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

Citation: Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 56466-1-II Published Opinion.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2056466-1-II%20Published%20Opinion.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

1,567 chars

“‘Judicial estoppel is an equitable doctrine that precludes a party from asserting one

position in a court proceeding and later seeking an advantage by taking a clearly inconsistent

position.’” Anfinson v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 174 Wn.2d 851, 861, 281 P.3d 289

(2012) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Arkison v. Ethan Allen, Inc., 160 Wn.2d 535,

538, 160 P.3d 13 (2007)).

Paddock testified in an industrial insurance proceeding that he could not work as a

mechanic for the Port after his surgery in July 2017. Paddock’s testimony in the industrial

insurance proceeding was under oath, and allowing him to take any inconsistent position in later

litigation would lead to the impression that the later court is being misled. See Arkison, 160 Wn.2d

at 539. Paddock cannot now or on remand contend that he would have been able to work as a

mechanic for the Port after that date.

The Port asks us to conclude that judicial estoppel prevents Paddock from contradicting

the social security disability determination explanation stating that Paddock became disabled in

February 2017. But such determinations generally occur without hearings,3 and the Port points to

nothing in the record indicating that the Social Security Administration held a hearing on

Paddock’s application for disability benefits. Judicial estoppel applies when a party asserts

conflicting positions in different proceedings. Without evidence that Paddock asserted in a

proceeding that he became disabled in February 2017, we cannot conclude that judicial estoppel