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

3
Disability Evaluation under Social Security, U.S. SOC. SEC. ADMIN. (explaining that typically,
an applicant for Social Security disability benefits needs to appeal twice prior to receiving a
hearing before an administrative law judge),
https://www.ssa.gov/disability/professionals/bluebook/general-info.htm [https://perma.cc/2BJ8-
48MC].

21
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 56466-1-II

prevents him from making a claim that is inconsistent with the one he made to the Social Security

Administration. The Port does not argue that any other type of estoppel applies.

Paddock relies on Bickford v. City of Seattle, 104 Wn. App. 809, 17 P.3d 1240 (2001), to

argue that his disability benefits could be offset against an award for lost wages resulting from his

termination from the Port. But Bickford is distinguishable because it did not address whether

judicial estoppel prevents a plaintiff from claiming to be able to work in one proceeding and

claiming to be disabled in another. Rather, Bickford addressed whether a police officer’s disability

pension benefits could be offset against a jury award. Id. at 813. And unlike Paddock, the former

employee in Bickford received benefits under a statutory scheme that permitted police officers to

receive “the benefits provided by the . . . statute and also to have a cause of action against the

employer for any excess of damages over the amount received or receivable as benefits.” Id. at

814.

We conclude that Paddock is judicially estopped from arguing that he would have been

able to work as a mechanic for the Port after his surgery in July 19, 2017, but not earlier.

22
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 56466-1-II

CONCLUSION