Risa Jenko v. Cleveland Cliffs, No. WC25-6610 (W.C.C.A. January 25, 2026).
The Employee worked as a dump truck operator for an iron mining facility. She alleged neck and left shoulder injuries from a January 31, 2023 date of injury.
Following the injury, she treated with urgent care and was released to work a few days later. Then she treated at the ER, where she was taken off work for two weeks. Occupational medicine also saw the Employee who released the Employee to light duty with temporary restrictions, pending a follow-up visit. The follow-up never occurred.
From February 2023 through January 2024, various providers took the Employee off work pending MRI results, recommended injections, or additional follow-ups, some of which did not occur. Certain records stated the Employee was “unable to work” or stated “no work.”
A left shoulder MRI showed mild to moderate supraspinatus tendinosis with no evidence of rotator cuff tears. A cervical spine MRI was also taken, showing moderate facet hypertrophy at C7-T1 and minimal disc bulging mostly at C4-C5. Medical records showed no left shoulder or neck symptoms prior to the date of injury.
The Employee’s Sickness and Accident Benefits ended about one year after the January 31, 2023 injury. She never returned to work. The Employee never conducted a job search.
An independent medical examination (“IME”) report was obtained by Employer and Insurer on May 7, 2024. It found the Employee sustained a temporary work injury, which resolved 6-8 weeks after the work injury, and the Employee needed no work restrictions. The Employee then obtained a narrative report from her primary care provider in April 2025. A work injury was found, but since the provider had not seen the Employee since January 2024 or had follow-up imaging, she could not say whether the Employee would be safe operating a dump truck.
A Claim Petition was filed by the Employee, seeking medical benefits for her left shoulder and neck in addition to temporary total disability benefits (“TTD”) from February 1, 2023 ongoing. Primary liability was denied, asserting the work injury was temporary and had resolved. TTD benefits were also disputed as the Employee had not searched for work. A hearing took place on April 25, 2025.
In the Findings and Order, the compensation judge found the Employee had sustained compensable work injuries to her neck and left shoulder, and the injuries had not resolved. The Employee was also entitled to medical benefits and to the claimed TTD benefits. As to awarding TTD, the compensation judge stated the Employee’s “work injury continues to be a substantial contributing factor in the employee’s current condition, disability, and need for treatment.” The Employee’s failure to conduct a job search was also excused, as the judge stated “…there was unrefuted evidence of a continuing employment relationship.”
On appeal, Employer and Insurer argued that substantial evidence did not support the compensation judge’s findings as to the work injury and to the award of TTD benefits.
The WCCA affirmed the compensation judge’s finding in that the Employee sustained a work injury to her left shoulder and neck, and the work injury that had not resolved. The WCCA stated that the judge’s factual determination was supported by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence included records showing no left shoulder or neck symptoms prior to the date of injury, post-injury imaging, and medical records showing the Employee’s ongoing complaints and symptoms.
As to the Award for TTD benefits, the WCCA stated that TTD benefits are payable when an employee is totally disabled from working due to a work injury under Minn. Stat. § 176.101, subd. 1. To be entitled to TTD, an employee must typically show a medical professional has restricted the employee from any type of work due to the work injury.
The WCCA wrote that in the compensation judge’s award, the judge made no finding as to the Employee being restricted from all work or had been released to work without restrictions. The WCCA noted the record showed the Employee was released with temporary restrictions pending a follow-up visit that did not occur. Later records indicated no work while awaiting medical procedures or results, and others stated “no work,” but they did not clarify whether she should not work in any capacity or was only restricted from her job as a truck driver. Based on the record, it was unclear to the WCCA whether the Employee met the threshold requirements for TTD benefits.
Further, the WCCA stated that an employee’s failure to conduct a job search can be excused if there is a reasonable expectation for returning to work for the date of injury Employer. A judge would consider a number of factors, including but not limited to the employee’s testimony regarding expectations of returning to work for employer; communications made by the employee; employer, and QRC; the goal of the rehabilitation plan; duration of when the employee was not working; and the duration of the employment relationship. The WCCA stated that the compensation judge erred by focusing on whether there was a continued employment relationship rather than whether the Employee was reasonably expected to return to work.
The award on TTD benefits was vacated and the matter was remanded for findings consistent with the WCCA’s opinion.
Takeaway: In analyzing an employee’s entitlement to TTD, an employee’s lack of a job search can be excused if there is a reasonable expectation of the employee returning to work with the date of injury employer, which is based on a consideration of multiple factors. Further, a compensation judge should make findings as to whether or when the employee was restricted from all work or had been released to work without restrictions.