No compensation shall become due or payable from any employer under the terms of the Workers’ Compensation Act in the event such injury was willfully suffered by the worker or intentionally inflicted by the worker.
HISTORY:
Laws 1929, ch. 113, § 8; C.S. 1929, § 156-108; 1941 Comp., § 57-908; 1953 59-10-8; Laws 1989, ch. 263, § 8; 2016, ch. 24, § 1.
Amendment Notes.
The 2016 amendment, effective May 18, 2016, substituted “Injuries caused by the willfulness” for “Injuries due to intoxication, willfulness” in the section heading; and substituted “the event such injury was willfully suffered by the worker or intentionally inflicted by the worker” for “event such injury was occasioned by the intoxication of such worker or willfully suffered by him or intentionally inflicted by himself.”
Notes to Decisions
Generally.
In a workers’ compensation matter, the court found that claimant’s contention that his injury could not be considered to have been “wilfully suffered” under 59-10-8, 1953 Comp. (now 52-1-11 NMSA 1978) was never an issue in the case. Valdez v. Glover Packing Co., 1972-NMCA-032, 83 N.M. 570, 494 P.2d 983, 1972 N.M. App. LEXIS 755 (N.M. Ct. App. 1972).
Applicability.
Workers’ compensation judge properly applied 52-1-12.1 NMSA 1978, given the substantial evidence that supported a contributing cause to the worker’s injury, in addition to the worker’s intoxication; the judge properly held this section inapplicable to bar recovery because there was substantial evidence to support the judge’s factual determination that the worker’s injury was not willfully suffered by him. Villa v. City of Las Cruces, 2010-NMCA-099, 148 N.M. 668, 241 P.3d 1108, 2010 N.M. App. LEXIS 131 (N.M. Ct. App.), cert. denied, 149 N.M. 49, 243 P.3d 753, 2010 N.M. LEXIS 474 (N.M. 2010).
Worker’s compensation judge properly decided to grant full benefits to a worker because there was no evidence that tests for drug and alcohol met the standards set forth in 52-1-12.1 NMSA 1978. Nelson v. Homier Distrib. Co., 2009-NMCA-125, 147 N.M. 318, 222 P.3d 690, 2009 N.M. App. LEXIS 213 (N.M. Ct. App. 2009).
Claimant’s workers’ compensation case for death benefits under 52-1-46 NMSA 1978 was properly dismissed where her husband’s suicide was not a compensable injury under 52-1-9 NMSA 1978 because it was self-inflicted as was prohibited by 52-1-11 NMSA 1978. Holford v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., Los Alamos Nat'l Lab., 1990-NMCA-066, 110 N.M. 366, 796 P.2d 259, 1990 N.M. App. LEXIS 78 (N.M. Ct. App. 1990).
Application to employer.
Standard set forth in Delgado v. Phelps Dodge Chino, Inc., 2001-NMSC-034, 131 N.M. 272, 34 P.3d 1148, which holds that willful acts of employer are outside the scope of the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act [52-1-1 NMSA 1978], applies retroactively to acts or omissions which occurred before that decision. Padilla v. Wall Colmonoy Corp., 2006-NMCA-137, 140 N.M. 630, 145 P.3d 110, 2006 N.M. App. LEXIS 133 (N.M. Ct. App.), cert. denied, 140 N.M. 674, 146 P.3d 809, 2006 N.M. LEXIS 522 (N.M. 2006).
Evidence.
—Admissible.
Blood alcohol test results of deceased employee was admissible to deny workmen’s compensation benefits under former 59-10-8, 1953 Comp. even though the test was administered by an unauthorized person, a deputy medical examiner, because the examiner was qualified to take the sample and there was no concern for the safety of the employee who was already dead. Steere Tank Lines v. Rogers, 1978-NMSC-049, 91 N.M. 768, 581 P.2d 456, 1978 N.M. LEXIS 939 (N.M. 1978).
—Insufficient.
Employer had the burden of showing that the employee was intoxicated and that the automobile accident was proximately caused by the employee’s intoxication. The court held that the evidence was insufficient to show that the employee was intoxicated at the time of the accident and therefore, the employee was entitled to benefits. Salazar v. Santa Fe, 1983-NMCA-134, 102 N.M. 172, 692 P.2d 1321, 1983 N.M. App. LEXIS 826 (N.M. Ct. App. 1983).
—Sufficient.
In a workers’ compensation action, a claimant’s request for benefits was properly denied under 52-1-11 NMSA 1978 when the evidence sufficiently showed that he was intoxicated when he was injured while cleaning his truck. Estate of Mitchum v. Triple S Trucking, 1991-NMCA-118, 113 N.M. 85, 823 P.2d 327, 1991 N.M. App. LEXIS 218 (N.M. Ct. App. 1991), cert. denied, 113 N.M. 16, 820 P.2d 1330, 1991 N.M. LEXIS 372 (N.M. 1991), overruled in part, Villa v. City of Las Cruces, No. 29456, 2010 N.M. App. LEXIS 88 (N.M. Ct. App. July 22, 2010).
Liability.
An insurer was liable to pay workmen’s compensation claims to the representative of a deceased worker, where the worker had been killed prior to issuance of the policy but subsequent to the effective date of the policy as dated back by the insurer. Points v. Wills, 44 N.M. 31, 97 P.2d 374, 1939 N.M. LEXIS 64, 1939 N.M. LEXIS 65 (N.M. 1939).
Proximate cause.
Requirement under 52-1-11 NMSA 1978 that in order to render a worker’s injury non-compensable, willfulness must “cause” the injury, refers to proximate cause. Delgado v. Phelps Dodge Chino, Inc., 2001-NMSC-034, 131 N.M. 272, 34 P.3d 1148, 2001 N.M. LEXIS 376 (N.M. 2001).
Willful misconduct.
Although an injured worker entered a guilty plea to a charge of reckless driving, the plea was not conclusive evidence of willful misconduct at the time of the accident so as to bar his recovery of workers’ compensation benefits. The guilty plea was an admission subject to explanation, and if explained it became an issue of fact. Martinez v. Earth Resources Co., 1975-NMCA-020, 87 N.M. 278, 532 P.2d 207, 1975 N.M. App. LEXIS 624 (N.M. Ct. App. 1975).
Willfulness.
For purposes of the Workers’ Compensation Act, willfulness occurs when: (1) the worker or employer engages in an intentional act or omission, without just cause or excuse, that is reasonably expected to result in the injury suffered by the worker, (2) the worker or employer expects the injury to occur, or has utterly disregarded the consequences of the intentional act or omission, and (3) the intentional act or omission proximately causes the worker’s injury. Delgado v. Phelps Dodge Chino, Inc., 2001-NMSC-034, 131 N.M. 272, 34 P.3d 1148, 2001 N.M. LEXIS 376 (N.M. 2001).
Mine worker’s failure to scrape loose rock from the mine walls following a recent blast, as a result of which rock fell on an injured him, did not constitute an injury that was “wilfully suffered” within the meaning of the Workers’ Compensation Act of New Mexico, specifically 52-1-11 NMSA 1978, and the worker was not barred from receiving workers’ compensation benefits. Garcia v. Homestake Mining Co., 1992-NMCA-018, 113 N.M. 508, 828 P.2d 420, 1992 N.M. App. LEXIS 15 (N.M. Ct. App. 1992).
Claimant did not willfully suffer an injury where he was advised by his physician not to do the heavy work required in his employment because of a congenital abnormality where the physician never advised him that he might develop another completely separate and distinct back problem that could aggravate the congenital defect. Tallman v. ABF, 1988-NMCA-091, 108 N.M. 124, 767 P.2d 363, 1988 N.M. App. LEXIS 113 (N.M. Ct. App. 1988), cert. denied, 109 N.M. 33, 781 P.2d 305, 1988 N.M. LEXIS 282 (N.M. 1988), superseded by statute as stated in Leo v. Cornucopia Restaurant, 1994-NMCA-099, 118 N.M. 354, 881 P.2d 714, 1994 N.M. App. LEXIS 93 (N.M. Ct. App. 1994).
When an employer intentionally inflicts or willfully causes a worker to suffer an injury that would otherwise be exclusively compensable under the Workers’ Compensation Act [52-1-1 NMSA 1978], that employer may not enjoy the benefits of exclusivity, and the injured worker may sue in tort. Delgado v. Phelps Dodge Chino, Inc., 2001-NMSC-034, 131 N.M. 272, 34 P.3d 1148, 2001 N.M. LEXIS 376 (N.M. 2001).
All case law that has required allegation or proof of an employer’s actual intent to injure a worker as a precondition to a worker’s tort recovery is expressly overruled. Delgado v. Phelps Dodge Chino, Inc., 2001-NMSC-034, 131 N.M. 272, 34 P.3d 1148, 2001 N.M. LEXIS 376 (N.M. 2001).
Worker and employer rights under the Workers’ Compensation Act [52-1-1 NMSA 1978] must be subject to the same standard of conduct and equivalent consequences for misconduct; when an employer willfully or intentionally injures a worker, that employer, like a worker who commits the same misconduct, loses the rights afforded by the Act. Delgado v. Phelps Dodge Chino, Inc., 2001-NMSC-034, 131 N.M. 272, 34 P.3d 1148, 2001 N.M. LEXIS 376 (N.M. 2001).
Workers’ compensation judge properly granted the employer’s motion to dismiss claimant’s request for death benefits for her husband’s suicide because the death was intentionally self-inflicted, contrary to 52-1-11 NMSA 1978. Holford v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., Los Alamos Nat'l Lab., 1990-NMCA-066, 110 N.M. 366, 796 P.2d 259, 1990 N.M. App. LEXIS 78 (N.M. Ct. App. 1990).
Although an injured worker entered a plea of guilty to reckless driving, the facts failed to sustain the employer’s claim that the injured worker was engaged in willful misconduct at the time of his accident; thus, 59-10-8, 1953 Comp. was not a bar to the injured worker’s recovery of workmen’s compensation benefits. Martinez v. Earth Resources Co., 87 N.M. 278, 532 P.2d 207, 1975 N.M. App. LEXIS 624 (Ct. App. 1975), supplemental op., 90 N.M. 590, 566 P.2d 838 (Ct. App. 1977).
Research References and Practice Aids
Cross references.
Reduction in compensation when alcohol or drugs contribute to injury or death, 52-1-12.1 NMSA 1978.
New Mexico Law Review.
Comment: A Comparison Of Workers’ Compensation In The United States And Mexico, Renee L. Camacho, 26 N.M. L. Rev. 133 (1996).