## Facts

- Amber R. Espinoza, a 15-year-old Burger King employee, was injured at work when a co-employee, James Trujillo (also 15), punched her during horseplay, breaking her jaw.
- The incident occurred during a work shift at the restaurant while Espinoza was retrieving a delayed customer order.
- An adult supervisor was present in the workplace but was in an office attending to administrative tasks.
- Espinoza’s path was blocked by Trujillo as she returned with the order; their interaction escalated into horseplay and then the punch.
- Espinoza filed a workers’ compensation claim; an administrative hearing officer awarded benefits, finding the injury compensable.
- The Workers’ Compensation Division sought judicial review, and the matter was certified for review by the Wyoming Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the hearing officer’s finding that Espinoza’s injury arose out of and in the course of employment despite occurring during horseplay.
2. Whether the compensability determination conflicted with the statutory definition of “injury” requiring that it arise out of and in the course of employment.
3. Whether benefits were barred by the statutory exclusion for injuries caused by the employee’s willful intention to injure another.

## Decision

- The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the administrative award of benefits.
- The court held substantial evidence supported the finding that the injury arose out of and in the course of employment.
- The court held the statutory “willful intention to injure” exclusion did not apply because the record supported a finding of no deliberate intent by Espinoza to injure her co-employee.
- The court declined to reweigh evidence under the substantial-evidence standard of review.

## Legal Principles

- A compensable workers’ compensation “injury” must arise out of and in the course of employment under Wyo. Stat. § 27-14-102(a)(xi).
- Workplace horseplay does not necessarily sever the employment connection when it occurs during work, on the employer’s premises, among co-employees, and in circumstances reasonably incident to performing job duties.
- Administrative factual findings are upheld if supported by substantial evidence—relevant evidence that a reasonable mind could accept as adequate.
- The exclusion for injuries caused by an employee’s “willful intention to injure or kill” requires deliberate, purposeful intent to cause harm; participation in mutual horseplay, without proof of such intent, is insufficient.

## Conclusion

The court upheld workers’ compensation benefits for Espinoza’s broken jaw because substantial evidence supported that the injury occurred in the time, place, and circumstances of employment and because the record did not establish a deliberate intent by Espinoza to injure her co-employee that would trigger the statutory exclusion.


Workers’ Compensation Div. v. Espinoza, 924 P.2d 979 (Wyo. 1996)