AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Worker, a welder with over thirty-two years of experience, suffered a lung injury on October 7, 2002, while employed by various companies. This injury occurred in a poorly ventilated pump house at Los Alamos National Laboratory, where he was exposed to toxic fumes from welding seismic braces treated with an epoxy finish. Prior to this incident, the Worker had been diagnosed with a chronic lung condition exacerbated by exposure to welding fumes. Despite multiple warnings from doctors to avoid exposure to such fumes, the Worker continued his profession as a welder. He filed a workers' compensation claim for his lung injury on August 20, 2003 (paras 2-3, 5-10).

Procedural History

• Workers’ Compensation Administration, Gregory D. Griego, Workers’ Compensation Judge: Denied Worker benefits for his lung condition, finding him responsible for wilful self-exposure to toxic welding fumes.

Parties' Submissions

• Worker-Appellant: Argued that his actions did not legally constitute wilful self-exposure and that the WCJ’s findings were unsupported on whole record review (para 12).
• Employer/Insurer-Appellee: Contended that whole record review requires the Court to affirm the WCJ's decision (para 12).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Worker's decision to continue welding despite doctors' warnings constitutes a wilful act sufficient to deny workers' compensation benefits under NMSA 1978, Section 52-3-45 (1953) (para 1).
• Whether the Worker had a reasonable justification for his actions that would make compensation proper (para 12).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the order of the Workers’ Compensation Judge, finding that the Worker’s actions did not constitute a wilful act under the standard announced in Delgado (para 23).

Reasons

• The Court, per Judge Roderick T. Kennedy, with Judges Michael D. Bustamante and Linda M. Vanzi concurring, held that the standard of wilfulness applied to employers under Delgado v. Phelps Dodge Chino, Inc. also applies to employees. The Court found that the Worker’s decision to continue welding, despite doctors' warnings, did not meet the high burden of proof for wilfulness as defined in Delgado. The evidence did not demonstrate that the Worker had a subjective appreciation of the risk to the extent required by Delgado, nor did his actions rise to the level of egregiousness and unconscionability outlined in the precedent. The Court concluded that the Worker’s actions, while possibly negligent, did not fall outside the scope of accidental injuries covered by the Workers' Compensation Act (paras 13-22).