added). The Social Se curity Act, on the other hand, does not take into consideration whether an accommodation would render the individual able to perform a job. Therefore, a statement that a person is disabled for purposes of obtaining social security disability benefits — a determination made without regard to accommodation — is not necessarily inconsistent with a statement that a person has been discriminated against in the workplace on the basis of her disability — a determination made only after giving due regard to accommodation. Despite McNemar’s shortcomings, at least one circuit has indicated a willingness to adopt the Third Circuit’s approach, albeit not applying the doctrine of judicial estoppel per se. See Kennedy v. Applause, Inc., 90 F.3d 1477, 1481-82 (9th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>); see also Simon v. Safelite Glass Corp., 128
holding parent entitled to credit for any social security disability benefits paid to child as a result of parents disability 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 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 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 a totally disabled claimant whose preexisting osteoarthritis was temporarily aggravated by her employment was entitled to temporary total disability benefits but not permanent total disability benefits because there was no causal connection between the temporary aggravation and the permanent disability