EVIDENCE – EXPERT MEDICAL OPINION. The compensation judge did not err by relying upon a well-founded expert medical opinion to support the finding that the employee’s cause of death was electrocution.
ARISING OUT OF & IN THE COURSE OF – SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. Substantial evidence, including adequately founded expert medical opinion, supports the compensation judge’s finding that the employee’s death was caused by electrocution.
Compensation Judge: Sandra J. Grove
Attorneys: Gerald W. Bosch, Bosch Heacox Law Firm, St. Paul, Minnesota, for the Respondent. George W. Kuehner, Jardine, Logan & O’Brien, P.L.L.P., Woodbury, Minnesota, for the Appellants.
Affirmed.
THOMAS J. CHRISTENSON, Judge
The employer and insurer appeal from the compensation judge’s finding that the employee more likely than not died as the result of electrocution. We affirm.
On June 29, 2018, Drew Schwarz, age 33, died while working as an electrical lineman for his employer, Lake Country Power. The employer was insured for workers’ compensation liability by Minnesota Rural Electric Trust with claims administered by CCSMI. The employee’s young daughter was dependent on him for support at the time of his death. Her mother and natural guardian, petitioner Amanda Faulkner, filed a claim for dependency benefits on her behalf, alleging that the employee’s death was caused by electrocution and arose out of and in the course of his employment.
The employee earned his journeyman certificate and was hired by the employer as an electrical lineman in November 2012. He had been in good health without any impairing illnesses or injuries. On June 29, 2018, the employee was working with his supervisor responding to storm-related power outages impacting residents in the area around Willow River Road in Orr, Minnesota. The power lines in this area are 14,400-volt single phase, alternating current electrical distribution lines which carry power from substations to a distribution network. The outage was related to broken phase and neutral lines[1] at the end of a short tap line that branched off the primary distribution line near Willow River Road. The tap line traveled south from the primary line over the road through woods to provide power to cabins and homes located near the end of the tap line. The employee and his supervisor repaired the broken lines and were dispatched to investigate other areas where power outages had been reported.
When the power went out around Willow River Road again, they were dispatched to investigate and repair the outage in the area. After locating the possible source of the outage, they drove to an oil circuit recloser (OCR)[2] and confirmed it was open. The crew removed the cutout between the phase line and OCR, tagged out the line at the utility pole below the OCR, and repaired the broken lines.
Afterward, the employee and his supervisor parked on the south side of Willow River Road near the area where the tap line crossed the road. While looking down the tap line toward the repaired lines, they observed a broken insulator on the second power pole from the road with the phase line suspended between the first and third power poles in from the road. The phase line, which remained connected to the insulator, was hanging over the second power pole in contact with the neutral line and hanging above the ground.
They carried their equipment about 120 to 140 yards to an area six to eight feet from the second power pole. The supervisor observed a frayed wire along the line and told the employee to “hold on”[3] putting on his equipment while he inspected the frayed wire. The supervisor turned and walked away, then heard a groan, followed by a thump. The supervisor found the employee on the ground facing up and unresponsive in the same location. He began CPR and after five minutes called his dispatcher. Orr Ambulance Service was notified of the incident at 6:02 p.m. The supervisor continued to perform CPR, then went back to the truck to retrieve an AED device, which he used twice with no response until the EMS crew arrived at the scene at 6:20 p.m. The EMS crew noted in their medical record that the employee may have suffered electrocution.
Multiple emergency medical services were dispatched to the scene, including a Virginia Fire and Ambulance (VFA) crew which was dispatched for a possible electrocution of a man working on power lines at 6:16 p.m. The VFA crew arrived on scene at 6:45 p.m. and found the employee unresponsive and lying on an ambulance cot with no pulse and with fixed and dilated pupils. They also noted that the cardiac monitor showed “asystole.”[4] A crew from North Memorial Air Ambulance (NMAA) was contacted and sent to assist a power company worker who had grabbed an electrical line. The NMAA crew arrived at 6:47 p.m., placed an intravenous line, and provided two doses of epinephrine to the employee. A physician was called by VFA, and the employee was pronounced dead at 7:00 p.m.[5] The VFA record listed the cause of the employee’s injury as electrocution (non-lightning) with cardiorespiratory arrest being the primary symptom.[6]
The St. Louis County Sheriff’s Office also responded to the scene after a report that a Lake Country Power lineman was possibly electrocuted by a downed power line at 6:02 p.m. One of the deputies reported that the supervisor had heard the employee grunt, then upon turning around, saw him lying on the ground unresponsive next to a downed line. According to the deputy, the supervisor suspected the employee had reached up and touched the hanging line. Another deputy reported that a second crew from the employer arrived on scene and grounded the power line. Because there was no spark when the power line was grounded, the crew believed there was no power in the line at the time of the incident. After testing the line, they found no voltage at the site of the broken insulator on pole one and reported the phase line was lapped over the neutral line on both sides of the broken insulator and was hanging eight feet and four inches from the ground, placing the bottom of the insulator at about seven and a half feet above the ground.
The employer’s director of engineering prepared a memorandum dated July 10, 2018, summarizing the power distribution system using five of the electrical meters near the area of the employee’s accident for the period of June 29 to July 1, 2018. Polling the meters found that the initial power outage occurred at 6:52 a.m. with a temporary line restoration at 4:22 p.m. and another outage of meters two through five at 4:41 p.m. The employee’s supervisor reported that he returned to the area upon learning of the outage at 4:41 p.m. and noticed a broken insulator resting in contact with the neutral conductor at pole one. The meter data for the line providing power to the area was de-energized from 4:41 p.m. on June 29, 2018, to 9:08 a.m. on July 1, 2018. The employer later provided meter usage data from six meters in the area.
Anne Bracey, M.D., the St. Louis County assistant medical examiner, performed an autopsy of the employee on June 30, 2018.[7] The examination, which included a blood drug screening and an examination of the heart by a heart specialist, identified no apparent cause of the employee’s collapse. Dr. Bracey’s postmortem examination revealed two small foci of thermal injury of the right hand, one on the pinky side of the palm and one on the thumb. In the final summary dated August 7, 2018, Dr. Bracey stated, “The circumstances of his death and the thermal injuries on his hands indicate that the decedent did come into contact with an electrical source. The death was therefore classified as [an] accident and attributed to electrocution.” (Ex. E.) Dr. Bracey determined the employee died from electrocution based upon his sudden collapse while working with power lines, the thermal injuries of his right hand on his palm and thumb, and the lack of any competing anatomic or toxicologic cause of death. Dr. Bracey requested an opinion on the employee’s heart condition from Dr. Emily Duncanson, who opined that his heart was structurally normal for his age. The certificate of death was filed with the state registrar on July 1, 2018, stating that the employee’s immediate cause of death was electrocution by accident and naming Dr. Bracey as the medical certifier.
The Minnesota Department of Labor & Industry, Occupational Safety and Health Division, conducted an inspection of the employee’s death from July 2 to December 10, 2018. The investigative report is heavily redacted. The report summarized the incident using investigative records, which included a statement that “[the employee] did come into contact with an electrical source . . ..” (Ex. O.) The report also noted, “No particular electrical source was identified . . ..” (Id.) Based upon the inspection, no citations were proposed or issued to the employer.
Mark W. Kroll, Ph.D., a biomedical engineer, was asked by the employer and insurer’s counsel to provide his opinion on “whether the cause of [the employee’s] death was, in fact, due to electrocution” in a letter dated October 22, 2018. (Ex. 5.) Dr. Kroll replied in a letter dated May 15, 2019, that the employee’s death was not due to an electrocution. He opined that the employee did not sustain a high voltage electrocution, listing four reasons: 1) the employer’s testing found no voltage in the power line, 2) the phase wire would have shorted out because it was in contact with the neutral wire, 3) the employee’s hand did not show evidence of a high voltage injury, and 4) a lack of injury to his feet or damage to his boots. Dr. Kroll further opined that a low voltage electrocution would not have occurred for the following reasons: there was no known source of low voltage in the area, low voltage is unlikely to cause electrocution of a person the size of the employee in a hand-to-foot path, the employee’s boots would not have allowed a return path to establish an electrical circuit, and had he suffered a cardiac arrest due to electricity, defibrillation by the AED would have reversed the arrest. Dr. Kroll further reported that genetic blood testing failed to find any DNA markers identifying a cause of his sudden cardiac death. Dr. Kroll issued supplemental reports dated January 20 and May 30, 2025, restating and affirming his opinions.
Charles C. Gornick, M.D., a cardiologist and electrophysiologist, performed a medical record review at the request of the petitioner’s counsel, and issued a report dated May 11, 2022. Dr. Gornick noted the grunting sound made by the employee was consistent with electrical energy entering the deceased body, his coincidental collapse was consistent with cardiac arrest caused by electrical energy fibrillating the heart, and the associated acute respiratory arrest could also have occurred with an electrical injury. Dr. Gornick reported that the use of the AED was too late for successful resuscitation to occur and disagreed with Dr. Kroll’s assessment that the employee died of a spontaneous cardiac arrest, stating such an event is rare for a healthy 33-year-old and improbable based on the totality of the circumstances.
At the request of the petitioner’s counsel, James M. Orosz, a professional engineer, issued a report on the cause of the employee’s death on August 18, 2022. Mr. Orosz opined that the employee was electrocuted based upon the thermal burns on his right hand being consistent with electrical shock. He also noted that the electrical current, not electrical voltage, causes electric shock. Mr. Orosz theorized that an improperly wired generator on a customer’s property could backfeed[8] into a de-energized incident wire and provide the amount of electric current to electrocute a person. Based upon his review of the employer’s meter polling data, Mr. Orosz identified two properties which could have been the source of improperly wired generators causing backfeed and resulting in electrical current in the line contacted by the employee.
The owners of one of the properties had been interviewed by the deputies from the St. Louis County Sheriff’s Office on July 2, 2018. The owners reported that during the power outage on June 29, 2018, they used a small portable propane generator to supply power to two refrigerators and a freezer using three extension cords.
The owners of the other property were contacted by the employer and provided a statement dated December 14, 2022, asserting that there was no electrical generator or backup source of power in operation in June 2018. Mr. Orosz prepared a supplemental report dated October 30, 2024, reviewing the meter data for this property, which showed the initial power outage on June 29, 2018, at 8:00 a.m., but did not record the power restoration later in the day. Engineers from the meters’ manufacturer were contacted and he learned the meter was not set to identify backfeeding power and registered a meter code different than the other five meters tested during the power outage. Mr. Orosz stated that a generator at that location was likely the source of the power backfeeding the wire which caused the employee’s electrocution. Further, he indicated the other meters would probably not register an abnormality because the power created by the generator in relation to the grid would not cause enough voltage to be registered by another meter but would be sufficient to generate enough current to cause a shock.[9] He prepared another supplemental report dated May 5, 2025, affirming his opinions.
A claim petition was filed by the petitioner on August 17, 2019. The employer and insurer denied primary liability for the employee’s death by electrocution in their answer filed on August 22, 2019. On July 6, 2021, the petitioner filed an amended claim petition. The claims were heard by a compensation judge on June 16, 2025. The principal issue before the compensation judge at hearing was whether the cause of the employee’s death on June 29, 2018, was electrocution. In Findings and Order dated September 3, 2025, the compensation judge found “that the employee more likely than not died as the result of electrocution” based upon the “totality of the evidence.” (Finding 30.)[10] The employer and insurer appeal.
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). When the findings are supported by substantial evidence, the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals must defer to the compensation judge. Lagasse v. Horton, 982 N.W.2d 189, 202 (Minn. 2022). 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.” N. States Power Co. v. Lyon Food Prods., Inc., 304 Minn. 196, 201, 229 N.W.2d 521, 524 (1975); see also Smith v. Carver Cnty., 931 N.W.2d 390, 79 W.C.D. 495 (Minn. 2019).
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); see also Busch v. Advanced Maint., 659 N.W.2d 772, 778-79 (Minn. 2003).
The Minnesota Supreme Court established that one of the purposes of the Workers’ Compensation Act is to compensate surviving dependents for their loss suffered when an employee is accidentally killed or dies from compensable injuries. Reichert v. Victory Granite Co., 249 Minn. 407, 82 N.W.2d 497, 19 W.C.D. 141 (1957). An employer is obligated to pay workers’ compensation benefits “in every case of personal injury or death of an employee arising out of and in the course of employment without regard to the question of negligence. The burden of proof of these facts is on the employee.” Minn. Stat. § 176.021, subd. 1; Nelson v. City of St. Paul, 249 Minn. 53, 81 N.W.2d 272, 19 W.C.D. 120 (1957). The employer and insurer contend on appeal that Dr. Bracey’s opinion on the employee’s cause of death by electrocution lacked foundation and that she was not qualified to make that determination. The employer and insurer also assert there is no evidence to establish a causal connection between the employee’s death by electrocution and his work on June 29, 2018, and instead argue that his death was caused by a sudden, unexplained, unprovoked, or idiopathic[11] cardiac arrest. Further, they argue that the petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof that the employee was electrocuted, and that the decision of the compensation judge was premised on speculation and not supported by substantial evidence in the record. We disagree and affirm.
In this case, the compensation judge relied on the expert medical opinion of Dr. Bracey, witness testimony, and documentary evidence to reach the ultimate determination that the employee’s death was more likely than not caused by electrocution. The employer and insurer contend that the opinion of Dr. Bracey contained in her autopsy report and the certificate of death lacks foundation because the petitioner did not provide evidence of Dr. Bracey’s background or training. The petitioner maintains that Dr. Bracey’s opinion is adequately founded and that substantial evidence, including that opinion, supports the compensation judge’s finding that the employee died as a result of electrocution.
Based on the examination of the employee during the autopsy performed on June 30, 2018, Dr. Bracey determined he had died by accident and attributed his cause of death to electrocution. She listed his sudden collapse while working with power lines, the thermal injuries of his right hand on his palm and thumb, and the lack of any competing anatomic or toxicologic cause of death as reasons for her determination. Dr. Bracey also noted that a heart specialist had examined the employee’s heart and had opined that it was structurally normal for his age. The certificate of death[12] was issued on July 1, 2018, listing electrocution as the immediate cause of death. “An expert opinion lacks adequate foundation when the opinion does not include the facts upon which the expert is relying in forming the opinion, there is no explanation of the basis for the opinion, or the facts assumed by the expert are not supported by the evidence.” Erickson v. Grand Itasca Clinic & Hosp., No. WC21-6413 (W.C.C.A. Nov. 16, 2021) (citing Hudson v. Trillium Staffing, 896 N.W.2d 536, 540, 77 W.C.D. 437, 442 (Minn. 2017)). The foundation for Dr. Bracey’s opinion includes her performing the autopsy, the examination and analysis of blood samples, skin, and the heart, and her position as an assistant medical examiner for St. Louis County. Dr. Bracey had adequate foundation for her opinion as to the cause of the employee’s death.
The employer and insurer also assert that Dr. Bracey was not qualified to provide an opinion relating the employee’s cause of death to electrocution. When reviewing a determination as to expert qualification, reversal is appropriate only upon a clear abuse of discretion. Mattick v. Hy-Vee Foods Stores, 898 N.W.2d 616, 621, 77 W.C.D. 617, 624 (Minn. 2017); Teffeteller v. Univ. of Minn., 645 N.W.2d 420, 427 (Minn. 2002). The competency of an expert witness “depends upon both the degree of the witness’ scientific knowledge and the extent of the witness’ practical experience with the matter which is the subject of the offered testimony.” Reinhardt v. Colton, 337 N.W.2d 88, 93 (Minn. 1983). This issue, however, goes to the weight to be given to the opinion, and not to admissibility. See Ruether v. State, 455 N.W.2d 475, 42 W.C.D. 1118 (Minn. 1990). Further, an objection to the qualifications of a witness to render an opinion must be made upon admission of the testimony or report. See Willy v. Nw. Airlines Corp., 77 W.C.D. 349, 355 (W.C.C.A. 2016) (citing Weis v. Clinton Elec. Co., slip op. (W.C.C.A. Oct. 10, 1997)), summarily aff’d (Minn. May 10, 2017). Here, the employer and insurer did not object to the admission of the autopsy report or the certificate of death at the hearing.[13] At best, any contention relating to Dr. Bracey’s qualifications to determine the employee’s cause of death by electrocution is limited to the weight given to the autopsy report and certificate of death by the compensation judge. The compensation judge did not abuse her discretion in relying on Dr. Bracey’s report and the certificate of death in determining the employee’s cause of death.
The employer and insurer argue that the compensation judge’s determination that the employee died of electrocution is manifestly contrary to the evidence and is not supported by substantial evidence in the record, and contend that the employee died from an unexplained cardiac arrest.[14] They make several factual arguments to support their assertion that the evidence clearly shows that the employee could not have been electrocuted.[15] Whether an injury arose out of and in the course of employment is generally a question of fact for the compensation judge. Rondeau v. Metro. Council, 58 W.C.D. 338, 342 (W.C.C.A. 1998) (citing Franze v. Nat’l Delivery Serv., 49 W.C.D. 148 (W.C.C.A. 1993), summarily aff’d (Minn. Aug. 25, 1993)). The phrase “arising out of” requires evidence of a causal connection between the injury and the employment, while the phrase “in the course of employment” refers to the time, place, and circumstances of the injury. Foley v. Honeywell, Inc., 488 N.W.2d 268, 271-72 (Minn. 1992) (citing Gibberd v. Control Data Corp., 424 N.W.2d 776, 780, 40 W.C.D. 1040, 1047 (Minn. 1988)); see also Lange v. Minneapolis-St. Paul Metro. Airports Comm’n, 257 Minn. 54, 99 N.W.2d 915, 21 W.C.D. 61 (1959). The requisite causal connection exists where “the employment, by reason of its nature, obligations or incidents may reasonably be found to be the source of the injury-producing hazard.” Nelson, 249 Minn. at 55, 81 N.W.2d at 275, 19 W.C.D. at 123.
In a workers’ compensation case, an employee’s death which follows “as a natural incident of the work” arises out of employment. Novack v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 158 Minn. 495, 498, 198 N.W. 290, 292, 2 W.C.D. 156, 159 (1924); see also Foley, 488 N.W.2d at 272. There is no requirement that employment must be the proximate cause of the injury or death, only a contributing cause. Gibberd v. Control Data Corp., 424 N.W.2d 776, 780, 40 W.C.D. 1040, 1047 (Minn. 1988); Hanson v. Robitshek-Schneider Co., 209 Minn. 596, 598-99, 297 N.W. 19, 21, 11 W.C.D. 463, 466 (1941). An employee shows the requisite causal connection between a work injury and employment when exposed to “a hazard, such as an external hazard, a special hazard, an unsafe condition, or a neutral condition with circumstances originating on the premises as part of the working environment that increased the employee’s risk of injury.” Olson v. Total Specialty Contracting, Inc., No. WC23-6510 (W.C.C.A. Nov. 9, 2023), summarily aff’d (Minn. July 8, 2024); see also Tomah v. Good Samaritan Soc’y, No. WC21-6436 (W.C.C.A. Mar. 31, 2022) (citing Dykhoff v. Xcel Energy, 840 N.W.2d 821, 73 W.C.D. 865 (Minn. 2013); Roller-Dick v. CentraCare Health Sys., 916 N.W.2d 373, 78 W.C.D. 483 (Minn. 2018)). On June 29, 2018, the employee faced an increased risk of exposure to electrical current during his work as an electrical lineman outdoors in hot, humid conditions.[16] In addition, Dr. Bracey opined that the employee died from electrocution based upon his sudden collapse while working with power lines, the thermal injuries on his right hand, and the lack of evidence for any other cause. Conflicts in expert opinions and other evidence regarding the causal connection between an employee’s work and a claimed work injury are resolved by the compensation judge. Nord v. City of Cook, 360 N.W.2d 337, 37 W.C.D. 364 (Minn. 1985).
After reviewing the record in this matter, we conclude the compensation judge did not err in accepting and relying upon the adequately founded opinion of Dr. Bracey. In addition, the judge relied on the opinion of Dr. Gornick that the suddenness of the employee’s death was consistent with electrocution and on the opinion of Mr. Orosz which explained the potential for electrical shock injuries during a power outage. Where evidence is conflicting or more than one inference may reasonably be drawn from the evidence, the findings of the judge are to be upheld. Redgate v. Sroga’s Standard Serv., 421 N.W.2d 729, 40 W.C.D. 948 (Minn. 1988). Considering the totality of the evidence in this case, we conclude the compensation judge’s finding that the employee’s cause of death was more likely than not caused by electrocution is supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, we affirm.
[1] Phase (“hot”) and neutral lines are not insulated and are mounted on wooden poles using ceramic insulators.
[2] Distribution lines run through oil circuit reclosers mounted on power poles. An OCR will open to stop the flow of electric current in the event of a downed line or short circuit.
[3] The supervisor testified that he told the employee to “hold on” (T. 177) or “hold it” (T. 187).
[4] The definition of “asystole” is the “absence of a heartbeat.” Dorland’s Illustrated Medical Dictionary, 167 (33rd ed. 2020).
[5] Minn. Stat. § 390.012 provides: “The coroner or medical examiner of the county in which a person dies or is pronounced dead shall have jurisdiction over the death, regardless of where any injury that resulted in the death occurred. The place where death is pronounced is deemed to be the place where death occurred.”
[6] The NMAA crew recorded the primary complaint as cardiac arrest and the secondary complaint as electrocution.
[7] Minn. Stat. § 390.005, subd. 1, requires every county have a coroner or medical examiner. A medical examiner is required to be a forensic pathologist who is certified or eligible for certification by the American Board of Pathology and “is an appointed public official in a system of death investigation in which the administrative control, the determination of the extent of the examination, need for autopsy, and the filing of the cause and manner of death information with the state registrar pursuant to section 144.221 are all under control of the medical examiner.” Minn. Stat. § 390.005, subd. 3(a).
[8] Transformers are designed to function in one direction only and transformers can also operate in reverse resulting in electrical voltage to run from the property side of the transformer to the power line.
[9] A photograph of the meter at this property showed outlets below the meter.
[10] The compensation judge issued an amended findings and order dated September 4, 2025, to add additional statements to Finding 28 regarding the testimony from a witness that was missing from the recording of the hearing. The parties also noted additional missing testimony and agreed to supplement the record with an email agreement attached to the appellant’s brief which summarized the missing testimony from the engineering director during cross-examination. We grant the parties’ joint request that the court accept this addendum as part of the record on appeal. The petitioner’s attorney also offered to provide the court with his opening statement because a portion of the statement given at the hearing was also missing, which the court did not request.
[11] “Idiopathic” is defined as “of unknown cause or spontaneous origin.” Dorland’s Illustrated Medical Dictionary, 901 (33rd ed. 2020). As used in workers’ compensation case law, the word “idiopathic” is used to refer to an injury or disease of unknown cause or origin or to describe an injury resulting from a pre-existing or underlying condition, infirmity, or disease personal to the employee. See Zweber v. Rosemount, Inc., 419 N.W.2d 70, 40 W.C.D. 771 (Minn. 1988); Grunst v. Immanuel-St. Joseph Hosp., 424 N.W.2d 66, 40 W.C.D. 1130 (Minn. 1988); Spinks v. Ecowater Sys., 65 W.C.D. 32 (W.C.C.A. 2005).
[12] A certificate of death is prima facie evidence of the cause of death that may be contradicted and explained. Harris v. Wood, 214 Minn. 492, 497, 8 N.W.2d 818, 821 (1943).
[13] At hearing, the employer and insurer did not introduce a medical opinion contrary to that of Dr. Bracey, but introduced the opinion of Dr. Kroll, who is a bioelectrical engineer and not a medical doctor. The employer and insurer maintain Dr. Kroll’s resume shows his expertise in the bioelectrical field and in evaluating electrocution death cases. The qualifications of Dr. Kroll to provide a medical opinion on the cause of death is unclear based upon the record before us.
[14] The employer and insurer further argue that the compensation judge’s findings were not based upon a thorough review of the evidence submitted by the parties. We disagree. The compensation judge reviewed the extensive record in this matter and made factual findings on the issue of whether the employee’s cause of death was electrocution. The judge made numerous references to the evidentiary record and explained her reasoning in the memorandum. The fact that the judge did not reference all the evidence favoring the employer and insurer’s position in her decision does not establish that the evidence was not considered or was overlooked. See Rothwell v. Minn. Dep’t of Nat’l Res., slip op. (W.C.C.A. Dec. 6, 1993); Braun v. St. John’s Univ., slip op. (W.C.C.A. July 20, 1992) (a compensation judge is not required to relate or discuss every piece of evidence introduced at the hearing).
[15] The employer and insurer assert that the employee was not electrocuted because the monitors in the area where he died registered no electrical current, there was no proven source of electrical generation in the area, the phase and neutral wires in the area were grounded, the phase and neutral wires touching on the insulator of pole two would have caused a short in the line, any electrical contact with an electrical current would have been low voltage, and any contact with an electrical current would have been reversible with CPR or AED defibrillation. They also contend that the employee would have followed proper procedure and the supervisor’s verbal instruction to hold on while he checked the frayed wire further down the line, and that the timing and location where he was found do not support the conclusion that he contacted the wire hanging from the broken insulator at pole two. The compensation judge was not persuaded by the employer and insurer’s factual arguments.
[16] The Minnesota Supreme Court has addressed the difficulty of determining the circumstances of an unwitnessed electrocution in a negligence case. In discussing the question of the employee’s alleged negligence, the court observed:
In the present case no one saw the accident. How it happened must be gathered, if it can be done, from the circumstances and situation shown. Circumstantial evidence may be, but is not ordinarily, conclusive. Ordinarily such evidence presents a question of fact for the jury or trier of facts. We are dealing with electricity, a silent and unseen force. Neither sight nor hearing could detect it.
Fitch v. City of Blue Earth, 180 Minn. 125, 129, 230 N.W. 469, 471 (1930).