With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". on an indefinite schedule is not acceptable. Alternatively, the plaintiffs assertion that she could work with her requested accommodations conflicts with her representation to the OPM that she could not work even with reasonable accommodations. Compare Pl.’s Opp’n at 22 with Def.’s Mot., Exs. 45-46. “[W]here a party assumes a certain position in a legal proceeding, and succeeds in maintaining that position, he may not thereafter, simply because his interests have changed, assume a contrary position.” Galt v. Phoenix Indem. Co., 120 F.2d 723, 726 (D.C.Cir.1941). Prior agency determinations, such as the one made by the OPM in this case, are analogous to the “legal proceeding” described in Galt. See, e.g., Rissetto v. Plumbers & Steamfitters Local 343, 94 F.3d 597, 603 (9th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>); Simon v. Safelite Glass Corp., 128 F.3d 68,

A: holding that a proceeding under section 547 is a core proceeding
B: holding that a notice of appeal filed in an adversary proceeding could not appeal the main proceeding
C: holding that a social security disability determination is a legal proceeding
D: holding that a workers compensation proceeding is a legal proceeding
D.