What is the implication of the statement surrounding intoxication, willful injury, or notorious negligence in relation to state fund coverage?

The implication of the statement regarding intoxication, willful injury, or notorious negligence in relation to state fund coverage indicates that even in circumstances where an employee may have engaged in behaviors that typically would preclude them from receiving coverage—such as being under the influence of intoxicants, intentionally causing harm, or demonstrating gross negligence—the state insurance fund may still provide coverage for the employee.

This is rooted in the principle that state workers' compensation laws are designed to protect employees against work-related injuries regardless of fault or misconduct, to promote workplace safety and ensure that legitimate claims are processed, even in challenging circumstances.

The other scenarios suggest limitations on coverage. For instance, stating that employees are never covered would imply a total exclusion, which misrepresents the intent of workers' compensation as a protective measure. Automatic coverage for all causes is also misleading as it downplays the importance of established criteria for coverage eligibility. Lastly, suggesting that only certain injuries are covered would indicate a selective approach that contradicts the broad protections typically afforded under the state insurance fund. Thus, asserting that the state insurance fund still covers the employee aligns with the overarching goal of these protections to handle injuries fairly and justly.