NWCDN Members regularly post articles and summary judgements in workers’ compensations law in your state.
Select a state from the dropdown menu below to scroll through the state specific archives for updates and opinions on various workers’ compensation laws in your state.
Contact information for NWCDN members is also located on the state specific links in the event you have additional questions or your company is seeking a workers’ compensation lawyer in your state.
On February 15, 2013, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals released its opinion in CVS/Caremark Corp. v. Gloria Washington wherein it addressed the affirmative defense of judicial estoppel in the workers’ compensation context. Specifically, the Court noted the availability of the defense but only when properly pled.
The Court of Appeals had previously addressed the issue in White Tiger, Inc. v. Paul Clemons (released January 13, 2012). In that case, the Court ruled that a claimant’s assertion that he was available and able to do some work at his unemployment hearing, did not prevent him from being awarded permanent and total disability benefits in his workers’ compensation case. The Court noted that being willing and able to do some work does not necessarily mean that you are able to secure employment that you are physically able and qualified to do. In the workers’ compensation case the plaintiff testified that he could not secure work because of his disability but he would give it a shot if someone hired him for a job he was qualified to do. For this reason the Court held that the two statements, in separate judicial proceedings, did not contradict one another in order to satisfy the necessary criteria for judicial estoppel to apply.
In the more recently decided Washington case, the Court held that the employer waived its right to assert judicial estoppel as a defense by not affirmatively asserting or pleading it. The Court further noted that the employee would have been judicially estopped from prevailing on a claim for permanent and total disability benefits based on the Court’s rationale in Clemons. The Court distinguished the two cases because the employee in Washington testified in her workers’ compensation case that she could not work at all because of her pain and she had not sought employment. The employee further admitted that she misrepresented her condition and ability to work in her claim for unemployment benefits. Unlike the Clemons case, in which the plaintiff testified he would give it a shot if he was hired in a position he was qualified for in the workers’ compensation case, the employee in Washington testified that she could not work and had not sought work because her injury/pain prevented her from working at all. Therefore, the two statements were in direct conflict of one another.
Practice Pointer: Judicial estoppel is a viable defense in workers’ compensation cases but only if it is affirmatively pled.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
The article was written by Joshua G. Holden, Esq. of Fish Nelson, LLC, a law firm dedicated to representing employers, self-insured employers and insurance carriers in workers’ compensation matters. Fish Nelson is a member of The National Workers’ Compensation Defense Network (NWCDN). If you have questions about this article or Alabama workers’ compensation issues in general, please feel free to contact the author at email@example.com, 205-332-1428 or any firm member at 205-332-3430.