In Associated Construction & Engineering Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1978) 22 Cal.3d 829, the Supreme Court applied comparative negligence principles to a situation where plaintiff and a third party defendant had also settled prior to proceedings before the board. The plaintiff-employee brought suit against a third party which settled. Subsequent to the settlement, the employee sought a permanent disability award before the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. The employer claimed a credit only in accordance with its comparative fault against its workers' compensation liability under Labor Code section 3861. The Supreme Court reversed the disallowance of the employer's claim of credit, concluding "that the concurrently negligent employer should receive either credit or reimbursement for the amount by which his compensation liability exceeds his proportional share of the injured employee's recovery," ( Associated Construction & Engineering Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., supra, 22 Cal.3d 829, 842.) In answer to the procedural complications inherent in its ruling, the court observed: "Although the application of comparative principles to employers' credit rights may indeed burden board proceedings to some extent by requiring more extensive evidentiary presentations, we do not agree that the problems posed thereby are so severe or so impervious to amelioration as to render the methodology either unconstitutional or misguided." ( Associated Construction & Engineering Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., supra, 22 Cal.3d 829, at p. 845.)