Short answer. It can be, but only if intoxication actually caused the disability or death. Article 172 excludes liability when the disability or death was occasioned by the employee's intoxication, among other listed causes. Being drunk at some point that day is not automatically disqualifying — the law asks whether intoxication actually caused the injury.
What the law says
The State Insurance Fund shall be liable for compensation to the employee or his dependents, except when the disability or death was occasioned by the employee’s intoxication, willful intention to injure or kill himself or another, notorious negligence, or otherwise provided under this Title.
Labor Code, Article 172 — Limits On Fund’s Liability. Read the full provision →
Causation, not mere presence of alcohol
Article 172 does not disqualify every claim where alcohol was somewhere in the picture. The exclusion applies when the disability or death was occasioned by the employee's intoxication — language that requires intoxication to be the actual cause of what happened, not simply a fact that happened to be true of the employee at the time. An injury that would have occurred regardless of intoxication, or one only loosely connected to it, does not fit the same description as one that intoxication actually brought about.
Other grounds for the same exclusion
Intoxication is one of several listed exceptions to the State Insurance Fund's general liability, alongside willful intention to injure or kill himself or another and notorious negligence. All three share a common thread: they describe the employee's own conduct as the actual source of the harm, rather than harm arising from the ordinary risks of the job. The Fund's coverage is built around work-connected injury, and these exclusions carve out situations where the employee's own extreme conduct, rather than the work itself, is what produced the outcome.
What this means for a specific claim
Whether your own situation falls inside or outside this exclusion turns on facts the article itself does not resolve for you: how intoxicated you actually were, whether that condition had anything to do with how the accident happened, and how that connection can be shown. A claim is not automatically doomed by evidence that alcohol was involved at some point in the day — what matters is whether the disability or death can genuinely be traced to intoxication as its occasion, which is a factual question worth examining carefully rather than assuming against yourself.
Ordinary carelessness is not on the list
The exclusions are worth reading for what they leave out as much as for what they name. Ordinary negligence is not among them. What the article excludes is notorious negligence, a description of conduct well beyond everyday carelessness — this is not a fault-based system, and an employee who was merely careless does not lose cover for that reason. The closing words, or otherwise provided under this Title, work the same way: they acknowledge that further exclusions sit elsewhere in the same Title rather than handing anyone an open-ended discretion to refuse a claim. One consequence is easy to miss. Because the test is whether the disability or death was occasioned by the employee's own intoxication, dependents claiming after a death are met by the same question, since their claim is measured by the employee's conduct rather than their own.