## Facts

- Norman Vegors worked for Xenia Rural Water District installing rural water lines.
- At a job site, coworker Casey Byrd struck Vegors with a pickup truck, injuring him.
- Vegors testified he “wiggled” his rear end as a nonverbal greeting while his hands were full, then turned back to work and leaned over his truck bed.
- Byrd attempted to “bump” Vegors with the truck’s side mirror but instead hit him with the truck bed.
- The employer asserted the injury resulted from horseplay amounting to a substantial deviation from employment, and separately invoked Iowa Code § 85.16(3) (willful act of a third party for reasons personal to the employee).
- A deputy commissioner awarded benefits, placing the burden on the employer to prove horseplay and finding Vegors did not intend to instigate horseplay.
- The industrial commissioner affirmed and rejected § 85.16(3), reasoning a coworker is not a “third party.”
- On judicial review, the district court reversed, holding the claimant bore the burden to prove the injury arose out of and in the course of employment, including showing the claim was not barred by horseplay.
- Vegors appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the claimant or the employer bears the burden regarding horseplay/substantial deviation when determining if an injury arose out of and in the course of employment.
2. Whether Iowa Code § 85.16(3) can apply when a coworker commits the willful act, and whether the act was “for reasons personal to” the employee.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court held the claimant bears the burden to prove the injury arose out of and in the course of employment, including proving no substantial deviation from employment through horseplay.
- The Court ruled the agency committed legal error by assigning the horseplay burden to the employer and remanded for reconsideration under the correct burden allocation.
- The Court interpreted “third party” in § 85.16(3) to include coworkers.
- The Court nonetheless held § 85.16(3) did not bar recovery on this record because Byrd’s conduct was not shown to be motivated by reasons personal to Vegors.
- The Court reversed the district court in part and remanded to the industrial commissioner for further proceedings consistent with these holdings.

## Legal Principles

- In Iowa workers’ compensation, the claimant must prove the injury arose out of and in the course of employment.
- That burden includes proving the employee did not substantially deviate from employment through horseplay.
- Horseplay is evaluated by whether it constitutes a substantial deviation from work duties, not merely by the presence of joking or playful conduct.
- Iowa Code § 85.16(3) may apply to willful acts by coworkers because a coworker can be a “third party.”
- The § 85.16(3) defense requires proof that the willful act was directed at the employee for reasons personal to the employee, meaning motives independent of the employment relationship; workplace-related interaction, even if intentional and playful, is insufficient.
- Remedial construction of workers’ compensation law does not alter the claimant’s burden of proof on course-of-employment elements.

## Conclusion

The court required the agency to reevaluate the horseplay/substantial-deviation question with the burden on the claimant, while clarifying that § 85.16(3) can reach coworker conduct but does not bar compensation absent proof the willful act was motivated by personal reasons unrelated to work.


Xenia Rural Water Dist. v. Vegors, 786 N.W.2d 250 (Iowa 2010)