JUAN MARTINEZ MENCHACA, Employee/Respondent, v. DAIRY FARMERS OF AM., Self-Insured Employer/Appellant, and VOCATIONAL RESTORATION SERVS., and PREMIER HEALTH OF S. MINNEAPOLIS and HUTCHINSON HEALTH, Intervenors.

The self-insured employer appeals from the compensation judge’s award of benefits to the employee, asserting that the decision does not conform to the requirements set forth in Minn. Stat. § 176.371, and that the findings contain errors of law and are not supported by the evidence.  We affirm.

The employee, Juan Martinez, was born in Mexico in 1962.  He attended college in Mexico studying mechanical engineering but moved to the United States before his degree was completed.  After arriving in the United States, the employee worked as an agricultural laborer, as a mechanic for Green Giant, for a Christmas tree supplier, on a production line at Michael Foods, and at Unidoor Corporation making doors. The employee began work for the self-insured employer, Dairy Farmers of America, in January 2019.

In some of his prior employments, the employee sustained work injuries.  On April 20, 2012, while working at Michael Foods, the employee sustained an admitted injury to his right arm.  He underwent surgical repair for a comminuted intra-articular fracture of the distal radius on May 8, 2012.  At a functional capacities evaluation in 2013, the employee reported left- sided neck, shoulder and back soreness related to using primarily his left upper extremity for his work and home tasks after injuring his right arm.  On April 16, 2013, Dr. David Gesensway noted the employee had severe dysfunction in the right wrist as well as evidence of significant functional overlay on exam.

The employee subsequently began working at Unidoor Corporation in January 2016. On October 3, 2016, he sustained a work injury to his left shoulder and neck.  The employee reported pain from his neck on the left to his trapezius.  A cervical MRI on December 15, 2016, showed multilevel degenerative disc disease at C4-5 and C6-7, including disc osteophyte complex, mild narrowing of the spinal canal, and posterior disc bulge or disc osteophyte complex and foraminal narrowing with possible impingement of the C7 nerve roots at C6-7.

The employee settled his claims from the April 20, 2012, injury and an Award on Stipulation was issued on April 15, 2017.  Later the same year, he entered into a settlement regarding the October 3, 2016, injury, for which an Award on Stipulation was served and filed on August 28, 2017.  He was represented in both claims by the same attorney who represents him in the present case.

The employee was seen at Allina Health on May 14, 2018, for back pain and leg pain.  He was diagnosed with degenerative disc disease with disc protrusions at L4-5 and L5-S1.

In January 2019, the employee began working for Dairy Farmers of America in its milking room. His job duties regularly included repetitive lifting of boxes of butter weighing 55 pounds.  He would occasionally perform packaging or stack boxes of oil and buckets of condensed milk on a production line.  Prior to the work injury, the employee did not have physical restrictions and was able to perform all the tasks of this job.

The employee testified that on April 3, 2020, he slipped on a substance on the floor and fell at work.  He landed on his back and on the back of his head and right shoulder.  The following day, the employee was seen by a chiropractor, Dr. Jorge Hernandez, at Premier Health of South Minneapolis, at the suggestion of his attorney.  The employee reported pain in his right shoulder, neck, back and arm, since falling at work the previous day.  He told Dr. Hernandez that he had previously injured his neck and left arm in 2018, and his right wrist in “2013” but that he could recall no other traumatic injuries and had been discharged without residual issues or ongoing treatment following those injuries.  Dr. Hernandez noted that the employee’s right shoulder range of motion was 60 percent limited.  He took the employee off work.

The employer initially admitted liability and paid temporary total disability benefits. The employer also initiated surveillance of the employee’s activities.  The surveillance was performed over three days in July 2020.  A brief video summary was compiled which shows the employee driving and engaging in various errands.  In the video, he is seen standing, walking, ascending stairs, partially bending at the waist, and leaning into the trunk and passenger seat of a vehicle.

On June 30, 2020, Dr. William Simonet conducted an independent medical evaluation (IME) on behalf of the employer to assess the employee’s complaints.  The employee attended with a translator.  Dr. Simonet issued a report dated August 11, 2020.  His report states that the employee identified his worst problem as headaches, and his next complaint as neck pain along with an inability to turn his neck to the right.  The employee also noted some pain into his right shoulder but not down his arm, although he claimed to have numbness and tingling in both hands.  The employee also complained of upper and lower back pain.  Dr. Simonet’s diagnostic impressions included neck pain and low back pain without evidence of radiculopathy, symptoms out of proportion to objective findings, a history of cigarette smoking and obesity, and deconditioning.  Dr. Simonet found positive Waddell’s signs which he considered could indicate symptom amplification for secondary gain purposes and malingering.  He found no medical evidence that the employee sustained an injury on April 3, 2020, and opined that the employee required no additional medical treatment or work restrictions.

In July 2020, the employee began treating with Dr. Erik Ekstrom at Summit Orthopedics.  When seen on July 8, 2020, he complained of worsening pain in his neck, radiating into his right shoulder, as well as back pain and headaches.  He rated his pain at a level of 10 out of 10.  MRI scans were ordered and showed multilevel spondylosis without stenosis in the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine.  The lumbar spine MRI also showed moderate left neural foraminal narrowing at L4-5 with nerve root encroachment, narrowing of the left lateral recess with encroachment on the traversing left L5 nerve roots, and mild to moderate discogenic endplate edema.  Physical therapy was recommended, but the employee did not pursue that treatment.  He was restricted to strictly sedentary work in August 2020.  The employee underwent an injection to his right shoulder on October 28, 2020, from which he obtained significant relief for a limited duration.

Dr. Ekstrom referred the employee to Dr. Tilok Ghose for his ongoing right shoulder symptoms.  Dr. Ghose ordered MRI scans of the employee’s cervical spine and right shoulder.  Based upon those scans and a clinic visit on January 5, 2021, Dr. Ghose opined that the employee’s shoulder symptoms were a result of severe glenohumeral arthritis and that his neck symptoms were the result of cervical spine stenosis.  The employee continued to treat with Dr. Ekstrom, who recommended another surgical opinion for the right shoulder and additional steroid injections.  The employee underwent an injection at the C7-T1 level on February 24, 2021, and another injection to his right shoulder on March 10, 2021.

Dr. Ekstrom issued a narrative report dated February 8, 2021.  His diagnoses included cervicalgia, cervical facet joint edema, cervical spondylosis with facet arthropathy and foraminal narrowing, right shoulder impingement, mid-back pain with thoracic spondylosis, lumbago with lumbar radiculopathy, and lumbar endplate edema with possible correlation of vertebrogenic pain.  Dr. Ekstrom opined that the employee suffered permanent injuries as a result of the April 3, 2020, slip and fall for which he would require ongoing medical treatment and work restrictions.

Relying on the medical opinion of Dr. Simonet and the video surveillance, the employer discontinued the employee’s wage loss benefits and filed a request to discontinue vocational rehabilitation benefits.  The employee filed an objection to the proposed discontinuance.  The issues were consolidated and considered at hearing by a compensation judge on May 11 and May 20, 2021.  In her Findings and Order, filed July 19, 2021, the compensation judge found that the employee suffered a work-related injury as a result of a slip and fall at work on April 3, 2020, that the employee continues to suffer the effects of that injury and requires work restrictions, that he remains qualified for vocational rehabilitation benefits, and that the intervening medical providers’ bills are payable.  The employer 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.”^[1]  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.”^[2]  Where evidence conflicts or more than one inference may reasonably be drawn from the evidence, the findings are to be affirmed.^[3]  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.”^[4]

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.^[5]

On appeal, the employer requests a remand, asserting that the compensation judge’s decision does not comply with the requirements of Minn. Stat. § 176.371.  In the alternative, the employer seeks reversal of the compensation judge’s decision, asserting that substantial evidence does not support a finding that the employee continues to suffer from the effects of the work injury and requires work restrictions. 

Minn. Stat. § 176.371 provides, in pertinent part, that:

The employer argues that the decision does not conform to this statutory provision, noting that the compensation judge did not make an explicit finding as to the employee’s credibility, nor did she then discuss the question of credibility in her memorandum.

This statute does not require specific findings on every area of possible factual disagreement between the parties, only that the decision include a determination of the “contested issues."  A requirement that all of the conflicting evidence be discussed in detail and that every conceivable area of factual disagreement be specifically identified and resolved would in many complex cases be untenable.  Here, the parties agreed at the inception of the hearing that there were seven issues presented for decision by the compensation judge.  They can be summarized as whether the employee had sustained a work injury on the date claimed, whether the effects of that injury remained ongoing, whether the employee was temporarily and totally disabled for the period claimed, whether vocational rehabilitation should be discontinued, whether the claims of various intervenors were payable, and whether the claims of a potential intervenor should be extinguished for failure to intervene.  The compensation judge specifically resolved each of these issues in her Findings and Order.

We acknowledge that a case may in fact implicitly present issues beyond those set out in a list of “issues presented,” and that a discussion of those matters in the findings or a memorandum may be necessary.  The employer’s contention that the employee might be less than fully credible was essentially an argument going to the weight to be given to those portions of the evidence which consisted of or were based on the employee’s statements or testimony. The question of the employee’s credibility does not rise to the level of an “issue” or, arguably, even a “question of fact” in this case.

In addition, the question of whether the employee’s testimony was insufficiently credible to support the judge’s findings was adequately “disposed of” or determined by the judge’s findings as a whole.  The compensation judge specifically found that the employee sustained a work injury on April 3, 2020, from which he continues to suffer effects.  She noted that there was no evidence that the employee had any significant right shoulder injury or physical limitations prior to the injury of April 3, 2020, and concluded that the medical records of Dr. Ekstrom and Dr. Ghose supported the employee’s testimony in demonstrating that there had been ongoing pain and physical limitation in the neck and shoulder since the injury.^[6]  While no explicit finding on credibility was made, a determination regarding the employee’s credibility is implicit in this reasoning.

The appellant contends that, in any event, a memorandum is required by the statute whenever there are questions of credibility.  We disagree.  The statute indicates that a memorandum is required “only if necessary to delineate the reasons for the decision or to discuss the credibility of witnesses.”  We read this language as requiring a memorandum deal with the credibility of witnesses “only if necessary,” and not as requiring a memorandum be prepared whenever there is disputed witness testimony.  Under the facts of this case, the compensation judge could reasonably conclude that the question of credibility here did not require a detailed discussion by way of a memorandum.  The compensation judge was not required to make an explicit finding, nor was she required to specifically discuss credibility in her memorandum.^[7]

The assessment of a witness’s credibility is a unique function of the trier of fact,^[8] and where that assessment is supported by evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate, we must defer to it.  It is not the role of this court to reevaluate the credibility and probative value of a witness’s testimony or to choose different inferences than those of the compensation judge.^[9]  The compensation judge reasonably relied upon the statements made by the employee, as the person most familiar with the severity of his condition and physical symptoms.^[10]

The employer points to alleged inconsistencies in the employee’s recollection of past physical symptoms or varying levels of reported or exhibited pain.  However, it is the role of the factfinder, not this court, to reconcile such issues.  In making findings, the judge was not required to accept or reject the employee’s testimony in its entirety, but rather, was free to “accept all or only part of” his testimony.^[11]  While the employer may have preferred a more detailed explanation and analysis of the evidence and testimony offered at hearing, the compensation judge was not obligated to refer to every piece of evidence introduced.^[12]  The decision of the compensation judge in this matter is sufficient for review by this court and complies with the requirements set forth in Minn. Stat. § 176.371.

We further conclude that, contrary to the employer’s assertions, substantial evidence in the record does support the compensation judge’s finding that the employee sustained a work injury on April 3, 2020, from which he continues to suffer effects.  The compensation judge relied not just upon the employee’s testimony, which she implicitly found to be credible, but also on the expert medical opinion of Dr. Ekstrom, which the judge considered more persuasive than that of Dr. Simonet.  Dr. Ekstrom’s opinion was adequately founded and the compensation judge was accordingly within her discretion to choose Dr. Ekstrom’s opinion over that of Dr. Simonet.^[13]

Because the employee’s testimony and the expert medical opinion of Dr. Ekstrom support the findings of the compensation judge, and because her decision conforms with Minn. Stat. § 176.371, we affirm.