a cross-appeal. See Iowa Admin. Code r. 876 — 4.27. Although issues are viewed broadly, see Iowa Admin. Code r. 875 — 4.28(7), and once raised, any issue can be resolved in favor of the non-appealing party, IBP limited the issues raised to what are essentially affirmative defenses and did not challenge whether and to what extent Burress was disabled by his injury. The rule providing a mechanism for a cross-appeal conflicts with the rule for defining issues by the briefs because Burress would have been required to file a cross-appeal before learning of the issues designated in IBP’s brief. When faced with a procedural situation the agency rules do not clearly address, this court has been guided by general provisions. See Aluminum Co. of Am. v. Musal, 622 N.W.2d 476, 478-79 (Iowa 2001) (<HOLDING>). The commissioner has broad authority in
recognizing that the essential requisites of procedural due process are notice and meaningful opportunity to be heard holding that the propriety of an order modifying child support without proper pleading notice and opportunity to be heard may be raised for the first time on appeal holding basic elements of due process are notice and a right to be heard holding that procedural due process requires adequate notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard holding when parties appeal but fail to file briefs commissioner may define issues without following timely notice provision as long as parties are given notice and an opportunity to be heard