The district court affirmed the Bureau's decision, and Blanchard appealed. [¶ 11] On appeal from a district court's review of a decision by the Bureau, we review the Bureau's decision. Siewert v. North Dakota Workers Comp. Bur., 554 N.W.2d 465, 466 (N.D. 1996). We affirm the Bureau's decision unless its findings of fact are not supported by a preponderance of the evidence, its conclusions of law are not supported by its findings of fact, its decision is not supported by its conclusions of law, or its decision is not in accordance with the law.

The court, however, affirmed the Bureau's decision to deny Frohlich disability benefits beyond those awarded for the interval between May 25, 1990 and May 25, 1991. Frohlich appealed to this court, contending the Bureau erred in denying him temporary total disability benefits after May 25, 1991. On appeal from a district court's review of a decision by the Bureau, we review the Bureau's decision. Siewert v. North Dakota Workers Comp. Bureau, 554 N.W.2d 465, 466 (N.D. 1996). We affirm the Bureau's decision unless its findings of fact are not supported by a preponderance of the evidence, its conclusions of law are not supported by its findings of fact, its decision is not supported by its conclusions of law, or its decision is not in accordance with the law.

[¶ 8] The right to appeal is statutory and is a jurisdictional matter we may consider on our own motion. See Siewert v. N.D. Workers Comp. Bur., 554 N.W.2d 465, 466 n. 1 (N.D.1996). Section 28–32–49, N.D.C.C., governs administrative agency appeals to this Court and authorizes appeals only from judgments.

I [¶ 2] This case was previously before this Court in Siewert v. North Dakota Workers Comp. Bureau, 554 N.W.2d 465 (N.D. 1996). Siewert claims he was injured on March 20, 1990, when he fell from a ladder while fixing a light on the outside of his grocery store. The Bureau accepted liability and paid medical expenses and disability benefits to Siewert.

See, e.g., Sprunk v. North Dakota Workers Comp. Bureau, 1998 ND 93, ¶ 5, 576 N.W.2d 861. The employer and Bureau may, however, bear the burden of proof on certain issues.See, e.g., Siewert v. North Dakota Workers Comp. Bureau, 554 N.W.2d 465, 467 (N.D. 1996) (the Bureau has the burden of proving an employee is barred from receiving benefits because the employee intentionally injured himself). [¶ 19] When an injured claimant files a reapplication for disability benefits due to aggravation of a prior work injury, the claimant must show his medical condition has significantly changed, he has suffered an actual wage loss, and he has not retired or voluntarily withdrawn from the job market.

The Bureau must consider the entire medical record and adequately explain its reason for disregarding medical evidence favorable to the claimant. Siewert v. North Dakota Workers Comp. Bureau, 554 N.W.2d 465, 470 (N.D. 1996); Claim of Murray, 431 N.W.2d 651, 654 (N.D. 1988). As Spangler, 519 N.W.2d at 579, illustrates too, the Bureau must adequately explain inconsistent statements from the same medical expert.

"Municipal Servs. Corp., 483 N.W.2d at 561, see also Siewert v. North Dakota Workers Comp. Bureau, 554 N.W.2d 465, 466 n. 1 (N.D. 1996). [¶ 10] In Center State Bank, Inc. v. State Banking Bd., 276 N.W.2d 132 (N.D. 1979), the Bank appealed a district court order affirming the Board's denial of an extension of time to meet conditions imposed by the Board.

E.g., In re J.K.M., 557 N.W.2d 229, 230 (N.D. 1996), Siewert v. North Dakota Workers Comp. Bureau, 554 N.W.2d 465, 466 n. 1 (N.D. 1996). [¶ 10] N.D.C.C. § 65-10-01, which authorizes an appeal of the Bureau's final action denying a claimant's right to participate in the fund, does not apply to an informal decision, but applies only to "an order following a timely request for reconsideration."