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

III. POST-TERMINATION WAGE LOSS

Paddock argues that the trial court erred in holding that “he was judicially estopped from

advancing claims for” post-termination wage loss after February 13, 2017. Appellant’s Opening

Br. at 61. He contends that “any wage loss claim should be offset by his receipt of” Social Security

Administration and Department of Labor and Industries benefits, but he should not be barred from

claiming wage loss resulting from his termination from his mechanic position. Id. He reasons that

he would have continued working for the Port as a mechanic if the Port had not discharged him,

and that “he decided to undergo the surgery that limited his ability to work” only after applying

for other mechanic jobs and being turned down. Appellant’s Reply Br. at 25. The Port responds

that Paddock is receiving benefits from the Social Security Administration “because he claims—

and [the Social Security Administration] found—that he is disabled and has been unable to work

at all since February 13, 2017.” Br. of Resp’t at 43. It argues that Paddock is therefore “judicially

estopped from advancing any claims for lost earnings after February 13, 2017.” Id.

We partially agree with the Port. Paddock gave testimony in an industrial insurance hearing

that he could not work as a mechanic for the Port after his surgery, and we rely on that testimony

to estop him from arguing that he is entitled to lost wages after July 19, 2017. But the social

security disability determination explanation stating that Paddock became disabled in February

2017, does not trigger judicial estoppel.

20
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 56466-1-II