Opinion ID: 725141
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Are Workers' Compensation Proceedings Equivalent to Judicial Proceedings?

Text: 9 Unsurprisingly given its name, judicial estoppel is often articulated as applying to judicial proceedings. However, many cases have applied the doctrine where the prior statement was made in an administrative proceeding, and we are not aware of any case refusing to apply the doctrine because the prior proceeding was administrative rather than judicial. See Chaveriat v. Williams Pipe Line Co., 11 F.3d 1420, 1427 (7th Cir.1993) (Though called judicial estoppel, the doctrine has been applied, rightly in our view, to proceedings in which a party to an administrative proceeding obtains a favorable order that he seeks to repudiate in a subsequent judicial proceeding.) (collecting cases); Smith v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 388 F.2d 291, 292 (6th Cir.1968) (position taken in workers' compensation proceeding estopped party in subsequent personal injury action); Simo v. Home Health & Hospice Care, 906 F.Supp. 714, 718 (D.N.H.1995) (Social Security Administration disability proceeding); UNUM Corp. v. United States, 886 F.Supp. 150, 158 (D.Me.1995) (Maine Bureau of Insurance approval proceeding); Zapata Gulf Marine Corp. v. Puerto Rico Maritime Shipping Auth., 731 F.Supp. 747, 750 (E.D.La.1990) (Interstate Commerce Commission proceeding); Muellner v. Mars, Inc., 714 F.Supp. 351, 357-58 (N.D.Ill.1989) (SSA proceeding) (applying Illinois law). This rule has been justified on the ground that [t]he truth is no less important to an administrative body acting in a quasi-judicial capacity than it is to a court of law. Muellner, 714 F.Supp. at 357 (quoting Dept. of Transp. v. Coe, 112 Ill.App.3d 506, 510, 68 Ill.Dec. 58, 445 N.E.2d 506 (4th Dist.1983)). 4 10 We hold that the doctrine of judicial estoppel is not rendered inapplicable in this case by the fact that plaintiff's prior position was taken in a workers' compensation proceeding rather than in a court. 11