Short answer. If the injury impairs your earning capacity, yes. The Labor Code defines handicapped workers as those whose earning capacity is impaired by age or physical or mental deficiency or injury. The test is economic rather than medical, and injury is named alongside age and deficiency.
What the law says
Handicapped workers are those whose earning capacity is impaired by age or physical or mental deficiency or injury.
Labor Code, Article 78 — Handicapped Workers Defined. Read the full provision →
What the definition actually measures
The Code's definition is that handicapped workers are those whose earning capacity is impaired by age or physical or mental deficiency or injury. The thing being measured is earning capacity — what you are able to earn — not the severity of a diagnosis. Two people with the same injury may sit on different sides of this definition depending on the work they do, because an impairment that ends one trade may barely touch another. That is also why a serious condition which leaves your ability to earn intact does not, by this article's terms, put you inside the definition.
Four listed causes, and injury is one of them
The causes named are age, physical deficiency, mental deficiency and injury. Injury being on the list matters, because people who acquired an impairment part-way through a working life often assume these provisions were written only for those who were disabled from the outset. They were not. Age appears for the same reason: an older worker whose capacity to earn has declined with age falls within the wording as plainly as anyone else, without needing to point to any illness at all.
The language here is the Code's, and the law has moved
The term used in this Title is the one the drafters used in 1974. Later legislation, principally the Magna Carta for Persons with Disability, addresses the same population in different language and on a different premise — that a qualified person with a disability is entitled to be treated as a qualified worker, not as a discounted one. So this definition tells you how a particular Title of the Labor Code speaks. It does not tell you the whole of your rights, and where the two bodies of law diverge, the later statute is the one to read.
What this classification is for, and what it is not
These articles govern when such workers may be employed and what their employment agreement must contain. They are not the law on compensation for a work-related injury, which is a separate scheme with its own requirements. If you were hurt at work, do not let the question of whether you now fall within this definition displace the more urgent one of whether your injury is compensable — they are different claims, decided under different rules, and the second usually has more turning on it.