Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 56466-1-II Published Opinion.pdf

is estopped from arguing that he would have been able to work as a mechanic for the Port after his

surgery in July 19, 2017. We otherwise affirm.

We review a trial court’s dismissal on summary judgment de novo. Mackey v. Home Depot

USA, Inc., 12 Wn. App. 2d 557, 569, 459 P.3d 371 (2020). Summary judgment is appropriate only

“if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the

affidavits . . . show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party

9
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 56466-1-II

is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” CR 56(c). “‘A material fact is one upon which the

outcome of the litigation depends.’” Mattingly v. Palmer Ridge Homes LLC, 157 Wn. App. 376,

387, 238 P.3d 505 (2010) (quoting Balise v. Underwood, 62 Wn.2d 195, 199, 381 P.2d 966

(1963)). A genuine issue of material fact exists where “reasonable minds could disagree on the

facts controlling the outcome of the case.” Mackey, 12 Wn. App. 2d at 569.

“When determining whether an issue of material fact exists,” we “must construe all facts

and inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.” Ranger Ins. Co. v. Pierce County, 164 Wn.2d

545, 552, 192 P.3d 886 (2008). On summary judgment, “a nonmoving party’s declaration must be

taken as true and can create a genuine issue of material fact even if it is ‘self-serving.’” Mackey,

12 Wn. App. 2d at 575 (quoting Reagan v. Newton, 7 Wn. App. 2d 781, 806, 436 P.3d 411 (2019)).

As an initial matter, the trial court entered findings of fact in support of its summary

judgment decision, but findings of fact “‘are not necessary on summary judgment and, if made,