This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2014). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A15-1144 State of Minnesota, Respondent,

vs. Gregory Mark Bowles, Appellant Filed May 31, 2016 Affirmed Worke, Judge Stearns County District Court File No. 73-CR-13-3289 Lori Swanson, Attorney Genera l, Robert A. Plesha, Assistan t Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Julie Loftus Nelson, Assistant Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota Considered and decided by Worke, Presiding Judge ; Reilly, Judge; and Smith, Tracy, Judge. U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N WORKE , Judge Appellant challenges his third-degree assa ult conviction, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to show that he inflicte d substantial bodily harm. We affirm.2 D E C I S I O N A jury found appellant Gregory Mark Bowl es guilty of third- and fifth-degree assault and two counts of terroristic threats. Bowles challenges th e sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his conviction of third-de gree assault, arguing that the victim’s injuries do not constitute s ubstantial bodily harm. When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, this cour t reviews “the record to determine whether the eviden ce, when viewed in a lightmost favorable to the conviction,” is sufficient to allow the jury to reach the verdict that it did. State v. Webb , 440 N.W.2d 426, 430 (Minn. 19 89). This court will not dist urb the verdict if the jury, “acting with due regard for the presumpti on of innocence and fo r the necessity of overcoming it by proof beyond a reasonable doub t, could reasonably conclude that [the appellant] was proven guilty of the offense charged.” Bernhardt v. State , 684 N.W.2d 465, 476–77 (Minn. 2004) (q uotation omitted). This court assumes that “the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelie ved any evidence to the contrary.” State v. Moore , 438 N.W.2d 101, 108 (Minn. 1989). “Whoever assaults another and inflicts s ubstantial bodily harm” is guilty of thirddegree assault. Minn. Stat. § 609.223, subd. 1 (2012). Substa ntial bodily harm is “bodily injury which involves a temporary but substa ntial disfigurement, or which causes a temporary but substantial loss or impairment of the function of a ny bodily member or organ, or which causes a fractur e of any bodily member.” Mi nn. Stat. § 609.02, subd. 7a (2012).3 Here, when Bowles was a patient in a ho spital, A.O., a behavioral-health case manager, was called to calm him down. A. O. calmed Bowles, but he had a second outburst. During the second outburst, Bowles struck A.O. so hard that she flew backwards and hit her head. At Bowles’s ju ry trial, A.O. testified that she suffered bruises and a concussion. Bowles claims that A.O.’s concussion does not amount to substa ntial bodily harm because she “never lost consciou sness.” But while Bowles cites State v. Larkin , for the proposition that a temporary loss of consciousn ess amounts to substan tial bodily harm, he cites no caselaw that states that a victim must lose consciousness in order to suffer substantial bodily harm. See 620 N.W.2d 335, 337 (M inn. App. 2001). Bowles also discounts A.O.’s testimony that she suffered a concussion, claiming that an MRI and a CT scan showed no injuries. But, fo r purposes of our review, we assume that the jury belie ved A.O.’s testimony. See Moore , 438 N.W.2d at 108. Further, other evidence corroborated A.O.’s statem ent that she suffered a concussion. A.O. testified that she had an MRI and her diagnosis was “closed head injury, which means injury to [her] brain.” Dr. John Mertz testified that he treated A.O. for a “fairly large hematoma [over] her occipital area,” meaning “blood in between the skin and the skull on the b ack of the head.” While a CT of A.O.’s head did not show any acute injuries, Dr. Mertz explained that a co ncussion may not be obse rvable on a CT. Dr. Mertz defined a concussion as “a head injury that you don’t see any observable lesions on the CT from that injury , and so we think that the injuries are microsc opic, that they’re not large enough to see but they definitely have their effects.” A.O. testified regarding the4 “effects” of her concussion—a terrible headache and the inability to think, concentrate, or

rest. Bowles further claims that A.O.’s injuri es were “only temporary.” But under the statute, substantial bodily harm means “ temporary but substantial disfigurement, or [injury] which causes a temporary but substantial loss or impa irment of the function of any bodily member or organ.” Minn. Stat. § 609.02, subd. 7a (emphasis added). There is no requirement that the injury re sult in permanent impairment. See, e.g. , State v. Carlson , 369 N.W.2d 326, 327–28 (M inn. App. 1985) (holding two black eyes, a bloody nose, bruises, and scratches cons titute substantial bodily harm), review denied (Minn. July 26, 1985). A.O. suffered substantial bodily harm; he r injury temporarily, but substantially, impaired the function of her brain. See State v. Ayala , No. A13-2322, 2014 WL 7236931, at *3 (Minn. App. Dec. 22, 2014 ) (stating that substantial bodily harm established by evidence of he ad injury that caused bl eeding, a laceration, and a hematoma, and that while concussions are difficult to diagnose “especially in the immediate aftermath of a head injury,” recu rring headaches could be consistent with a mild concussion), review denied (Minn. Mar. 17, 2015); In re Welfare of W.O. , No. A10- 1535, 2011 WL 12375 58, at *2 (Minn. App. Apr. 5, 2011) (stating that head wounds carry the extra risk of concussion that are not always immediately apparent), review denied (Minn. June 14, 2011). Affirmed.