negation or repudiation of another asserted” remedy; “one statutory remedy explicitly precludes another;” or “a double recovery would result.” 25 Am.Jur.2d Election of Remedies § 20 (2004). {23} Although Employer fails to explain why it believes that the remedies Worker seeks are inconsistent, the only viable theory of inconsistency is double recovery, i.e., if Worker received his tort damages and his compensation under the Act, he would doubly recover. However, as we have noted above, Worker may not recover twice for the same injury. His tort damages must be offset by his compensation under the Act. See Montoya, 114 N.M. at 357, 838 P.2d at 974. Because Worker may not be doubly compensated for his injury, we hold that his remedies are not inconsistent. See Woodson, 407 S.E.2d at 233 (<HOLDING>). Therefore, the election of remedies doctrine
holding that an injured workers initial election to seek state compensation does not implicate the exclusivity provision to preclude the worker from later seeking compensation under the longshore act holding that allowing an injured worker to pursue both avenues to relief does not run afoul of the goal of the election doctrine which is to prevent double redress of a single wrong holding that negligently allowing a statute of limitations to run does not constitute an ethical violation holding that statute of limitations does not run until it was or should have been clear to the employee that the union would not pursue the grievance holding that allowing the statute of limitations to run on the clients claim is an example of obvious malpractice that does not require expert testimony to establish a standard of care