Background

• Hilltop Care Center (Hilltop) disputes Burton’s workers’ compensation benefits following two injuries (foot and abdominal) and a disputed wage calculation (a $1000/month raise vs. $1000/year raise) plus a 2005 bonus; district court reversed in part and remanded; court of appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part; supreme court vacated and remanded with specific instructions; issues center on earnings calculation, bonus treatment, and penalties; remand to determine if an accounting error caused overpayment and to re-evaluate penalty while affirming injury determinations.
• Burton began working as dietary supervisor at Hilltop in December 2002 and sustained a ladder-foot injury in January 2006 and abdominal injuries in 2006; wage disputes arose from a mispaid $1000 monthly raise beginning January 2005, leading to questions about whether the overpayment was an employment-related earnings factor and should be included in weekly earnings; Burton also received a yearly bonus in 2005; Hilltop argued the raise was an accounting error and should not be counted as gross earnings; the commissioner ultimately included the raise and the 2005 bonus in the earnings calculation and awarded penalties for the overpayment-related issue; the district court reversed the raise-based calculation, remanded for bonus-regularity analysis, and affirmed other injury determinations; on review, the Supreme Court vacated the appellate decision and remanded with instructions to determine the accounting error, affirm the bonus inclusion, reconsider penalties, and affirm injury findings.
• The case involves two injuries and complex statutory interpretation of wage definitions under Iowa Code sections 85.36 and 85.61(3) with deference to agency findings; procedural posture features cross-petitions and multiple levels of appellate review.
• The court emphasizes that the compensation rate must reflect actual earnings for employment and that the commissioner's interpretation of “would have been entitled” and “gross earnings” is not clearly vested, justifying remand for factual determinations on the accounting error and bonus treatment, while authorizing affirmance of the bonus inclusion and the injury determinations.
• The final remand directs: (1) factual determination whether Burton’s $1000/month raise resulted from an accounting error, (2) affirm the inclusion of Burton’s 2005 bonus in gross earnings, (3) reconsider penalties in light of the accounting findings, and (4) affirm the injury determinations.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Meyer v. IBP, Inc., 710 N.W.2d 213 (Iowa 2006) (standard for mixed questions of law and fact; accuracy of legal application to facts)
• Area Ed. Agency 7 v. Bauch, 646 N.W.2d 398 (Iowa 2002) (define gross earnings; pay basis when paid monthly/biweekly)
• Noel v. Rolscreen Co., 475 N.W.2d 666 (Iowa Ct.App. 1991) (bonus regularity factors; not weekly earnings if irregular)
• Mycogen Seeds v. Sands, 686 N.W.2d 457 (Iowa 2004) (agency interpretation not always binding; need clear vesting for deference to agency)
• Renda v. Iowa Civil Rights Comm’n, 784 N.W.2d 11 (Iowa 2010) (when determining whether agency has interpretive power)
• Bridgestone/Firestone v. Accordino, 561 N.W.2d 60 (Iowa 1997) (reasoned opinion required; backward inference not preferred)
• Sherwin-Williams Co. v. Iowa Dep’t of Revenue, 789 N.W.2d 417 (Iowa 2010) (standard for irrational/illogical/unsupported agency decision)
• Griffin Pipe Prods. Co. v. Guarino, 663 N.W.2d 862 (Iowa 2003) (would have been entitled context; exclusion of non-regular weeks)