IME, Surveillance Video Call into Question Worker’s Claims about Shoveling Injury

Case File

A combination of an IME and video surveillance conspired against a worker's efforts to challenge discontinuation of her workers' compensation benefits. Simply Research subscribers have access to the full text of the decision.

Case

Johnson v. Provide Care, Inc., No. WC24-6591 (W.C. Ct. App. Minn. 07/18/25)

What Happened

A house manager for a group home developed low back and neck pain after shoveling heavy, wet snow at work. Prior to this workplace incident, the manager had received treatment for cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine pain at multiple clinics and emergency departments for several years before she began working for the group home.

After the snow-shoveling incident, the manager's doctor placed her on restrictions of no:

+ Lifting over 10 pounds.

+ Repetitive twisting.

+ Vacuuming.

+ Mopping.

+ Sweeping.

Nonetheless, due to an exacerbation of the manager's symptoms, the doctor took her off work completely.

The employer and the insurer conducted video surveillance on the worker, which revealed that the manager was driving, walking without an altered gait or using a cane, standing, sitting in her car, bending at the waist, shopping at a store and garage sale, reaching overhead, pushing a shopping cart, bagging purchased products, and carrying four bags of purchases up three steps at her home.

The manager underwent an independent medical examination, and the IME physician opined that the manager did not sustain a new injury or aggravate a preexisting condition with the snow-shoveling incident. The physician also opined that the manager could continue to work, as demonstrated in the surveillance video.

The group home and insurer filed a notice of intention to discontinue benefits, and the compensation judge granted the petition.

The manager appealed to the Minnesota Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals.

Rule of Law

In Minnesota, questions of medical causation fall within the province of the compensation judge, as noted in Felton v. Anton Cheverolet, 513 N.W. 2d 457 (Minn. 1994). Per Reinhardt v. Colton, 337 N.W. 2d 88 (Minn. 1983), the competency of a witness to provide an expert medical opinion depends upon both the degree of the witness's scientific knowledge and the extent of the witness's practical experience with the matter that is the subject of the offered opinion.

Under Hudson v. Trillium Staffing, 896 N.W. 2d 536 (Minn. 2017), an expert's opinion lacks an adequate foundation when:

(1) The opinion does not include the facts or data upon which the expert relied in forming the opinion.

(2) It does not explain the basis for the opinion.

(3) The facts assumed by the expert in rendering an opinion are not supported by the evidence.

What the Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals Said

According to the court, the compensation judge decided the case based on the medical documentation by the parties and found the IME physician's opinion to be more persuasive than the opinions and statements from the manager's treating physicians.

"[The IME physician] performed an independent medical examination of the employee at the request of the employer and insurer," the court wrote. "An examination of the employee, taking a history, and a review of the medical records, along with a doctor's experience and training, provide a level of knowledge sufficient to establish a doctor's competence to render an expert opinion."

The court noted that the IME physician reviewed the medical evidence and concluded that the work incident was not the cause of the manager's condition based on evidence that included the manager's extensive treatment for her preexisting degenerative cervical, thoracic, and lumbar disk disease.

Additionally, the compensation judge reviewed the manager's treatment records, surveillance video, and the employee's testimony.

"We conclude that substantial evidence supports the compensation judge's finding that the employee's back injury ... was temporary in nature and had resolved," the court concluded.

Verdict: The court affirmed the compensation judge's decision granting the employer and insurer's petition to discontinue benefits.

Takeaway

Where a compensation judge has made a determination about a worker's injury in Minnesota, the opinion isn't likely to be disturbed just because medical experts differ on causation.

Share This Article: