Burton v. Hilltop Care Ctr.

Decision Date04 May 2012
Docket NumberNo. 09–1633.,09–1633.
PartiesJulie K. BURTON, Appellant, v. HILLTOP CARE CENTER and Iowa Long Term Care Risk Management Association, Appellees.
CourtIowa Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Hilltop Care Center seeks further review from the court of appeals decision that reversed in part and affirmed in part the district court decision on a petition for judicial review of the workers' compensation commissioner. DECISION OF COURT OF APPEALS VACATED; DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND CASE REMANDED.

E.W. Wilcke, Spirit Lake, and Harry W. Dahl, Des Moines, for appellant.

Michael L. Mock, Parker, Simons & McNeill, P.L.C., West Des Moines and Ann C. Spellman of Bradshaw, Fowler, Proctor & Fairgrave, P.C., Des Moines, for appellee.

ZAGER, Justice.

This case comes before us on an application for further review from the court of appeals. After receiving the workers' compensation commissioner's final decision, both parties filed cross-petitions for judicial review in the district court. The district court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for additional fact-finding. Both parties filed cross-appeals. We transferred the case to the court of appeals, which affirmed in part and reversed in part on appeal and affirmed on cross-appeal. Hilltop Care Center (Hilltop) 1 sought further review, which we granted. We now vacate the decision of the court of appeals and reverse the district court in part. We remand the case to the district court with the following instructions on judicial review: to remand the case to the commissioner for a factual determination as to Hilltop's claim that an accounting error caused it to accidentally overpay Burton $916.67 per month (the difference between a $1000 per month raise and $1000 per year raise) for fifteen months; to affirm the commissioner's decision to include Burton's bonus in calculating her weekly earnings; to reconsider the commissioner's imposition of a penalty in light of its factual findings regarding Hilltop's claim that it overpaid Burton; and to affirm the commissioner's determinations as to the cause, nature and extent of Burton's injuries.

I. Background Facts and Procedural History.

Julie Burton (Burton) began working at Hilltop as a dietary supervisor in December of 2002. As part of her duties Burton was required to supervise kitchen staff, lift heavy items, and move equipment. Burton's previous work history involved working as a bartender and caterer. Both of these jobs required lifting heavy items, such as full kegs of beer. During her previous employment, Burton went through five pregnancies and continued to work at these jobs during and after her pregnancies.

While working at Hilltop, Burton was subject to several performance reviews, and she received several raises. Of particular note in this case, in January 2005, Burton received a salary increase of $1000. Hilltop claims this was supposed to have been a raise of $1000 per year. However, through what Hilltop claims was an accounting error, Burton's salary was increased $1000 per month. Burton's salary reflected this $1000 per month raise from January of 2005 until Burton left Hilltop in April of 2006. Burton's supervisor continued to review her performance in 2006, and Burton received an additional raise at the start of that year.

This case involves two injuries: a foot injury and an abdominal injury. Burton's foot injury arose out of a fall from a ladder. On Saturday, January 28, 2006, Burton was standing on a ladder at work when it collapsed, trapping her leg. Burton went to the emergency room and had her foot placed in a splint. On Monday, Burton went to Dr. Brian Ford, her primary care physician, who referred her to Dr. Timothy Blankers, a podiatrist. She saw Dr. Blankers on January 31. Dr. Blankers placed Burton's ankle in an air-cast and recommended nonweight-bearing activities. Burton returned to work that day. Dr. Blankers recommended Burton return to weight bearing activities on February 14.

Burton filed a petition with the workers' compensation commissioner on June 23. Dr. Blankers examined Burton again on April 10, 2007, and suggested an impairment of 7% of the foot and that a range of 3% to 7% was appropriate. An arbitration hearing was held before a deputy commissioner on May 21, 2007, and a decision was issued on October 26. The deputy found the injury was a scheduled member injury causing permanent disability, and the 7% impairment to the foot equated to a 4.9% functional impairment to the leg.

Burton's abdominal injuries are more complicated. In late 2004, Burton began to experience problems with vaginal bleeding between periods. In May of 2005, Burton saw Dr. Ford and complained of menopausal symptoms and heavy bleeding. At this time, Burton was not told that her condition was work related, and she was not given any lifting restrictions. Later on in 2005, Burton began to experience problems with incontinence, in addition to the heavy bleeding.

On April 7, 2006, Burton visited Dr. Ford due to problems with incontinence and menometrorrhagia and was referred to Dr. Jane Gaetze, an obstetrician-gynecologist. Burton saw Ford again on May 3 for vaginal and rectal bleeding and had a colonoscopy performed on May 5 by Dr. Brian Luepke. Burton saw Dr. Gaetze on May 11. Dr. Gaetze informed Burton that she would need a total hysterectomy and various other repairs to correct her abdominal injuries. Dr. Gaetze performed the surgery on May 24, 2006. After the surgery, Dr. Gaetze told Burton that her abdominal injuries were work related and were the result of repeated heavy lifting and physical labor. On July 14, 2006, Dr. Gaetze authorized Burton to return to work without any physical limitations.2 On October 9, however, Dr. Gaetze permanently restricted Burton from lifting anything over fifty pounds. By this time, however, Burton was no longer working at Hilltop. On April 24, 2006, Burton was told that she could no longer be a dietary supervisor at Hilltop. Rather than accept a lower paying position, Burton resigned.

On July 31, 2006, Burton filed her second petition with the commissioner, alleging she sustained a repetitive or cumulative injury to her blood vessels, soft tissues, abdomen, and uterus while workingat Hilltop. After the same arbitration hearing, the deputy commissioner found the abdominal injuries were work-related conditions and awarded Burton a thirty percent industrial disability.

The arbitration decision covering both the foot and abdominal injuries was issued on October 26, 2007. As part of this decision, the deputy commissioner also calculated a weekly compensation rate for Burton and addressed the issues involving her bonus and request for penalty benefits. The deputy determined Hilltop should have included the $1000 per month pay increase and Burton's annual bonus when it determined her weekly compensation. The deputy also imposed a penalty on Hilltop for not including the bonus and for basing Burton's compensation on a $1000 per year raise. Hilltop filed a motion for rehearing, which the deputy commissioner denied. Hilltop and Burton both appealed to the commissioner from various aspects of the deputy's decision. On August 26, 2008, the commissioner affirmed and adopted the deputy's arbitration decision.

Hilltop and Burton then filed cross-petitions for judicial review under chapter 17A. The district court entered its ruling on April 27, 2009. The district court reversed the commissioner's calculation of benefits based on the $1000 per month raise Hilltop actually paid Burton and instead used the $1000 per year figure Hilltop claimed was accurate. Because Hilltop had used what the district court found to be the correct wages, it reversed the award of penalty benefits. The district court also found the commissioner erred in his calculation of weekly benefits based on the bonus payment and remanded that issue to the commissioner for further analysis. The district court affirmed the commissioner's findings and award of benefits regarding Burton's foot injury and also affirmed the commissioner's findings as to the discovery, notice, and award of benefits regarding her abdominal injury. Burton appealed, and Hilltop cross-appealed. We transferred the case to the court of appeals. The court of appeals reversed the district court's ruling and determined that the $1000 per month raise and bonus should be included in the calculation of Burton's compensation rate, but did not reinstate the penalty benefit finding the issue was reasonably debatable. The court of appeals otherwise affirmed the commissioner's findings regarding Burton's foot and abdominal injuries. Hilltop applied for further review, which we granted.

II. Issues.

There were several issues presented to the court of appeals on appeal and cross-appeal. “On further review, we have the discretion to review any issue raised on appeal.” State v. Marin, 788 N.W.2d 833, 836 (Iowa 2010). In exercising our discretion, we can choose which issues to address. Seeid.;see alsoHills Bank & Trust Co. v. Converse, 772 N.W.2d 764, 770 (Iowa 2009). Since Hilltop has not presented any new arguments, or pointed to any errors in the court of appeals decision which affirmed the district court's decision affirming the commissioner's findings as to the extent, notice, or cause of Burton's foot or abdominal injuries, we will let the district court's decision stand as the final decision on these issues. We will, however, address the compensation rate and penalty issues.

III. Standard of Review.

Burton and Hilltop both sought judicial review of the decision of workers' compensation commissioner.

Iowa Code section 17A.19(10) governs judicial review of agency decision making. We will apply the standards of section 17A.19(10) to determine whether we reach the same results as the district court. “The district court may grant relief if the agency action has prejudiced the substantial rights of the petitioner, and the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
107 cases
  • State v. Wright
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • 18 Junio 2021
    ...application for further review. "On further review, we have the discretion to review any issue raised on appeal." Burton v. Hilltop Care Ctr. , 813 N.W.2d 250, 255 (Iowa 2012) (quoting State v. Marin , 788 N.W.2d 833, 836 (Iowa 2010), overruled on other grounds by Alcala v. Marriott Int'l, ......
  • State v. Crawford
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • 18 Marzo 2022
    ...discretion to review any issue raised on appeal." State v. Vandermark , 965 N.W.2d 888, 891 (Iowa 2021) (quoting Burton v. Hilltop Care Ctr. , 813 N.W.2d 250, 255 (Iowa 2012) ). We exercise our discretion in this case to address only Crawford's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence s......
  • Iowa Ins. Inst. v. Core Grp. of the Iowa Ass'n for Justice
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • 12 Junio 2015
    ...to interpret the phrase ‘suitable work’ for purposes of Iowa Code section 85.33(3) in the ... commission[er]”); Burton v. Hilltop Care Ctr., 813 N.W.2d 250, 261 (Iowa 2012) (“[W]e will substitute our own interpretation of sections 85.36 and 85.61(3) if we find the commissioner's interpretat......
  • State v. Crawford
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • 18 Marzo 2022
    ... ... authorities and his reasoning with the utmost care." ... State v. Archer , 58 N.W.2d 44, 51 (Iowa 1953). We ... Vandermark , 965 ... N.W.2d 888, 891 (Iowa 2021) (quoting Burton v. Hilltop ... Care Ctr. , 813 N.W.2d 250, 255 (Iowa 2012)). We ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT