RAUL CASTANEDA, Employee/Appellant, v. MCNEILUS COS. and GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVS., INC., Employer-Insurer/Respondents, and S. COUNTRY HEALTH ALL., MAYO CLINIC, OWATONNA HOSP., and ALLINA MED. CLINIC, Intervenors.

The pro se employee appeals from the compensation judge’s findings that the employee did not sustain work-related injuries to specific parts of his body on March 17 and/or March 24, 2020.  We affirm.

The employee, Raul Castaneda, began working for the employer, McNeilus Companies, in the summer of 2019.  He worked as a roller machine operator, operating a large machine that rolled out various-sized sheets of metal for use in commercial vehicles.

When he started working for the employer, the employee had prior injuries.  He was involved in a head-on motor vehicle accident in December 2012, resulting in neck, right shoulder, right elbow, and right wrist injuries for which he underwent right rotator cuff surgery in 2014.  He had also injured his low back while working for a different employer in 2015, and sought chiropractic care with Robert Daschner, D.C., of Waseca Family Chiropractic following this incident.  In 2017, the employee was treated for symptoms resembling carpal tunnel syndrome.  The employee continued to seek chiropractic care through June 2019.

On March 23, 2020, the employee submitted a two-week notice of resignation to the employer.

The employee testified that in early March 2020,^[1] he sustained injuries to his neck, back, and right shoulder after a sheet of metal fell and hit the employee, causing him to fall.  He also testified he ended up on the floor and was taken to the employer’s first-aid station by co-workers.  He did not report the injury, he did not seek medical treatment, and he did not miss time from work following the incident.^[2]

On March 24, 2020, the employee slipped on a piece of metal on the floor and fell.  He caught himself on his right hand and rolled onto his elbow.  He complained of right wrist and right elbow injuries.  A first report of injury was prepared on March 25, 2020.  That same day, the employee submitted a letter to the employer asking to withdraw his two-weeks’ notice and to continue working the same job on a different shift.  The employer rejected the employee’s request to revoke his resignation.

On March 26, 2020, the employee attempted to enter the workplace to begin work.  The employer called the sheriff’s office; when deputies arrived, they were advised by the employer that there was a “mutual agreement” for separation of employment.^[3]  After speaking with the deputies, the employee left the property without further incident.

On March 27, 2020, the employee saw Dr. Daschner.  The employee reported pain in his hip, lower back, head, neck, wrist, and right arm.  He reported he had sustained two different work injuries while working for the employer: the first injury occurring the second week of March when a grabber on a vertical roller machine dropped a large, heavy sheet of metal which hit the employee in the head, and the second injury occurring on March 24, 2020, when he slipped on a sheet of metal and fell forward onto his right arm.  He denied any “true radicular-type symptoms,” weakness in his arms or leg, or loss of consciousness.^[4]

On April 30, 2020, at a medical visit at Mayo Clinic, the employee reported right wrist pain, shoulder pain and numbness in his right hand and fingertips.  He reported that he had been doing factory work over the last several years and doing “a lot of repetitive movement with his right hand.”^[5]  He reported having had chronic right shoulder and hand pain, as well as wrist pain, for the last few years which had worsened recently.^[6]

At an appointment with Dr. Daschner on May 2, 2020, the employee reported increased low back and neck pain after changing car tires.

At a May 7, 2020, Mayo Clinic visit, the employee complained of right upper extremity symptoms and reported that he injured his right shoulder in a 2012 motor vehicle accident and that his shoulder had not improved following his 2014 surgery.  A May 9, 2020, chiropractic visit note states that the employee had reported his pain worsened when he tried to run and play with a puppy.  He thought his pain was mainly due to sleep posture.  An MRI scan performed on May 13, 2020, showed some tendinopathy of the supraspinatus and some chronic mild AC joint arthritis and developmental type-II configuration of the anterior acromion.

The employee was seen again by Dr. Daschner on May 23, 2020, who diagnosed the employee with ongoing residuals of the motor vehicle injury to his neck, upper back, and mid and lower lumbar region.

On June 2, 2020, an EMG showed old or chronic mild right radiculopathy with no acute cervical radiculitis.  On September 15, 2020, MRI scans of the lumbar spine and of the cervical spine were taken.  Findings for the lumbar spine showed moderate L5-S1 disc degeneration, with chronic moderate to severe right lateral to far-lateral foraminal stenosis and L5 ganglion and postganglionic nerve impingement, and mild left foraminal stenosis. There was moderately advanced L4-5 disc degeneration with chronic moderate left/mild right subarticular and mild bilateral foraminal stenosis and contact of the left and encroachment on the right L5 roots.  At L3-4, there was moderate disc desiccation and bulging with a right ventral high intensity annular fissure, mild right foraminal stenosis and no impingement.  At L2-3, there was spondylosis with right asymmetric bulging causing only mild foraminal encroachment without impingement, and findings indicative of bilateral femoroacetabular impingement with right greater than left hypertrophic changes at the superolateral acetabular margins, increased lateral center-stage angles and over coverage of the femoral heads.

The employee’s cervical spine showed moderate to moderately advanced disc degeneration at C3-4 through C6-7, right asymmetric osteophyte and broad-based protrusion/bulge at C5-6 with chronic moderate right asymmetric central stenosis and cord impingement/deformation and mild-moderate left foraminal stenosis, with left C6 root contact, chronic mild central and severe left/moderately severe right foraminal stenosis at C3-4 with bilateral C4 root impingement.  There was also moderate facet arthropathy on the right at C2-3 and bilaterally at C7-T1 with chronic moderately severe right foraminal stenosis/C3 root impingement at C2-3.  Chronic mild central and moderate, left/mild-moderate right foraminal stenosis at C4-5 with left C5 root contact/impingement and chronic mild bilateral foraminal stenosis at C6-7 without impingement was noted.

Dr. Daschner wrote a letter to Dr. Jackson Maddux on November 17, 2020, assessing the employee’s condition.  Dr. Daschner diagnosed the employee with cervical, lumbar, and right shoulder sprain/strain with associated neuritis, myalgia, and cervicogenic headaches.  He opined this was an aggravation of the employee’s previous motor vehicle accident right shoulder injury.

At the request of the employer and insurer, the employee was evaluated by Dr. Mark Friedland on December 3, 2020.  In his report, dated December 3, 2020, Dr. Friedland diagnosed the employee as status post right shoulder arthroscopic supraspinatus tendon repair as a result of a December 2013 surgery, with MRI scan findings for typical residual supraspinatus and infraspinatus tendinopathy without frank acute tears; right elbow lateral epicondylitis by MRI scan findings, chronic right carpal tunnel syndrome as documented in an EMG from June 6, 2017; and chronic age-related multilevel cervical and lumbar degenerative disc disease without evidence of acute traumatic structural pathology per MRI findings from September 15, 2020.  Dr. Friedland opined that, at most, the employee might have sustained a minor and temporary left gluteal contusion as a result of the earlier March 2020 work injury, and a minor and temporary right wrist strain as a result of the alleged March 24, 2020, injury.  He also opined that the medical records were inconsistent with the claimed injuries due to the absence of any type of acute traumatic pathology.  In his opinion, any temporary right wrist, right elbow, and left lumbar contusion had objectively fully resolved and the employee had reached maximum medical improvement as of December 3, 2020.

A hearing was held before a compensation judge on November 19, 2021.  The employee appeared pro se.  Dr. Robert Daschner testified on behalf of the employee.  In the Findings and Order served and filed on January 18, 2022, the compensation judge determined that the employee failed to establish that he sustained work-related injuries to his right shoulder, neck, and low back on or about March 17, and/or March 24, 2020.  The employee’s claims were denied.  The pro se employee appeals the decision of the compensation judge.

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.”^[7]  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.”^[8]  Where evidence conflicts or more than one inference may reasonably be drawn from the evidence, the findings are to be affirmed.^[9]  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.”^[10]

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.^[11]

The employee appeals the compensation judge’s determination that the employee did not sustain work-related injuries on March 17^[12] and/or March 24, 2020, to his right shoulder, neck, or low back.  The employer and insurer assert that there are no issues for this court to consider on appeal because the employee failed to properly appeal any findings or orders.  They further argue that substantial evidence supports the compensation judge’s denial of benefits.

The employer and insurer argue that the appeal should be dismissed because the notice of appeal inadequately identified the issues and those inadequacies were not cured by the appellant’s brief.  When acting pro se, an appellant “is usually accorded some leeway in attempting to comply with court rules.”^[13]  The question is whether the appellant adequately communicated the issues to be litigated.^[14]  Here, the employee filed a sufficient description of his objections to the compensation judge’s findings and order in the notice of appeal.  As the employee has adequately identified the issues, the employer and insurer’s request to dismiss the appeal is denied.

We note that the employee seeks to raise several issues outside the jurisdiction of this court.  In his brief, the employee requests that this court appoint an investigator, asserting there may be a criminal case due to “fraudulent and unlawful work termination.”^[15]  Workers’ compensation courts have limited jurisdiction which is restricted by and outlined in the Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Act (Minn. Stat. Ch. 176), and Chapter 9800 of the Minnesota Rules.^[16]  The powers of the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals on appeal are limited to those set forth in Minn. Stat. § 176.421.  We have no authority to address allegations of criminal conduct, or to initiate investigations.  Therefore, we decline to address the employee’s request for a criminal inquiry.

The employee asserts that several coworkers witnessed the initial March 2020 work incident.  He alleges that photos were taken by a supervisor’s assistant showing the metal sheet that hit him, and notes that these photos were not provided as evidence.^[17]  This court’s review on appeal from the findings and order of a compensation judge is limited to the evidence submitted at hearing. ^[18]  Because the witnesses listed in the employee’s brief did not testify before the compensation judge, this court cannot consider such evidence on appeal.^[19]

The employee argues that his medical records demonstrated the compensability of his injuries.  He requests in his brief that “all [his] Dr. Robert Daschner treatments be read since his first treatment day.”  A compensation judge is free to accept all or part of a medical expert opinion and to accept all or parts of different medical opinions.^[20]  As we noted above, our appellate review is limited to assessing whether substantial evidence exists to support the conclusion reached by the judge.^[21]  The compensation judge found it significant that the employee was able to work continuously through the date of his resignation.  He sought ongoing medical treatment and claimed impairment from work due to a work injury only when his request to revoke his resignation was rejected.

We conclude that the compensation judge’s finding that the employee failed to establish he sustained work-related injuries on March 17 and/or March 24, 2020, is supported by substantial evidence.  Because the record supports the denial of workers’ compensation benefits, the decision of the compensation judge is affirmed.