BRIAN L. ZAK, Employee/Appellant, v. STATE OF MINN. DEP’T OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Self-Insured, Employer/Respondents, and LAKEVILLE COLLISION, INC. and AUTO OWNERS INS. CO., Employer-Insurer/Respondents, and ALLINA MED. CLINIC, RAYUS RADIOLOGY, ST. FRANCIS REG’L MED. CTR., TWIN CITIES SPINE CTR., ABBOTT NW. HOSP., and HEALTHPARTNERS, INC., Intervenors.

The employee appeals from the compensation judge’s finding that the employee’s July 22, 2024, work injury was temporary and resolved.  As the compensation judge’s finding is supported by substantial evidence in the record, we affirm.

The employee, Brian Lee Zak, suffered from childhood back problems including spondylolisthesis at L5-S1 with bilateral lytic pars defects, for which he received conservative treatment.  In 2007, the employee suffered a low back injury.  An MRI scan of the employee’s lumbar spine taken at that time showed the pars defect, mild arthropathy, and the potential for synovitis.  (DVA Ex. 6 at CAH 00558.)  The employee treated regularly for low back pain through 2016.

The employee worked for Lakeville Collision, Inc. (Lakeville), as an automobile painter.  In his work for Lakeville, the employee performed heavy lifting and duties that involved significant twisting and bending.  The employee was able to perform these duties without accommodation.  (T. 41-42.)

On January 14, 2020, the employee injured his low back while working for Lakeville.  As a result of the 2020 injury, the employee experienced severe low back pain, which radiated into his left leg.  The employee underwent steroid injections which did not reduce the employee’s low back pain.  On June 9, 2020, the employee underwent anterior/posterior fusion and decompression surgery at L5-S1.  The surgery resolved the radiating pain problem, but the employee continued to experience lumbar pain and limitations in work ability.  On several occasions, the employee sought medical care for low back pain and took opioid medications to address his continuing low back pain symptoms.  On March 3, 2021, the employee was examined for complaints of significant low back pain radiating into his legs bilaterally.  On February 9, 2022, the employee underwent an MRI scan which showed no neural impingement at the fusion site.

In 2021, the employee entered into a settlement with Lakeville, that was full, final, and complete for permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits and to-date for wage loss and rehabilitation claims.  In 2022, the parties agreed to resolve all claims on a full, final, and complete basis, reserving additional/future surgery to the low back/lumbar spine arising from the January 14, 2020, work injury.

In September 2023, the employee left his employment with Lakeville to work as a cook for Carlton College.  While in that position, the employee obtained an accommodation to his work shifts to address ongoing back pain.  On April 24, 2024, the employee began working for the State of Minnesota-Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) as a cook at the Hastings Veterans Home.  On July 22, 2024, the employee slipped on a wet floor at work and fell on his back.  The employee described hearing “a pop” and suffering intense pain, radiating into both legs.  The employee was immediately examined, fitted for a TLSO brace, and provided pain medication.  A CT scan indicated a fractured pedicle screw at right S1 and possible loosening of the S1 screws bilaterally.  The condition of the fusion was unclear from the imaging.

On August 1, 2024, the employee was examined by Manuel Pinto, M.D., at Twin Cities Spine Center.  Dr. Pinto diagnosed possible pseudoarthritis and attributed responsibility for the employee’s current condition equally between the 2020 and 2024 work injuries.  The employee underwent revision surgery conducted by Dr. Pinto on December 20, 2024.  Following the surgery, Dr. Pinto assessed the fusion and the L5 screws as solid, and the S1 screws as grossly loose on the left and fractured on the right.  The employee continued to complain of low back pain and pain radiating to his legs bilaterally.

On February 18, 2025, Mary Dunn, M.D., conducted an expert medical examination of the employee on behalf of the DVA.  Dr. Dunn assessed the employee as engaging in symptom magnification.  Dr. Dunn opined that the employee’s July 22, 2024, work injury was temporary, and the injury resolved not later than six weeks after the December 2024 surgery.  She considered the employee’s PPD rating unchanged by the 2024 work injury.  Dr. Dunn opined that the employee’s current condition was 100% attributable to the 2020 work injury.  (DVA Ex. 3.)  Dr. Dunn supplemented her opinion to allocate the costs of medical treatment over the six-week period following the December 2024 surgery equally between Lakeville and the DVA.  (DVA Ex. 4.)

On April 9, 2025, the employee underwent an MRI scan of his lumber spine.  The imaging was interpreted as showing mild foraminal narrowing on the left at L5-S1 and no impingement on the right side.  Terence Panvica, PA-C, assessed the imaging as showing “no evidence for any significant neural compression that can clearly explain [the employee’s] bilateral symptoms.”  (Ex. B1 at CAH01484.)  PA-C Panvica referred the employee for chronic pain management and released him to light work with lifting and positioning restrictions.

On May 14, 2025, Dr. Pinto provided a medical opinion regarding the employee’s condition and need for ongoing care.  He opined that the 2020 work injury was a permanent aggravation of the employee’s preexisting low back condition resulting in the 2020 fusion surgery.  He assessed the 2024 work injury as a substantial contributing cause of the employee’s need for revision surgery.  Dr. Pinto did not offer a diagnosis to indicate why the employee was exhibiting continued pain symptoms, as no neural impingement was observed at the fusion site.  Dr. Pinto concluded that the employee was not at maximum medical improvement (MMI) and that the employee’s current work restrictions arose from the 2024 work injury.  (Ex. A.)

On June 26, 2025, Dr. David Carlson conducted an expert medical examination of the employee on behalf of Lakeville.  Dr. Carlson assessed the employee as not fully recovered from the 2020 fusion surgery.  Nevertheless, Dr. Carlson considered the employee at MMI from the 2020 injury as of June 9, 2021.  Dr. Carlson considered the employee’s July 22, 2024, work injury as temporary and resolved by September 16, 2024, without any increase in PPD.  The screw fracture was not, in his opinion, caused by the 2024 work injury.  Dr. Carlson also considered the employee capable of working with a 25-pound lifting restriction.  Dr. Carlson apportioned the employee’s recent care 75 percent attributable to the 2024 work injury and 25 percent to the 2020 work injury.  (Lakeville Ex. 5.)

The employee filed a claim petition and an objection to discontinuance.  These proceedings were consolidated at the Court of Administrative Hearings (CAH).  On August 13, 2025, the matter came on for hearing before a compensation judge.  The employee maintained that his current need for treatment arose from the 2024 work injury at the DVA.  The DVA maintained that the 2024 work injury was temporary and resolved.  Lakeville asserted the 2024 work injury was a superseding intervening cause that was responsible for all of the employee’s condition and need for care from July 22, 2024, onward.  Both the employee and his mother testified.

The compensation judge explicitly found that the employee’s testimony was “earnest but unreliable.”  (Finding 35.)  No finding was made regarding the credibility of the employee’s mother.  Relying on the opinion of Dr. Dunn, the compensation judge found the employee reached MMI on February 6, 2025 (the end of the recovery period from Dr. Pinto’s revision surgery).  The July 22, 2024, work injury was found to be a temporary aggravation of the employee’s preexisting back condition.  The compensation judge awarded treatment costs through February 6, 2025, allocated equally between Lakeville and the DVA.  Medical costs incurred after February 6, 2025, were attributed solely to the 2020 work injury.  The compensation judge awarded TTD benefits from February 1 to February 6, 2024.  The 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).  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 employee raises six issues in his notice of appeal:  (1) whether the compensation judge committed error by failing to consider the testimony of the employee’s mother and failing to make a finding regarding her testimony; (2) whether the compensation judge committed error by finding the employee testified inconsistently without considering the testimony of his mother; (3) whether the compensation judge committed error by finding the employee suffered a temporary aggravation of his preexisting back condition, and had reached MMI when she failed to consider the testimony of his mother; (4) whether the compensation judge committed error by adopting the opinion of Dr. Dunn because she failed to consider the testimony of the employee’s mother; (5) whether the compensation judge committed error by extinguishing the potential intervention interests of Mayo Clinic, Minnesota Department of Human Services, Rise Medical Cannabis Dispensary, Green Goods, Hanger Orthotics, and the Hartford for failing to intervene; and (6) whether the compensation judge’s findings of fact and order are clearly erroneous and are unsupported by substantial evidence in light of the entire record.^[1]

The employee notes that the compensation judge failed to make a credibility determination regarding the employee’s mother.  For that reason, the employee contends that the compensation judge failed to consider that evidence and this failure is reversible error.  Lakeville and its insurer, Auto Owners Insurance Company, assert that the compensation judge was under no obligation to make explicit findings regarding the testimony of a witness and that the compensation judge’s decision was supported by substantial evidence.  The self-insured DVA points to Finding 12 where the compensation judge cited the testimony of the employee’s mother as demonstrating that the testimony was considered.  The DVA contends that substantial evidence supports the compensation judge’s decision.

In this case, the compensation judge explicitly found the employee’s testimony insufficient to demonstrate that the 2024 work injury was the substantial cause of the employee’s low back condition after February 6, 2025.  While the employee’s mother also testified, her observations were of the employee’s displayed symptoms.  In essence, this testimony is corroboration, not evidence independent of the employee’s own testimony.

This court has previously considered the adequacy of findings where a compensation judge has not explicitly mentioned a witness in a findings and order.  In Hall v. U.S. Steel Corp., this court held:

The evidence cited by the employee was entered into the record through testimony before the compensation judge and was contained in some of the medical record exhibits introduced at hearing.  As this court stated in Handeland v. Target Corp.: “The absence of a reference to evidence does not mean that the evidence was not considered.  We note that ‘[a] compensation judge is not required to refer to or discuss every piece of evidence introduced at the hearing.’”^[3]  As such, the failure to refer to a fact witness’s testimony in the findings and order does not constitute reversible error.

The employee also argued that the compensation judge’s determination was not supported by substantial evidence.  This argument relies on an assessment of the testimony of the employee and his mother, the employee’s medical record, and the opinion of the employee’s treating physician, Dr. Pinto.

Resolving conflicts in evidence is within the province of the compensation judge.  The conclusion of the compensation judge will not be disturbed where that conclusion is supported by substantial evidence in the record.  Hengemuhle, 358 N.W.2d at 59, 37 W.C.D. at 239.  A well-founded medical opinion has been long held to be sufficient support to meet the substantial evidence standard.  As the trier of fact, the compensation judge has discretion to choose between competing and conflicting medical experts’ reports and opinions.  Ruether v. State of Minn., 455 N.W.2d 475, 478, 42 W.C.D. 1118, 1122 (Minn. 1990); Nord v. City of Cook, 360 N.W.2d 337, 342-43, 37 W.C.D. 364, 372-73 (Minn. 1985); Gianotti v. Indep. Sch. Dist. 152, 889 N.W.2d 796, 803, 77 W.C.D. 117, 126 (Minn. 2017).

Whether an aggravation of a preexisting condition is temporary or permanent is not solely a medical issue.  See Palmquist v. Onan Corp., 482 N.W.2d 791, 46 W.C.D. 440 (Minn. 1992).  In this case, the compensation judge considered the employee’s long-standing preexisting lumbar spine condition, his history of symptoms, and his subsequent medical treatment in concluding that the employee’s 2020 work injury was a permanent aggravation of that underlying condition.  Similarly, the compensation judge considered the employee’s symptomology following the 2020 fusion surgery in concluding that the 2024 work injury was a temporary aggravation of the employee’s preexisting condition which resolved by February 6, 2025.  As the conclusions of the compensation judge are supported by the employee’s medical record and the well-founded opinions of Dr. Dunn, substantial evidence supports the compensation judge’s determinations.  See Mattick v. Hy-Vee Foods Stores, 898 N.W.2d 616, 77 W.C.D. 617 (Minn. 2017).

Based on the analysis above, we affirm the compensation judge’s findings of fact and conclusions of law under the substantial evidence rule in accordance with the standards set out in Lagasse, N. States Power Co., and Hengemuhle.