Matthew SIMON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SAFELITE GLASS CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that plaintiff “was required to notify the Social Security Administration if he went to work after he signed” the disability forms at issue
• finding that “there must be a true inconsistency between the statements in the two proceedings. If the statements can be reconciled there is no occasion to apply an estoppel.”
• applying judicial estoppel to employment discrimination claim based on position taken in prior Social Security Administration disability adjudication
• applying judicial estoppel because plaintiff told the Social Security Administration that he was “unable to work,” which was “patently and admittedly contrary to his central claim in this ease that he is able to work”
• applying judicial estoppel because plaintiff told the Social Security Administration that he was “unable to work,” which was “patently and admittedly contrary to his central claim in this case that he is able to work”
• applying judicial estoppel because plaintiff told the Social Security Administration that he was “unable to work,” which was “patently and admittedly contrary to his central claim in this case that he is able to work”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).