Opinion ID: 1709616
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Standard of and issues for review.

Text: Our review of the district court's judicial review ruling is for correction of errors at law. See Iowa Code § 17A.20; Iowa R.App.P. 4; Squealer Feeds v. Pickering, 530 N.W.2d 678, 681 (Iowa 1995). Although we give weight to an agency's interpretation of a statute, we are not bound by that construction. City of Des Moines v. Public Employment Relations Bd., 275 N.W.2d 753, 758 (Iowa 1979). Although Hurd raises a multitude of issues on appeal, the only issue addressed by the district court, and the only issue we need address in this appeal, is whether the CSRU properly exercised its authority in finding that Hurd owed more than $1000 in child support. See Sindlinger v. State Bd. of Regents, 503 N.W.2d 387, 390 (Iowa 1993) (discussing standard of review in administrative law cases characterized as other agency action); Sheet Metal Contractors v. Comm'r of Ins., 427 N.W.2d 859, 867 (Iowa 1988) (noting that a party cannot challenge other agency action on the substantial evidence ground specified in section 17A.19(8)(f)). If so, then the CSRU has authority to release information concerning Hurd's child support arrearage to credit reporting agencies pursuant to IAC rule 441-95.12. Before addressing the merits of this issue, however, we think it helpful to first clarify what information may be considered in determining whether Hurd owed more than $1000 in child support.