ADJ8534435 — California WCAB decision

ADJ8534435 · December 19, 2025

Arbitrator's Findings and Award is affirmed, except amended to clarify that CEC has never been awarded a credit for its Longshore Act settlement in any proceeding; CEC is not entitled to such a credit in the California contribution proceedings.

Issues decided

Medical opinions weighed

Authorities named

District office

Oakland

What the panel ordered

CEC sought reconsideration of an arbitrator's Findings and Award denying it a credit for its Longshore Act settlement against its contribution liability to ACC; the WCAB granted reconsideration and now affirms the arbitrator's denial of credit, with clarification.

Read the official decision →

What was disputed, and how it came out

Each issue the panel decided, with the reasoning it gave. An outcome is what this panel did on this record — not a rule, and not a prediction.

Contribution / subrogationDefendant prevailed

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.

The facts that decided it

What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.

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.

ADJ8534435 · December 19, 2025

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

The facts that decided it

The rules the panel named

About this page