Opinion ID: 564886
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Burden of Proof of Apportionment

Text: 21 We now consider who bears the burden of proof regarding the apportionment of a settlement that covers multiple parties, i.e., who bears the burden of showing what portion of the settlement is attributable to the claimant. The Board here implicitly placed the burden on Mrs. Force by upholding the ALJ's decision to offset the entire settlement amount because he had rejected the evidence of apportionment she offered. As we understand the BRB's position, it would place the burden of proving the apportionment on the claimant and allow an offset in the full amount of the settlement if the claimant cannot meet this burden. 22 We agree with the Director that this contravenes our case law and the purposes of LHWCA. In Parsons Corp. of Cal. v. Director, OWCP, 619 F.2d 38, 41 (9th Cir.1980), we held that LHWCA's overall humanitarian policy of compensating employees for their injuries requires that all doubtful questions of fact be resolved in favor of the injured employee. Placing the burden of proof on employers is particularly appropriate in the context of section 933(f) because the employer remains liable for the full amount of the statutory compensation absent a showing that the claimant has been compensated by a third party. To ensure that the claimant receives his due, the employer must carry the burden of proving what is the claimant's portion of the group settlement. Until the employer makes this showing, it is not entitled to an offset. 23 Here, Kaiser presented no evidence as to the proper apportionment of the Force family settlement. As the Director points out, however, this case was tried on the theory that Mrs. Force bore the burden of proof. Because the employer should be given the opportunity to submit evidence to meet its burden of proof, this case must be remanded to the ALJ for further fact-finding on the issue of apportionment.