## Facts

- Marc Pearson worked as a welder for Johnson Controls, Northern N.M., L.L.C. and had more than 32 years of welding experience.
- Pearson had a preexisting lung condition that developed after exposure to welding fumes in a prior job with poor ventilation.
- From about 1998 through at least 2003, Pearson’s medical records reflected repeated physician advice about the dangers of welding-fume exposure, the desirability of less hazardous work, and the need for proper ventilation if he continued welding.
- Pearson sometimes took non-welding jobs based on medical advice, but he returned to welding for financial reasons.
- Pearson also had periods where he performed welding work without a flare-up of his symptoms.
- In October 2002, Johnson Controls directed Pearson to weld braces in a poorly ventilated house (a pump-house work area). Pearson objected and raised ventilation concerns, but he was instructed to proceed.
- Pearson’s lung condition worsened after that work to the point he could no longer weld.
- On August 20, 2003, Pearson filed a workers’ compensation claim alleging work-related aggravation of his lung condition.
- The claim was later stayed and consolidated with other claims involving separate injuries; the appeal addressed the denial of benefits tied to the lung condition and welding-fume exposure.
- After trial on February 27, 2009, a workers’ compensation judge (WCJ) reviewed Pearson’s testimony, medical records, and physician depositions and found Pearson had engaged in “wilful self-exposure” to welding fumes under NMSA 1978, § 52-3-5, barring benefits.
- Pearson appealed, arguing his conduct was not “wilful” under New Mexico’s legal standard and that the WCJ’s decision could not stand on whole-record review.

## Issues

1. Whether the “wilfulness” standard that can bar compensation for a worker’s self-injury under NMSA 1978, § 52-3-5 is the same strict standard described in Delgado v. Phelps Dodge Chino, Inc.
2. Whether Pearson’s decision to continue welding despite medical warnings about fume exposure met that Delgado-level wilfulness standard, justifying denial of workers’ compensation benefits.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals held that the standard of wilfulness for denying benefits based on worker self-injury is the same standard applied to employer misconduct under Delgado.
- Applying that standard, the court agreed with Pearson that his conduct did not amount to a wilful act within Delgado’s narrow test.
- The court concluded that continuing to weld in light of generalized medical warnings, without proof that Pearson faced almost certain injury or acted with the required state of mind, was at most negligent.
- The court reversed the WCJ’s denial of benefits and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.
- Because reversal followed from the legal error on the wilfulness standard, the court did not reach other arguments (including whether Pearson had just cause or excuse to continue welding or whether the employers knew of his lung condition when hiring him).

## Legal Principles

- The wilfulness required to deny workers’ compensation benefits for worker self-injury under § 52-3-5 is the same wilfulness standard applied to employer conduct under Delgado.
- Under Delgado, wilful conduct requires proof that: (1) the party engaged in an intentional act or omission, without just cause or excuse, that is reasonably expected to result in the injury suffered; (2) the party expected the injury to occur or utterly disregarded the consequences of the intentional act or omission; and (3) the intentional act or omission proximately caused the injury.
- The burden to prove wilfulness under Delgado is high; negligence, even serious carelessness, does not satisfy the test.
- A worker’s continued employment in a hazardous setting, even after warnings, is not wilful self-injury absent proof of conduct approaching near certainty of harm and the mental state described in Delgado.
- When a WCJ applies an incorrect legal standard to deny benefits, the appellate court may reverse and remand without deciding additional grounds raised by the parties.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeals reversed the WCJ’s denial of workers’ compensation benefits, holding that Delgado’s strict wilfulness test governs claims of worker “wilful self-exposure” under § 52-3-5 and that Pearson’s continued welding after medical warnings did not meet that demanding standard, amounting at most to negligence rather than wilful self-injury.


Pearson v. Johnson Controls, Northern N.M., L.L.C., 255 P.3d 318, 149 N.M. 740 (2011)