Court Opinion

ID: 9854389
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:06:58.656611+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:03.599064
License: Public Domain

ANDERSON, PAUL H.
(dissenting).
DISSENT
I respectfully dissent. Admittedly, this is a close case and, if I were the original trier of fact, I might well reach the same conclusion as the WCCA and the majority. But this case is before us on appellate review, so we are restrained by the appropriate standard of review. The WCCA is to affirm the findings of fact of a compensation judge unless the findings are “clearly erroneous and unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted.” Minn.Stat. § 176.421, subd. 1(3). Here, the record shows that there is substantial evidence to support the compensation judge’s decision and therefore his decision is not clearly erroneous and should be affirmed.
In this case, as in most workers’ compensation cases, there was conflicting expert testimony, and for that reason the WCCA and the majority have erred when they either explicitly or implicitly conclude *446that most of the facts are undisputed. Garrison testified and the compensation judge concluded that Varda had specific physical limitations that would place some limitations on her employability as an RN. Specifically, the compensation judge concluded:
As indicated in the Findings above, the employee is faced with a substantial delay if in fact she were to attempt to enter the 2-year program at Hibbing Community College. Further[,j as indicated by Ms. Garrison, testifying on behalf of the employee, in all likelihood [the] 2-year program would require an additional half-year of schooling. Of more significance, however, is that without a BA degree, without the 4-year program[,] the employee is not eligible to become a public health nurse or a school nurse. In addition[,] without that 4-year degree the employee in all likelihood would not be eligible to apply for or hold a supervisory nurse position — a position which generally is less physically taxing than the duties performed by a staff nurse. This is of more than passing importance in light of the employee’s rather substantial physical restrictions.
Moreover, I believe that the WCCA erred in its role as a reviewing court when it substituted its findings for those of the compensation judge when it found “that it is essentially uncontroverted that [Varda] will easily be able to obtain physically suitable work, as a[n] RN with a 2-year-degree” (emphasis added). The record shows that it was disputed whether, given her physical limitations, Varda could obtain physically suitable employment after completing the 2-year program at Hibbing Community College.
Given our standard of review, I would reverse the WCCA and affirm the decision of the workers’ compensation judge.