ADJ8534435 · December 19, 2025

CEC was not entitled to a credit for its Longshore Act settlement in the California contribution proceedings because it had the opportunity to assert a credit in the federal case and failed to do so; California law does not provide for such a credit in these circumstances, and the purpose of preventing double recovery was not implicated.

From the decision · page 7For all the reasons above, we therefore conclude that CEC has no right to credit in these contribution proceedings stemming from its Longshore Act settlement. Accordingly, we will affirm the arbitrator's F&A, except that we will amend it to clarify that no credit was previously awarded, as described above. In all other respects, including the award of contribution subject to adjustment by the parties with jurisdiction reserved to the arbitrator in the event the parties cannot determine the proper amount of contribution themselves, the F&A remains intact.

CEC had the opportunity to assert a credit for the California settlement in the federal Longshore Act case but did not do so.

Favours Defendant prevailed

This fact placed the responsibility for any double liability on CEC, not on ACC, and justified denying CEC a credit in the California contribution proceedings.

From the decision · page 6However, to the extent that contribution being assessed against CEC in the California case may result in double liability, CEC has no one to blame for that double liability except itself. As described above, pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 903(e), CEC had the right to a credit for the full amount of ACC's settlement in the California claim in the Longshore Act claim. It is therefore most reasonable to place the cost of that election on CEC, as the party who made it. Conversely, it would be unjust to impose the costs of CEC's election on ACC by awarding CEC a credit in the California contribution proceedings; to do so would be to pass ACC the bill for CEC's choices. Just as we rejected ACC's attempt to claim a credit for CEC's settlement, so too we reject CEC's attempt to transfer liability for its own choices to ACC.

There was no impermissible double recovery by the applicant, as previously determined by the WCAB.

Favours Defendant prevailed

The purpose of a credit is to prevent double recovery, which was not at issue here, so no credit was warranted.

From the decision · page 6This observation leads neatly into the second fatal flaw in CEC's reasoning: that the issue of double recovery is no longer relevant in these proceedings. Applicant has already been paid, and, as described in our October 19, 2019 Decision After Reconsideration, there was no impermissible double recovery. The instant contribution proceedings do not stand to impact applicant's recovery in any way; instead, they simply represent a divvying up of the responsibility for that recovery. The issue is therefore not double recovery but double liability: what CEC is really asserting in these proceedings is that a credit is required to avoid it being doubly liable in both the California and Longshore Act claims for the same injury.

Sea-Land Serv. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 76; Lab. Code, § 5705

A credit is allowed only to prevent double recovery for the same injury, and must be calculated on a dollar-for-dollar basis, but only where applicable under the law; California law does not mandate a credit for a Longshore Act settlement in subsequent state proceedings, and the burden is on the party seeking credit to show entitlement.

CEC failed to show entitlement to a credit in the California contribution proceedings because it did not exercise its credit rights in the federal case and California law does not provide for such a credit in these circumstances.

From the decision · page 6California workers' compensation case. CEC's citation to Sea-Land the only citation to authority it provides tellingly does not include a pin citation. Review of Sea-Land, moreover, discloses nothing that would support CEC's claim that it may forgo its federal Longshore Act credit rights in order to preserve the ability to assert a credit in the California proceedings. Indeed, Sea-Land specifically notes that there is no provision of California statutory law that authorizes a credit against a Longshore Act settlement at all. (Sea-Land, supra, 14 Cal.4th at 87.) Instead, any credit assertable in California workers' compensation proceedings for a Longshore Settlement is limited to the purpose of preventing a double recovery by the applicant. (Id. at pp. 87§ 91; see also Duong v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 980, 982; Bobbitt v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 845, 849.)