Opinion ID: 564880
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Last Responsible Employer

Text: 6 The ALJ applied Susoeff v. San Francisco Stevedoring Company, 19 BRBS 149 (1986), to find that General Ship Service was the last responsible employer. 1 In Susoeff, the BRB held that an employer who has exposed an employee to injurious stimuli can escape liability by demonstrating that the employee was also exposed to injurious stimuli while performing the work covered under the Act for a subsequent employer. 19 BRBS at 151. The ALJ here held that 7 the Susoeff ruling [that] the employer can escape liability by demonstrating the employee was exposed to such stimuli while performing work covered under the Act for a subsequent employer indicates the burden of establishing both injurious exposure and subsequent employment is on the employer claimed against. 8 ALJ Decision and Order at 5. Because General Ship Service exposed Mr. Barnes to asbestos and was not able to prove that he was exposed to asbestos through subsequent employment, the ALJ held it liable for the benefits. 9 General Ship Service argues that, as there is no way of knowing whether decedent last worked for General Ship Service or Fedde Marine, Susoeff is inapplicable and the ALJ should have held the two employers jointly liable for the benefits. 10 The Director urges us to adopt the Susoeff rule and uphold the ALJ and BRB. This is a question of law that we review de novo, but in doing so we must accord considerable weight to the construction of the statute urged by the Director who is charged with administering it. McDonald v. Director, OWCP, 897 F.2d 1510, 1511-12 (9th Cir.1990). Here, we defer to the Director's construction because it is a reasonable interpretation of the statute and accompanying case law. The purpose of the last employer rule is to avoid the complexities of assigning joint liability: 11 Congress intended that the last employer be completely liable because of 'the difficulties and delays which would inhere in the administration of the Act' if attempts were made to apportion liability among several responsible employers. 12 Todd Shipyards Corp. v. Black, 717 F.2d 1280, 1285 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 937, 104 S.Ct. 1910, 80 L.Ed.2d 459 (1984) (citing Cardillo, 225 F.2d at 145). We agree with the Director that the last employer rule calls for a single employer to be liable. 13 But which one? Here, we just don't know which employer decedent last worked for. We defer to the Director's position that when the evidence does not clearly indicate which of the covered employers who exposed him to injury the employee last worked for, the purposes of the LHWCA are best served by assigning liability to the employer who is claimed against. Placing the burden of proof on an employer who has exposed the claimant to harm ensures that the claimant will recover for his injuries. Although somewhat arbitrary, this rule is analogous to the last employer rule, which apportions liability in a fundamentally equitable manner because 'all employers will be the last employer a proportionate share of the time.'  Todd Shipyards, 717 F.2d at 1285 (quoting Cordero, 580 F.2d at 1336).