W.C.C.A CASE SUMMARY – Zak V. State Of Minnesota, Dept. Of Veterans Affairs
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COURT OF APPEALS
MAY 12, 2026
No. WC25-6629
In Zak v. State of Minnesota, the Employee had a long history of low back problems including childhood spondylolisthesis at L5-S1 with bilateral pars defects, a 2007 low back injury, and regular treatment for low back pain through 2016. There was also a prior injury on January 14, 2020, while working as an auto painter at Lakeville Collision (heavy lifting/twisting). This led to severe pain radiating to the left leg, failed injections, and anterior/posterior fusion surgery at L5-S1 on June 9, 2020. The radiating pain resolved, but he had ongoing lumbar pain and work limitations. He settled claims with Lakeville (full, final and complete, excluding future medical expenses).
He later worked as a cook for the State of Minnesota Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) at the Hastings Veterans Home. On July 22, 2024, he slipped on a wet floor, fell, heard a “pop,” and experienced intense low-back and bilateral leg pain. Imaging showed a fractured pedicle screw at right S1 and possible loosening of S1 screws. He underwent revision surgery by Dr. Manuel Pinto on December 20, 2024. Symptoms continued afterward; later imaging showed no clear neural impingement explaining bilateral symptoms.
There were competing medical opinions in the case:
Treating surgeon Dr. Pinto: 2024 injury was a substantial contributing cause of the need for revision surgery; employee not at MMI; ongoing restrictions related to the 2024 injury.
DVA IME Dr. Mary Dunn: 2024 injury was temporary and resolved no later than six weeks after the December 2024 surgery (by ~February 6, 2025); current condition 100% attributable to the 2020 injury; PPD unchanged by the 2024 injury; symptom magnification noted.
Lakeville IME Dr. David Carlson: 2024 injury temporary and resolved by September 16, 2024; different apportionment.
The compensation judge found the employee’s testimony “earnest but unreliable,” adopted Dr. Dunn’s opinions, determined the July 22, 2024 injury was a temporary aggravation that resolved by February 6, 2025 (MMI date), apportioned medical treatment through that date equally between the 2020 and 2024 injuries, and attributed post-February 6, 2025 treatment solely to the 2020 injury. Limited TTD was awarded. No separate credibility finding was made regarding the employee’s mother (whose testimony largely corroborated the employee’s symptom reports).
The employee raised several issues on appeal from the compensation judge’s decision based on the compensation judge’s failure to consider the testimony of the employee’s mother and failure to make a credibility finding regarding her testimony.
The WCCA (Chief Judge Patricia J. Milun, with Judges Sean M. Quinn and Thomas J. Christenson) affirmed, noting compensation judges are not required to make explicit credibility findings for every witness, particularly where testimony is corroborative rather than independent. Whether an aggravation is temporary or permanent is a fact question within the compensation judge’s discretion. The judge may credit a well-founded IME opinion over a treating physician’s opinion when substantial evidence supports it. The employee’s extensive preexisting history, treatment course, and Dr. Dunn’s opinion provided substantial evidence for the temporary-aggravation finding. The decision reinforces deference to compensation judges on credibility and temporary-vs.-permanent aggravation determinations and confirms that judges need not address every piece of corroborative testimony in findings.
Summary prepared by Attorneys Joseph Mitchell and Garrett Crowley