With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". To address these issues we divide our analysis into four parts: (i) classification of profit sharing bonuses as wages under the LWPA; (ii) 2005 additional bonus amount due; (iii) 2006 bonus amount due; and (iv) penalties and attorney’s fees due. (i) Classification of profit sharing bonuses as wages under the LWPA The threshold issue in this case is whether the bonus at issue are “wages” under the LWPA. Whether a bonus constitutes wages under the LWPA is a mixed question of law and fact. Batiansila v. Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc., 952 F.2d 893 (5th Cir.1992). The proper standard of review of a trial court’s determination of such a mixed question of law and fact generally is the manifest error standard. See Reed v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-1174 (La.3/4/98), 708 So.2d 362, 364 (<HOLDING>). In finding the bonuses Mr. Kaplon demanded

A: holding the applicable standard of review in addressing the sufficiency of the evidence is manifest error
B: holding that even though the court does not usually apply the clearly erroneous standard to mixed questions of fact and law this standard is properly applied to the materiality issue
C: holding that when an administrative agencys decision was a mixed question of fact and law a reviewing court should apply a clearly erroneous standard of review
D: holding the manifest error standard of review is the proper standard to be applied to the mixed question of law and fact presented by a determination of whether a defect presents an unreasonable risk of harm
D.