2018 New Mexico Statutes
Chapter 52 - Workers' Compensation
Article 1 - Workers' Compensation
Section 52-1-11 - Injuries caused by the willfulness or intention of worker are noncompensable.

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 Comp., § 59-10-8; 1989, ch. 263, § 8; 2016, ch. 24, § 1.

The 2016 amendment, effective May 18, 2016, removed injuries caused by a worker's intoxication as noncompensable injuries and limited the section to injuries willfully suffered by the worker or intentionally inflicted by the worker; in the heading, after "injuries", deleted "due to intoxication" and added "caused by the", after "Compensation Act in", added "the", after "such injury was", deleted "occasioned by the intoxication of such worker or", after "suffered by", deleted "him" and added "the worker", and after "intentionally inflicted by", deleted "himself" and added "the worker".

Injury was not solely occasioned by worker's intoxication. — Section 52-1-11 NMSA 1978 is inapplicable to bar recovery where there is substantial evidence that supports a contributing cause to the worker's injury, in addition to the worker's intoxication. Villa v. City of Las Cruces, 2010-NMCA-099, 148 N.M. 668, 241 P.3d 1108, cert. denied, 2010-NMCERT-009, 149 N.M. 49, 243 P.3d 753.

Where worker was intoxicated when worker started work and at the time of the accident; worker had been driving a garbage truck for at least an hour before the accident and did not hit anything; worker walked around on the top of the truck without difficulty; a co-worker did not notice a problem with worker's demeanor; worker's supervisor and co-worker observed worker climb up on the truck without noticing anything amiss; and worker was standing on a narrow ledge of the truck attempting to attach a chain to a dumpster when worker slipped and fell, worker's behavior and conduct did not raise to the level of willfulness. Villa v. City of Las Cruces, 2010-NMCA-099, 148 N.M. 668, 241 P.3d 1108, cert. denied, 2010-NMCERT-009, 149 N.M. 49, 243 P.3d 753.

Sufficient evidence to support finding that injury was not occasioned by intoxication. — Where worker stepped onto a forklift; the driver of the forklift began driving away and worker fell and was dragged across a parking lot, suffering serious injury; tests revealed that worker had a blood alcohol content level of .079 forty minutes after the accident, which by extrapolation was .092 at the time of accident; and worker was able to accomplish other tasks before the accident, there was substantial evidence to support the finding that the worker's injury was not occasioned by intoxication. Nelson v. Homier Distrib. Co., Inc., 2009-NMCA-125, 147 N.M. 318, 222 P.3d 690.

Negligence on part of worker does not preclude relief under the Workers' Compensation Act. Morales v. Reynolds, 2004-NMCA-098, 136 N.M. 280, 97 P.3d 612, cert. denied, 2004-NMCERT-008, 136 N.M. 492, 100 P.3d 197.

Willful or intentional conduct outside of Workers' Compensation Act. — Willfulness renders a worker's injury non-accidental, and therefore outside the scope of the Workers' Compensation Act, 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 intentional act or omission to result in the injury, or has utterly disregarded the consequences; and (3) the intentional act or omission proximately causes the injury. Delgado v. Phelps Dodge Chino, Inc., 2001-NMSC-034, 131 N.M. 272, 34 P.3d 1148.

Burden of proof on insurance carrier where intoxication used as defense to claim. — Where intoxication is used as a defense by insurance carrier it has burden of proving the employee's intoxication and that the intoxication was cause of the accident which resulted in employee's injury. Parr v. State Hwy. Dep't, 1950-NMSC-016, 54 N.M. 126, 215 P.2d 602.

Employer has burden of proving that claimant was intoxicated at time of injury and that the intoxication was the proximate cause of the accident. Salazar v. City of Santa Fe, 1983-NMCA-134, 102 N.M. 172, 692 P.2d 1321, cert. quashed, 102 N.M. 225, 693 P.2d 591 (1985).

Summary judgment appropriate. — In order to maintain the balance of interests embodied in the Workers' Compensation Act's bargain, it is appropriate for a district court to grant summary judgment to an employer when a worker who pursues a tort claim cannot demonstrate the objective expectation of injury, the subjective state of mind of the employer, and the casual relationship between the intent and the injury. Morales v. Reynolds, 2004-NMCA-098, 136 N.M. 280, 97 P.3d 612, cert. denied, 2004-NMCERT-008, 136 N.M. 492, 100 P.3d 197.

Expert testimony not required. — Section 52-1-28 NMSA 1978 (proof of compensable claims) does not require an employer seeking to establish that a worker's accident was caused by his or her intoxication pursuant to this section to prove such a causal connection through expert testimony. Estate of Mitchum v. Triple S Trucking, 1991-NMCA-118, 113 N.M. 85, 823 P.2d 327, cert. denied, 113 N.M. 16, 820 P.2d 1330.

Evidence sufficient to support intoxication defense. — Evidence was sufficient to support a finding that the worker was intoxicated at the time of his accident and that his intoxication contributed to his accident. Estate of Mitchum v. Triple S Trucking, 1991-NMCA-118, 113 N.M. 85, 823 P.2d 327, cert. denied, 113 N.M. 16, 820 P.2d 1330.

Violation of order forecloses compensability. — If an order or warning is one limiting the scope or sphere of work which claimant is authorized to do, then a violation forecloses compensability for the injury so sustained. Walker v. Woldridge, 1954-NMSC-027, 58 N.M. 183, 268 P.2d 579.

Violation of safety regulation. — A miner's injury was not "willfully suffered" so as to bar the recovery of compensation for injuries suffered where he was injured in a recently blasted work area after failing to "bar down" the area, as required by federal and state regulations. The violation of an instruction on a regulation, without more, is not willful. Garcia v. Homestake Mining Co., 1992-NMCA-018, 113 N.M. 508, 828 P.2d 420, cert. denied, 113 N.M. 488, 827 P.2d 1302.

Act of employee without relation to employment. — An employee must be held to stand the risk of injury received by him which proximately results from an act of his own which has no reasonable relation to the employment. Walker v. Woldridge, 1954-NMSC-027, 58 N.M. 183, 268 P.2d 579.

A plea of guilty to reckless driving is not conclusive evidence of willful conduct, but is rather an admission subject to explanation, and if explained becomes an issue of fact. The trial court's finding that the plaintiff did what he thought was best in his judgment and that at the time of the accident wherein the said plaintiff was injured he was within the scope of his employment and was acting in apparent emergency, and without deserting his employment, for the purpose of advancing the interest of his employer, was supported by substantial evidence. Martinez v. Earth Res. Co., 1975-NMCA-020, 87 N.M. 278, 532 P.2d 207.

Refusing to heed advice of physician not willful misconduct. — Where a workman [worker] had refused to heed the advice of his physician to remain in bed, but continued his work, such refusal did not constitute "willful misconduct" barring recovery of compensation for his death, from a fall or from a heart attack, when he did not know he had heart disease. Christensen v. Dysart, 1938-NMSC-008, 42 N.M. 107, 76 P.2d 1.

Where worker ignored physician's advice to avoid heavy work because of his congenital vertebrae abnormality, and subsequently suffered from a work-related disc protrusion distinct from the congenital defect, worker's conduct did not bar compensation as worker was unaware of risk of development of distinct back problem which could aggravate the congenital defect. Tallman v. Arkansas Best Freight, 1988-NMCA-091, 108 N.M. 124, 767 P.2d 363, cert. denied, 109 N.M. 33, 781 P.2d 305.

Law reviews. — For comment, "Witnesses - Privileged Communications - Physician-Patient Privilege in Workmen's Compensation Cases," see 7 Nat. Resources J. 442 (1967).

For note, "Workmen's Compensation in New Mexico: Preexisting Conditions and the Subsequent Injury Act," see 7 Nat. Resources J. 632 (1967).

For survey of workers' compensation law in New Mexico, see 18 N.M.L. Rev. 579 (1988).

For note, "Workers' Compensation: Exclusivity, Common Law Remedies, and the Reconsideration of the Actual Intent Test - Delgado v. Phelps Dodge Chino, Inc.," see 32 N.M.L. Rev. 549 (2002).

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 82 Am. Jur. 2d Workers' Compensation §§ 215, 256, 257.

Failure to use safety appliances as serious and willful misconduct, 4 A.L.R. 121, 23 A.L.R. 1161, 23 A.L.R. 1172, 26 A.L.R. 166, 58 A.L.R. 198, 83 A.L.R. 1211, 119 A.L.R. 1409.

Insanity as affecting right of employee to compensation, 6 A.L.R. 570.

Recovery of compensation for injury or death to which delirium tremens contributes, 19 A.L.R. 106, 28 A.L.R. 204, 60 A.L.R. 1299.

Necessity and sufficiency of evidence that delirium tremens suffered by applicant for compensation is attributable to his employment, 20 A.L.R. 26, 73 A.L.R. 488.

Workmen's compensation: effect of employee's intoxication, 43 A.L.R. 421.

Workmen's compensation: injury from assault, 72 A.L.R. 116, 112 A.L.R. 1258.

Suicide as compensable under Workmen's Compensation Act, 15 A.L.R.3d 616.

Workers' compensation: effect of allegation that injury was caused by, or occurred during course of, worker's illegal conduct, 73 A.L.R.4th 270.

99 C.J.S. Workmen's Compensation §§ 206, 258 to 265, 320; 100 C.J.S. Workmen's Compensation §§ 563, 564, 612, 636, 768.