or prognoses” does not in and of itself disqualify or undermine her statements with respect to Tsilimparis’s diagnosis and treatment. The Court finds that the fact that the Plaintiffs receive SSDI and SSI based on their mental disabilities; the letter from the social worker attesting to Tsilimparis’s bipolar disorder and treatment history; and the Plaintiffs’ affidavits attesting to their mental disabilities, constitute sufficient proof of qualifying disabilities under the federal disability statutes for the purposes of this motion. Thus, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs are likely to prevail on their claim that they are disabled with the meaning of the federal disability statutes. See Wilson v. Seattle Hous. Auth., No. 09-CV-226, 2010 WL 1945740, at *2 (W.D.Wash. May 13, 2010) (<HOLDING>). iii. Whether the IHA was Aware of the
holding without applying the doctrine of judicial estoppel that the plaintiff who made sworn statements of total disability in a social security disability application and then testified at her deposition that she was not totally disabled failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether she was a qualified individual with a disability within the meaning of the ada holding that trial court was not required to conclude that wife was disabled for alimony purposes where she testified about her disability and offered documentation of her social security disability benefits but where she produced no medical testimony and where other evidence indicated that she was otherwise active and did not stay in bed all day as she claimed holding that the plaintiffs evidence of pretext which included but was not limited to her supervisors statement that she had enough of the plaintiff going to her supervisor about her was not sufficient to preclude summary judgment holding that despite the housing authorities challenge to the plaintiffs proof that she is disabled under the federal disability statutes for the purposes of preliminary injunction motion the plaintiff was likely to prevail on showing she was disabled based on 1 the plaintiffs personal declaration concerning the nature of her disabilities 2 the declaration of her social worker and 3 evidence that plaintiff is receiving ssi disability benefits holding that even if no previous proceeding had established that the plaintiff was disabled once it is shown at the present proceeding that the plaintiff was disabled at some earlier point in time a presumption still arises that in the absence of proof to the contrary the disability continues