthew Butterfield, M.D., of Twin Cities Orthopedics examined the employee on May 17, 2018.  He diagnosed her with a crush injury and prescribed a CAM walker and physical therapy.  From June to August 2018, the employee attended physical therapy complaining of difficulty walking, muscle weakness, and ankle pain.  She was discharged due to functional limits caused by pain in August 2018.

In May 2018, the employee was under surveillance.  The video footage showed the employee repeatedly walking back and forth from her parked vehicle to a building.  She was seen pushing and pulling a wheeled cart filled with food and other items.  Wearing sandals with heels, she walked with ease pulling the full cart up an incline.  She posed for photographs, including standing and sitting on the ground without apparent difficulty changing positions.  In the video, she displayed no abnormal gait or difficulty walking, muscle weakness, or ankle pain.  She moved her body, including her neck, with what appeared to be a normal range of motion.^[2]

The employee was seen by podiatrist James Mazzuca, D.P.M., on June 28, 2018, for an independent medical examination.  Dr. Mazzuca diagnosed her with an apparent contusion secondary to blunt force trauma to the right foot related to the March 10, 2018, injury.  After viewing the video surveillance, he concluded that her subjective complaints of pain and functional limitations did not coincide with the observations of her activities captured on the video of May 12, 2018.  He opined that she suffered from no residual disability, there was no need for additional medical treatment, and that the employee had reached MMI with no permanent partial disability rating.  Based on the surveillance video, which Dr. Mazzuca described as showing that the employee can perform ambulatory activities without any evidence of pain or limitation, he concluded that she required no restriction on activity.

Neurologist Frederick Strobl, M.D., also saw the employee for an independent medical examination.  He reviewed the medical records, examined the employee, and took a history.  He noted that the initial neurological medical examination was normal with no traumatic brain injury, no early memory issues, no loss of consciousness, and a normal CT scan of the brain.  When the employee sought care three days after the injury on June 16, 2017, she had new complaints of head pain and vision disturbances which Dr. Strobel concluded were not consistent with the context of her injury.  He opined that she suffered mild injuries of skin contusions with no structural abnormalities.  He also viewed the surveillance video and remarked that the employee had good function.  Though she sustained a mild injury to the left hand, forehead and knees, he concluded that she had no brain injury and no restrictions.  After reviewing the October 2, 2018, MRI of the cervical spine, Dr. Strobl wrote a supplemental report confirming his earlier opinion.

Dr. Evans reviewed Dr. Strobl’s report and disagreed with that assessment.  He emphasized that the employee suffered from a herniated disc at the C6-7 level and that the surveillance video did not show the employee using her full range of motion of the neck.

The matter went to hearing on September 11, 2019, to address three issues:  whether the employee was entitled to temporary total disability (TTD) benefits from August 31, 2018, forward, whether the intervention claims for medical treatment were reasonable, necessary, and causally related to the work injuries, and whether the employee was entitled to a vocational rehabilitation consultation.  The compensation judge found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the employee failed to establish entitlement to TTD benefits and a vocational rehabilitation consultation, and denied reimbursement of the intervention claims.  In her memorandum, the judge explained that the employee’s testimony was not credible or reliable.  The pro se 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 submits a five-page letter on her own behalf.  She raises complaints regarding settlement negotiation, alleges a promise by her attorney that she would win at trial, and alleges mistreatment from her attorney after she lost.  She outlines issues she has with the surveillance video submitted at hearing, disputing the timeline according to when she suffered injury and when she was suffering from which symptoms.

In response, the employer and insurer argue that the judge’s credibility determination and choice of medical expert opinion, should be affirmed by this court.  They further argue that the employee’s argument regrading surveillance evidence is beyond the record on review and should be disregarded.

The compensation judge explained the basis for her findings and denial of benefits.  She determined that the employee was not credible or reliable and that the employee’s account to her treating doctors was very different from her functional ability captured by surveillance video.  The judge also noted that diagnostic imaging was normal, and that despite extensive treatment, the employee’s condition worsened over time.  The judge determined that the opinions of Drs. Mazzuca and Strobl were persuasive in concluding that the employee was without restriction or limitation.

Based on our review of the record, we conclude that the compensation judge’s findings and her denial of the employee’s claims are supported by substantial evidence.

“Assessment of a witnesses’ credibility is the unique function of the trier of fact.”  Even v. Kraft, Inc., 445 N.W.2d 831, 835, 42 W.C.D. 220, 225 (Minn. 1989).  As a general rule, it is not this court’s role to evaluate the credibility of a witness.  Redgate v. Sroga’s Standard Serv., 421 N.W.2d 729, 734, 40 W.C.D. 948, 957 (Minn. 1988).  Here, the record, including the surveillance video and medical treatment records, show that the employee was functionally able to move in ways inconsistent with her subjective complaints during office visits with her doctors and physical therapist.  The employee is observed on video walking, moving, pulling, pushing, and lifting, all while wearing a heeled sandal.  Yet, the contemporaneous medical treatment notes reflect that the employee reported difficulty walking, muscle weakness, lower leg numbness, worsening symptoms, and dizziness.  Upon review of the evidence in this case, there is adequate support for the judge’s credibility determination.

The judge also adopted the opinions of Drs. Mazzuca and Strobl, who opined that the employee was able to work without restriction having suffered minor injuries.  Both opinions are well founded.  Each doctor examined the employee, reviewed multiple medical records, and took a history from the employee.  After reviewing the surveillance video, they concluded that the employee was functional, that she could perform ambulatory activities without any evidence of pain or limitation, and was in no need of further medical treatment.  A judge’s decision to adopt one medical opinion over another is usually upheld unless the facts assumed by the expert are not supported by the evidence.  See Nord v. City of Cook, 360 N.W.2d 337, 37 W.C.D. 364 (Minn. 1985).  The judge did not err in adopting the opinions of Drs. Mazzuca and Strobl.

The employee also raises issues that were not raised at the hearing or in her notice of appeal, and therefore cannot be considered by this court.  Minn. Stat. § 176.421, subd. 6; Minn. R. 9800.0900, subp. 1.

For reasons stated above, we affirm the compensation judge’s decision.