Plаintiff Raymond R. Paschke worked for defendant Retool Industries from 1956 until 1983. As office manager, plаintiff was in charge of funding, billing, payroll, .and similar mattеrs. In 1981, the owner of the business sold it to Mr. Wilson, who discharged plaintiff’s assistant office manager аnd replaced him with Mr. Wilson’s live-in companiоn. Plaintiff alleges preferential raises were handed out on the basis of personаl favoritism, some benefits were reduced, and there was a problem with vacation pay. Plaintiff claims he became deprеssed and hypertensive over the way things werе handled under the new owner.
By March 1983, plaintiff bеcame "tired and drawn out” and was expеriencing chest pain, headaches, and sleeping difficulties. Plaintiff’s last day of work was March 22, 1983, when he stayed home on the advicе of his wife. Plaintiff never saw a psychiatrist for treatment, though he did receive medical assistance in the form of antidepressants, blоod pressure medication, and diuretics.
Plaintiff indicated his intention to return to work in June 1983. His emрloyer informed him he could continue as assistant office manager at a lower wage. Plaintiff never returned to work. Plaintiff sought and received unemployment compensаtion benefits, which were opposed by defendant. To receive them, plaintiff represerlted that he was willing and ready to return tо employment.
Plaintiff then initiated proceedings for workers’ compensation benеfits. The Workers Compensation Appeal Board, in reversing a decision by a hearing *652 referee, determined plaintiff’s employmеnt to have been skilled, adopted medical testimony indicating that plaintiff might be ill-advised tо return to work, and granted plaintiff an opеn award of benefits on the basis of both a рsychiatric and a hypertensive disability.
Defendant now appeals. We reverse, finding plaintiff is judicially estopped from making a claim for workers’ compensation.
In aрplying for and receiving unemployment benefits, plaintiff asserted that he was able to continue to engage in gainful employment. The Court will not allow a party to assert a рosition and receive a benefit on one side of the ledger, then make a contrary assertion on the other.
Allen v Zurich Ins Co,
667 F2d 1162 (CA 4, 1982);
SCA Services, Inc v General Mill Supply Co,
We reverse the order below and remand for entry of an appropriate order denying plaintiff workers’ compensation benefits.