Debra J. Heisick v. Zurich N. Am. Ins. Co., No. WC25-6623 (W.C.C.A. June 3, 2026).
In this case heard by the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals, two issues were before the Court. First, whether the compensation judge’s finding that a 1999 work injury was not a substantial contributing factor to her current condition, disability, and need for treatment was clearly erroneous. And if it was clearly erroneous, whether the evidence supports a finding that the 1999 work injury is a substantial contributing factor.
The employee suffered from chronic low back issues since a motor vehicle accident in 1975, but had maintained an active lifestyle. On May 20, 1999, while working for Zurich North America Insurance Company (Zurich) as an attorney, the employee sustained an injury to her low back in a motor vehicle accident. An MRI showed the employee had suffered a small disc herniation along with degenerative changes. The employee opted against microdiscectomy in favor of conservative treatment.
In 2008, the employee had a flare-up of her back issues and was diagnosed with piriformis syndrome. In 2011, the employee was diagnosed with cauda equina syndrome and underwent a hemilaminectomy and microdiscectomy which helped some but not all of her symptoms. Another MRI in 2012 showed a small disc bulge with enhancing scar tissue encasing the nerve roots and advancing degenerative changes. A Health Care Provider Report was completed in May 2012, and the employee settled her claims against Zurich on a to-date basis and closed out PPD benefits to the extent of 21 percent. However, she continued to have back issues which were treated with conservative treatment.
The employee had another MRI in 2018 which showed stenosis and increased nerve impingement due to the increasing size of the disc protrusion. In 2023, while working for the State of Minnesota, Department of Labor and Industry, she shared a chair at an event and presented days later to urgent care with back pain and numbness down her left leg. A new MRI showed a new large disc herniation among other findings. In August of 2023, the employee underwent surgery and the surgeon wrote in an operative note that the nerve root compression was the result of thickened ligamentum flavum.
Dr. Wicklund performed an examination and issued a report at the end of 2023, opining that the employee sustained an injury while sharing the chair in 2023, and did not apportion any liability to the employee’s condition. Another provider agreed with Dr. Wicklund’s findings. At the request the employer, Dr. Jeffrey Dick examined the employee and issued a report in January of 2024. He opined the employee did not sustain an injury in 2023, but rather the need for surgery was from the thickened ligamentum flavum. He apportioned 25% of the pathology to the 1999 injury, Dr. Wicklund later wrote an additional report and agreed.
A claim petition was filed, and a hearing was held on April 23, 2025. The compensation judge stated the 1999 injury was a permanent aggravation of the employee’s pre-existing low back condition and the cause of the 2011 surgery. She found MMI no later than August 20, 2012, and an 11% permanency rating. She also found that neither the admitted 1999 work injury nor the alleged 2023 work injury was a substantial contributing factor to the employee’s current condition, disability, or need for treatment, and denied the employee’s and intervenor’s claims.
The employee appealed claiming the ruling was clearly erroneous.
The WCCA found that the compensation judge had misstated medical opinions on causation from Dr. Dick’s report, even while accepting his opinion. Thus, the judge’s conclusions were inconsistent with the medical opinion. Therefore, the WCCA overturned the finding that the 1999 injury was not a substantial contributing factor to the employee’s current condition. Further, the WCCA found evidence to support that the 1999 injury was a substantial contributing factor to the employee’s current condition, disability and need for treatment. The employee’s claims for wage loss, medical treatment, additional PPD, and the intervention claims related to the 2023 surgery and current condition were awarded.
Takeaway: When a compensation judge accepts the opinion of a medical expert, but then makes findings inconsistent with the medical opinion, if those findings are not otherwise supported with substantial evidence in the record, that finding is erroneous.