Making History

Forrest Gump paraded a variety of "Mama always said" quotes past us. Two stick in my head:

"Stupid is as stupid does."

"life is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get."

I progress back and forth between these two recently, as I read the 1984 decision of the Florida Supreme Court in The Florida Bar v. Lancaster, 440 So. 2d 1019 (Fla. 1984). It reminds me of both. And, it makes me reflect on How Will You Be Known (December 2015) and Do You Care about Reputation? (June 2023). Is there something more valuable for an attorney than reputation?

The concept of reputation makes me think of a recent Associated Press (AP) story about a judge robbed in her home. Her husband is described as "a former attorney," "disbarred," and "taking" money. There are more flattering accolades, but these adjectives overshadow any description.

Back to 1984. In Lancaster, the Court was provided a referee report that recommended disbarment. The lawyer instead received a two-year suspension. It all started with a boat, some attempt at concealment, and influencing witnesses. There was apparently some debate about who owned the boat.

Attorney Lancaster admitted the boat was in his backyard, and that he was suspicious that his roommate's ownership or possession might raise questions. When the state attorney made inquiries about the boat, Lancaster later admitted that "he lied about his knowledge" of some alterations to the "number on the boat."

There was a surreptitious recording introduced as evidence. It was obtained by the roommate (who allegedly altered the number), wearing a "body bug" microphone in the home shared with Lancaster. That issue, in the style of lawyers, became about the admissibility of the evidence more than the substance of the recording. Lancaster asserted it was inadmissible, and the referee disagreed.

The Supreme Court agreed with the referee, describing that Bar proceedings were not the same as criminal proceedings. The transcript of that conversation included details regarding "stick(ing) together" and investigating "whether ... the boat was stolen" and how to engage with the seller of the boat, who might be a witness in the Florida case.

There was some allegation that attorney Lancaster might have sought to have a witness "alter his story to assist Lancaster," and to encourage another witness "not to testify." Neither of those seems very flattering. 

Against this backdrop, Lancaster presented witnesses who said various "workers' compensation ... claimants ... would be without assistance (of counsel) if Lancaster were suspended." Furthermore, there was evidence that Lancaster belonged to a local community service organization. These mitigations of community engagement and involvement were perhaps critical. 

The Florida Bar recommended a suspension, the referee recommended disbarment, and the Court imposed a suspension. It concluded "that Lancaster had conspired to influence a potential witness not to testify at his trial." It concluded that evidence supported "Lancaster ... (lied) to a law enforcement official."

What a lawyer, or anyone, might consider is that there is the potential for dishonesty to become a reputation. The odds of this are perhaps increased when your example is brought before the state's highest court and published for all to read in the Southern Reporter. The case of The Florida Bar v. Lancaster will be available on the internet for generations to come. 

A lawyer might similarly be cautious about counseling witnesses or encouraging them not to appear. There may be relevance in the juxtaposed potentials of Forrest Gump: "You never know what you're gonna get," and Lancaster might have gotten no punishment or publicity. There is always that potential when electing to proceed to trial. However, you may have the opportunity to have your name published forever in the state's case law. "You never know." 

In deciding to mislead or misdirect, any witness must know the potential. Obfuscation, misdirection, or falsity may steer a decision in an unexpected or unwanted direction. "You never know." 

And, in that event, you may simply leave posterity with the decision of whether the action, the response to being caught, or the outcome was smart or not. Reputation is built a single act at a time, but can be destroyed in a moment. 

In the end, it is your reputation and your history. How will you be known? Do you care? Should you? Over what, a boat? A boat that may be your roommate's? A boat that is at least not yours and not your concern? Is it different if there is a shot at lots of money, as in the AP story? At what value is your integrity at risk or for sale?

The entire situation is curious, and its machinations and outcome merit consideration. How many instances of poor judgment or mistakes are worth the risk? 

Dunning Kruger

We close a year of change and challenge. We face a future of uncertainty and change. We are fools if we do not periodically consider and contemplate our past, present, and future.  

My grandfather was born in 1903 on a farm in rural Indiana. That state, and much of the rest of North America, had been divided with imaginary lines. That all began just over 240 years ago with the Land Ordinance of 1785, which standardized the measure and description of geography. This process established "a cadastral grid."

Yes, America is divided into a great many little square boxes. Land is categorized into states, counties, and townships. The townships are 6 miles on each side, so 36 square miles. Each of those square miles is a "section," which is 640 acres. 

With an amazing lack of creativity, those are divided into "quarter sections," which are 160 acres each. And, to be consistent in the blaise, those are divided into "quarter quarter" sections that are 40 acres each. That is where the old adage of "40 acres and a mule" comes from. 

If you want to experience this property survey first-hand, travel to rural Indiana (and a great many other agricultural meccas), and you can actually drive the squares. Roads have been laid out in these places, and they are literally a mile apart (sections), with one of them often named "Base Line," which delineates the centrality of that road.

In 1930, there were family farms of 40 acres, but 80 acres was likely more prevalent. In 1930, "more than 11 million Americans worked on farms," about 21% of the working population. The first tractors had come to agriculture in 1868, but the first gasoline-powered tool came in 1887, with a production run of "six of the machines." 

There were other innovators. Case entered the market in 1894, followed by Hart-Parr, Ford, and more. "After 1910, gasoline-powered tractors were used extensively in farming." Extensive, but also expensive. 

For many, their access to mechanization came later. In 1923, the venerable Farmall entered the market, a "revolutionary design that will change farming forever" that actually "can replace horses." The International Harvester company was producing 200 McCormick-Deering Farmall tractors daily by 1930. And yet, not every farmer could afford one. 

Pause there to consider the timing. 1868 to 1887 (19 years), to 1894 (7 years), to 1910 (16 years), to 1923 (13 years), to 1930 (7 years). Not exactly an overnight cataclysm. Gasoline tractors did not change the world in a day, a year, or even a decade. They did, however, change the world. 

The tractor brought leverage. One person with a tractor could do much more than with a horse. And the tractor never got tired (though maintenance was required) and did not need to be fed, watered, and rested. And soon, the age of the tenant farmer and the 40-acre farm was quickly over. By 1950, the average farm was 205 acres, and by 1969 it was 400 acres (over half a section).

The result? First, there were many unemployed "farm hands," physical laborers transitioning from working in agriculture. They sought other work. See Yesterday (November 2025). Next, there were fewer farmers as the mechanization increased, technology was further leveraged, and the farms grew.

There was a draw to other work, manufacturing, information, and more. Thus, there is history of vocational disruption on large scale (21% of American workers were farming). We all tend to underestimate our personal ignorance. This is the Dunning-Kruger Effect, see Langham, Unseen Influence: Unconscious Predisposition in Dispute Resolution (2025). To paraphrase, this "cognitive bias of illusory superiority" holds that "we don't know what we don't know."

Looking at opportunities with manufacturers in a vast spectrum, including tools, beverages, vehicles, petroleum, steel, and more, how many of those farmhands and farmers perceived doom and gloom in 1930, 1950, and after?

https://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/Farm_Labor/fl_frmwk.php

But the key is Dunning-Kruger. Those farm-worker doomers and gloomers likely believed that they knew the expanse and breadth of occupation and vocation. They knew their world, in that era, but had no inkling of where their world was headed. Occupations have traditionally diminished and even disappeared. New vocations have similarly appeared and flourished. Economic evolution is not new.

How many of those farmhands in 1930 imagined they might be employed making cellular telephones, programming computers, running nuclear reactors, or even flying people around in an airplane? In short, those people knew their time, they knew what they knew, but they cannot be blamed for not knowing what they did not (yet) know.

That said, neither can you be blamed. You may see artificial intelligence and robotics, and experience fear. You perceive that tomorrow will be like today, that you possess all the knowledge of the future. You are staring into the abyss of what technology will do to the "normal" of today, without considering your own knowledge deficit about what the "normal" of tomorrow might include.

Can 2030, 2040, 2050, and beyond bring tools and processes that are, as yet, unknown and unimagined? The answer is clearly yes. It is the ultimate hubris to allow Dunning-Kruger to lure, dull, or scare you. The fact is that every generation has faced changes and challenges. Every generation always will. That AI and robotics will change the present and future is no different than the mechanization, technology, and other benefits of tractors (or even the wheel) to your forefathers.

So, get on with it. Weather the immediate challenge. AMD CEO Lisa Su recently told Fortune that young people should embrace the challenge. She offered this advice:

“Run towards the hardest problems—not walk, run—and that’s where you find the biggest opportunities, where you learn the most, where you set yourself apart, and most importantly, where you grow.”

That is great advice. Various leaders have exhorted action. General Gerard is credited with "march to the sound of the guns." Since then, U.S. Grant, William Sherman, George Custer, and George Patton have been credited with similar encouragements. You might argue that theme did not work so well for Custer, but it is often the exception that proves the rule. 

These commanders essentially decried waiting for direction and advice and instead encouraged charging into the challenge. Not so different from Ms. Su's recent exhortation. Accept the fear, know there is much we do not and cannot know, and go chase your future anyway!

Or, you could crawl back into bed and put the covers over your head. See Buzzwords 2025 (December 2025). That won't solve or accomplish much, except perhaps you will remain fearful but be better rested?

Lazy and Sanctioned

No Artificial Intelligence (AI) was used in the drafting of this blog post. The citations to cases herein were all derived from a trial order source. Believe it or not, some courts require such disclosures. 

I have been somewhat hard on the uninformed or intellectually challenged who blithely engage AI as if it were a sentient, thinking being. See Prosecuted for lying? (June 2025); Better look that up (July 2025); Avatars to Replace Lawyers? (April 2025). I have said it before, and I repeat it here: lawyers need to be wary of AI (so do judges). Just Delete It? (October 2025). 

It is frankly incomprehensible that any lawyer is practicing today who does not know that AI hallucinates and cannot be trusted. Which AI? All of them. "Internal" and "external" are colloquialisms attached to AI, but they are all troublesome. Three intrepid Mississippi explorers are now enjoying their "Warhol 15 minutes" as a result.

The U.S. District Court in Aberdeen, Mississippi (north of Starkville, and south of Tupelo), has addressed the missteps of three lawyers who were part of a firm until recently. The case is styled Billups v. Louisville Municipal School District, Case No. 1:24-CV-74-SA-RP. Just before Christmas, Judge Aycock entered a December 19, 2025, order regarding AI, legal research, and sanctions.

The story is intriguing and involves two law partners, Louis Watson and Nick Norris, and an associate named Jane Watson. It is likely that the two Watsons are father and daughter, but that is not stated in the order. Mr. Norris left the firm in November 2025, informing the Billups court by letter, and the Watsons may still be practicing together.

In September 2025, the District Court investigated the citation of fictitious and hallucinated authorities (cases). These fell into two categories: a non-existent case and "multiple instances where case holdings were misrepresented." These were "immediately identified" by the trial judge, were listed by the judge, and an order to show cause was entered, compelling an explanation. The progress of the case was delayed by the show cause, hearing, and conclusions.

The court concluded that the hallucinations were submitted because of "unverified artificial intelligence ('AI') usage." The judge noted that a similar order in another case, regarding hallucinations, had been entered regarding Ms. Watson's use of "an AI tool to assist her in drafting the brief" and memorialized her admission "that she did not verify the accuracy of the citations generated by the AI tool before submitting the brief to the court."

Before these two instances, in March 2025, Ms. Watson was contacted by an opposing counsel in yet another case regarding "discrepancies." Those were blamed on "unverified AI output," and led to all "three (Watson and Norris) attorneys attend(ing) a continuing legal education ('CLE') course on ethics in utilizing AI."

Education is a great response to errors and mistakes. When you flounder, and we all do periodically, leverage articles, research, and classes to move forward. But, and this is important, taking classes is only worthwhile if you listen, digest, and actually learn. Attendance alone will gain you nothing.

In response to that first instance of AI misuse, the Watson and Norris firm also adopted an AI policy and constraints on its use. Specifically, no "external AI tool" use was permitted, and only the firm's case management AI and related tools, called "Smokeball" and "Archie," were permitted. Does anyone else wonder where the names for these AI LLMs and tools come from?

In the Billups case, the pleading had been signed by the associate attorney, Ms. Watson, under the supervision of the partner, Mr. Norris. Ms. Watson graduated law school in 2022, was hired by the firm in 2023 as a "legal assistant," and was later admitted to the Mississippi Bar in September 2024. There is no patent explanation for the perhaps two-year delay between graduation and bar admission. But see Smarter than Kim (December 2025).

The Billups judge concluded that Ms. Watson "consistently violated the (firm) AI policy since its inception." Following the show cause order, the "firm began reviewing filings" in various cases and found "ten cases wherein briefs" included "unverified and/or inaccurate citations." 

Notably, there was at least one misstatement by the firm about these other cases, which the trial judge noted from personal knowledge ("the undersigned is aware of at least five other cases in this District"). When responding to a show cause order or an inquiry from a judge, being precise and accurate is worthwhile. When you don't know, simply say so. If you are guessing, say so. But when you make a factual statement, expect to back it up. 

Following the show-cause hearing, Mr. Norris informed the Court via letter that the Watson and Norris firm dissolved effective November 30, 2025, and that Mr. Billups elected for Norris to continue to represent him in this case. 

The Billups judge noted Rule 11, reasonable inquiry, certification of contentions, and avoidance of frivolous argument. She noted that there is "a duty to conduct a ‘reasonable inquiry into the facts and law of a case at the time [at] which (an attorney) affixes her signature on any papers to the court.’” The judge reiterated:

"AI is a powerful tool, that when used prudently, provides immense benefits. When used carelessly, it produces frustratingly realistic legal fiction that takes inordinately longer to respond to than create. While one party can create a fake legal brief at the click of a button, the opposing party and court must parse through the case names, citations, and points of law to determine which parts, if any, are true." Ferris v.Amazon.com Servs., 778 F. Supp. 3d 879, 881 (N.D. Miss. Apr. 16, 2025).

The trial judge found fault in

Ms. Watson's:

• Filing of the subject pleading drafted and researched with Grok AI.
• Not verifying the accuracy of the output.
• Not reading the cited cases, in violation of Rule 11.
• Failure "to 'discharge [her] most basic responsibility as an attorney.'"
• "Troublesome pattern of conduct."
• Failure "to change her ways," or "learn() from her mistake."
• "Blatant disregard for the Firm's policy."

Mr. Norris'

• Assuming the cited cases were correct.
• Not reading the cases cited in the brief.
• Not acknowledging that the "attorney's responsibility to review a legal filing for factual and legal accuracy is 'nondelegable.'”
• Not learning from Ms. Watson's first AI usage, which led to the firm's AI policy and more.
• "Indifference to his professional responsibility."

Mr. Watson's

• Failure "as a supervisory attorney."
• Role as "jointly responsible for a violation" of rules.
• The, as yet, absence of any "steps ... taken to sanction or punish or address the wrongdoing of Ms. Watson."

In fairness, being a parent is one of the most difficult tasks on the planet. Punishing your child is excruciatingly difficult. That said, would you rather be their parent or friend? Of course, this assumes they are father and daughter, which is perhaps not the case. 

Ms. Watson argued at the show-cause hearing that she was merely "lazy" and had "made a big mistake" in not checking her work. Though she and the firm had "almost six weeks to prepare" for the show cause hearing, "Mr. Watson was learning of new cases involving unverified AI usage by the Firm on the morning of the hearing." That may have been perceived as not very diligent on anyone's part.

The court was not finished, though. The trial judge addressed the defendant in the Billups case. She noted that it "could have flagged the fictitious citation and misrepresentation of case law in a reply brief or supplemental filing." The defendant was not sanctioned, but she clarified in a clarion call:

"Going forward, the Court expects all parties to assist in maintaining the integrity of the judicial process and to be diligent in flagging AI misuse. '[O]therwise, the risk is too great that such errors will persist undetected, potentially leading to an outcome unsupported by law.'” Elizondo v. City of Laredo, 2025 WL 2071072, at 3 (S.D. Tex. July 23, 2025).

The judge noted the three Watson and Norris lawyers had "already attended CLE trainings on the dangers of AI, self-reported to the Mississippi Bar, and informed Billups of the AI misuse." She concluded "that a monetary fine would not have a meaningful deterrent effect" in this instance. Therefore, all three were disqualified from the Billups case.

All three were "required to provide a copy of (the) Sanctions Order to all presiding judges in every pending state or federal case in which they are counsel of record." That embarrassment may be of import. And Ms. Watson was ordered to "seek withdrawal in any case where she appears as attorney of record that is assigned to" that trial judge. She was essentially barred from appearing before that judge for "two (2) years."

Intriguingly, many lawyers include "recent cases" or outcomes on their firm website or social media feeds. One might wonder how effective it could be to order lawyers in similar instances of AI misfeasance to post notice of their "recent discipline," or links to orders such as the one in Billups, on their public-facing web and media platforms? 

It is noteworthy that the judge in Billups cited Ferris. The notation there reminds us that it requires significant time and effort to "parse through the case names, citations, and points of law to determine which parts, if any, are true." The Billups judge ordered the three lawyers to:

"conduct an internal audit of all substantive filings on which Jane Watson is a signatory since she became an associate attorney with the Firm. The Firm must provide a report of the audit to this Court identifying: (1) every case in which Jane Watson is a signatory on any filing, (2) any fictious case citations and/or misrepresentations of case holdings in any filing, and (3) the corrective action that has been taken in each case."

That will take some time investment from each. They are fortunate that she was an associate attorney for only about one year. Firms might take note of the potential for similar punishment regarding a lawyer with more years of experience. As the "age of AI" progresses, the "tail" on such potential research will become longer and longer. The time and expense of such research will perhaps become increasingly significant. Learn from the mistakes of others!

Each of the three lawyers was ordered to independently "certify under oath that they reviewed all Ms. Watson's filings and identified all fictitious case citations and/or misrepresentations to the best of their ability." Thus, the parsing and onus of this difficult auditing task fall to the entirety of the law firm and independently on each of the three lawyers, despite the law firm's dissolution. 

It is very likely that news of this order will travel rapidly in the realm of Mississippi and beyond. The opposing counsel of any of the three will likely be performing due diligence as the judge's clarion "charge" compels, whether those cases are before her or not. Perhaps a few lawyers elsewhere will take heed and pay more attention to their citations of authority and those of their opponents. It is in hopes of such a positive outcome that I publish this and my prior AI accounts. 

Being a lawyer is a privilege. Providing counsel and representation is a tremendous responsibility. The lawyer often holds their client's very life in their hands. The lawyer must be industrious, intellectual, and engaged. They will make mistakes, despite their best efforts. Nonetheless, their best efforts are expected.   

In a now-famous scene from Animal House (Universal 1978), Dean Wormer cautioned, "Lazy and stupid is no way to go through life, son." It was worthy then, and it is worthy now. There are no shortcuts that relieve lawyers or judges from professional responsibility. That clarion "charge" should remain daily in each of our foci. 

Double the Wages

A Fortune article was recently republished on Yahoo, describing the sentiments of one manufacturer regarding the American workforce. It is intriguing and worthy of consideration for two reasons. The focus is Ford Motor Company. Its CEO was focused on two aspects of the workforce: income and preparedness.

Henry Ford is widely credited with his response to a transient workforce in the early days of that company. The pundits claim that the highly repetitive and fast-paced nature of the early mass production made employee retention difficult. By increasing wages, Henry Ford was able to retain workers, reduce expenses related to recruitment and training, and, in the process, build a workforce with sufficient economic status to actually buy an automobile.

The initiative in 1914 was to pay those workers an outstanding $5.00 per day. That rate for an eight-hour day ($.63/hr) was a 140% increase over the previous $2.34 for a nine-hour day ($.26/hr). The gambit worked, applications soared, and retention improved. The current Ford CEO recently agreed to a similar gambit described in the Yahoo article. 

Notably, that $.63/hr in 1914 would be about $20.46 in 2025. The current Ford CEO was negotiating a contract in which the workers were already making $17 an hour, not so far removed from the exemplary 1914 wage. Thus, there is also some likelihood that today's economic macrocosms are somewhat different if not more complex than a century ago. 

The impetus was learning that Ford employees were working multiple jobs. That meant they were sleeping less, and the implication is they were missing work, making errors, and likely facing safety concerns. More mistakes happen when we are tired. That said, the cost of various inputs (labor, materials, marketing, etc.) dictates the price that must be charged for an output (car).

The consumer will rarely consider social implications (patriotism of buying an American car) when making a purchasing decision. Less frequently still will such implications override the evaluation of price (up front), value (long haul), and quality. Thus, when the price of an input (labor cost) is increased, the price of the output is likely to increase. That will be evaluated in the consumer decision of Ford versus the spectrum of vehicle alternatives. The second point of the Yahoo article is an other supply and demand conflict that is classic in economics. The Ford CEO lamented that the company currently has

"5,000 open mechanic positions that have remain unfilled, despite an up-to $120,000 salary for the role."

The implication of that is patent. There are not enough repair experts to keep the various vehicles serviced and roadworthy. That has an impact on the value equation described above. If one brand has a longer repair cycle than another, the difference may influence the purchasing decision(s). Two points: that is a notable salary, and the supply of open positions is significant.

Then comes the rub. Ford's CEO believes that the government is to blame for the lack of mechanic applicants. He says it is time for the government to "get really serious about investing in trade schools" to train people for these roles. The fact is that schools used to exist. When the Boomers were in high school, every school had a wood shop, auto shop, and some had metal work and more.

There was a recognition that not everyone would want or need college. There was appreciation for the value in classes other than calculus and English literature. I am not knocking the academic necessity of such classes, but suggesting that the imperative for shop class, band class, and more are equally if not more imperative.

That said, school systems are often large and cumbersome. They have seemingly all bought into the "calculus for everyone" model and closed their vocational offerings. Striving to restore those will be of monumental difficulty and the results will require a decade or more to effect real impact. If you began today with hiring faculty and acquiring premises and equipment, your first graduates are three to four years out.

Add to that, you will face some uphill effort in recruiting the early generations of students. For years the trades have been ignored and even derided by the academics who closed shop programs. Convincing the young to flock back to these programs will likely require some marketing, some re-education, and some patience.

Having encouraged great public investment—"government ... investing in trade schools," the Ford CEO notes the European model that instead has young people working as "an apprentice" in manufacturing. There, the training is occurring in the manufacturing setting. There is private investment in the worker, and then the resulting retention and contribution envisioned by Henry Ford with his efforts in the early 20th century.

Some will question whether the industry or the government or both should shoulder the burden of training, opportunity, and evolution.

In any event, the worker volume could benefit from multiple courses. Skill sets could be readily identified and training offered in both academic and practical settings. The efforts will be successful only if the result is attractive jobs, be that monetarily or otherwise. The result is not a panacea. Even with increased supply of trained workers, manufacturing industries will compete with other trades (plumbing, electrical, and HVAC). Market competition will not be eliminated, nor should it be. 

Those workers will all have to compete with the wage expectations of others. Ford vehicles made in America will have to compete with the price point and value perceptions of cars built in Europe, Japan, and China. Manufacturers will have to compete for labor in a market shifting and adjusting to artificial intelligence and increasing automation and robotics. There will thus be competition among and against humans in any scenario. 

As Ford's CEO aptly noted, the challenges are not for Ford alone. More importantly, they are not for manufacturing alone. The economic balance is changing. Technology will continue to augment and replace human effort. Occupations will change, consumption will change, and value assessments will change. The simple fact is that these changes have been historically persistent, whether noticed or not. 

The present is subject to observation and change. But the decisions of yesteryear (closing the high school shop class) will impact the ability of the market to adjust. How far should they adjust? In the same equation, overinvestment in the trades could produce populations that outpace demand and thus do not reward the investment of education of apprenticeship.

In all, there is a necessity of balance. There is value in skill and training. But the investor (student) should be wary of the many moving parts and factors in the economy at large. Each, in shop class or calculus, should be conscious of demand, potential change, and return on investment. 

The real tragedies will be those who invest in poor potentials, fail to thrive, and seek to have others bail them out of their poor decisions. Should the government, or anyone, subsidize or bail out bad decisions? Does it matter who the bailed constituency is? Students earning unmarketable degrees, cities in financial disrepair through misfeasance or worse, and industries or entities that have followed poor paths or predictions?

There will be reckonings for decisions. Some are more personal, and others are systemic. The school board's abandonment of shop classes and those who would use them is a prime example. Is the education process delivering skills and knowledge that are marketable and valuable? Are the consumers (students and employers) demanding that education do so?

Also, there is great value in thinking beyond skill itself to the economic value of "transferable skill." What can be learned and perfected that is of value in either manufacturing or plumbing? What can you learn from this job that you might use in the next one? Those skills will afford distinction, flexibility, and mobility. Employers already know that. Workers must consider and embrace it. 

Scromiting

I have never been an advocate for dope use. Various prior posts are listed and linked in Dope and Heart Disease (March 2024). For years, I have listened to people explain that weed is harmless and that, therefore, the classic risk/benefit analysis should always lean toward pot (if the risk is indeed zero, then almost any benefit creates a scale tipped toward dope). 

That said, history teaches us that there have been few examples in which there was an opportunity for benefit that was utterly free of corresponding risk. That is not to say that it cannot occur, but I suggest nature abhors such a win/win outcome. Benefit generally begets risk and vice versa. 

In November 2025, Congress acted to change the methodology for defining hemp. In December 2025, the president issued an executive order regarding the "scheduling" of dope. That did not change weed from a Schedule I drug ("no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse"), but directed the Attorney General to expedite the reclassification to Schedule III. 

This will undoubtedly mean more availability and increased use of pot in the general public. There have been some interesting studies suggesting that dope use decreases alcohol demand. And alcohol consumption by U.S. adults is at the lowest point since polling began 90 years ago (1939); prohibition ended in 1933. 

Is weed killing alcohol, or are people waking up to the health risks of each? That will be hard to measure for some time because there is a natural disinclination to admit illegal activity, and dope has been illegal a long time. In an informal, unscientific survey recently, I had many respondents acknowledge that they would be reluctant to admit pot use. 

The fact is that weed has killed people. See New Testing for Marijuana (April 2016). Granted, the outcome is not seen frequently. There are likely more deaths caused by impairment, but the critics of zero-pot-tolerance aptly note that impaired driving and other judgment issues are as possible with alcohol, prescriptions and more.

Nonetheless, there is no argument that pot is harmless.

Recently, CNN featured news of "Scromiting, a bizarre condition linked to chronic marijuana use." This is a combination of "screaming and loud vomiting," and the medical term for it is "cannabis hyperemesis syndrome, or CHS." It seems to affect various age cohorts. 

The condition is described as "bizarre" and has been part of the medical lexicon only since 2004. The first documentation came regarding Australian dope users. That early study revealed an amazing treatment. Apparently, in 100% of cases studied, "symptoms went away when cannabis use was stopped."

Remember the old joke: "Doctor, it hurts when I do this," and the doctor says, "Quit doing this." That was a great old saw. According to Goodreads, we can thank Henny Youngman for that gem.

Patients are reportedly coming to emergency care facilities repeatedly (some as often as 203 emergency room visits per month) with unbearable "abdominal pain and nausea" coupled with ongoing and persistent vomiting, sometimes "for hours." It's like the old Ray Guy quote, pot "is like hitting yourself in the head with a hammer; it always feels great when you" stop. 

The medical profession is seemingly powerless to stop the symptoms of Scromiting, but can offer amelioration ("anti-nausea medications and IV fluids"). The home remedy for CHS is "extremely hot baths or showers," but some who report to emergency rooms say they have tried that without success.

The emergency physicians who treat this behavior screen for causative explanations of the symptoms. CNN reports that the battery of tests "to rule out other causes" includes "blood and urine tests, expensive CT scans, unpleasant upper GI endoscopy, and gastric emptying tests." Thus, though inexplicable and excruciating, the good news is that it is repetitive, incurable, and expensive. 

Anyone who has ever visited an emergency room knows there is the potential for delay. There is a triage process, and the life-threatening conditions are treated first. Then the less serious are taken in a first-come, first-served order. Thus, depending on severity, a CHS might wait their turn or go to the front of the line. Hint to readers: the patient screaming in agony may get more rapid care. 

Nonetheless, according to Visual Capitalist, the average time for emergency room services, from arrival to discharge, is almost three hours, and the high end is over 5 hours. 

Contributing to that delay is the fact that some people use the ER as primary care (they have no family doctor and present only when immediate care is needed). But, for the patients waiting their turn, is it comforting that they wait while doctors and nurses test and treat a self-inflicted condition? 

Does it bother anyone that it is self-inflicted with a clearly illegal activity? Will the reclassification to Schedule III increase both use and impairment challenges? Will it increase the need for medical care and even emergency room visits? Is the science present to conclude that weed is harmless or that it is no more harmless than alcohol?

What of the expense?

Emergency room blood and urine tests might run from $50.00 to over $1,000. A CT scan in the ER might be $1,500 to $8,000. The endoscopy might run $1,500 to $10,000. The cost of several hours of emergency care could easily reach the used car level and might reach the new car value. For a condition that can be avoided by not consuming dope.

The prevalence of Cannabinoid Hyperemesis Syndrome (CHS) is curious, and the societal and personal costs are worthy of consideration. The expenditures are significant. The potential to distract from and delay care for other patients is noteworthy. Indeed, there is danger in consuming pot, whether prescribed, recommended, or off the street.

Patients, smokers, and consumers might be wise to listen to Mr. Youngman's doctor's advice. Just stop doing that. It may "feel great when you quit." 

It's a Headline

A recent news story caught my eye. Headlines are likely written to draw our attention, and it works sometimes, see Could it be a Trait? (April 2025); and Allegations of First Responder Social Security Fraud (January 2014). And headlines have sometimes been less than accurate. See What is a Claim? Let's be Accurate (August 2018).

Intended or not, we are seemingly drawn to headlines.

I have been critical over the years of various attorneys and judges, and that has identified challenges and behavior. In many of those posts, I have avoided naming the individual. Nonetheless, there are instances of poor choices. They reflect on those individuals, but often are impactful on the legal profession.

A specific example, not present in the most recent situation, is taking people's money. Theft is a conduct that is difficult to understand and which cannot be condoned. See A Slow Process (November 2025) and Then Arrested (August 2020). There are many mistakes that can be made, but taking someone's livelihood is a serious one. Too often news stories focus on such behavior. There is less prevalence of headlines about an attorney improving the community or donating time to a great cause.

The most recent story that caught my eye was Florida lawyer arrested for allegedly attacking senior on board Norwegian Cruise Line ship, reported by The Independent. A similar story ran on USA Today, Cruise Ship News, and The Daily Mail. The headlines each said either "Miami Lawyer" or "Florida Attorney." The headlines make this about lawyers.

Headlines catch the eye. Lawyers are professionals. They hold a revered place in society and will therefore be likely to face scrutiny differently from other vocations. Had the accused in this instance been a plumber, store manager, or chauffeur, it is not likely that the title would have featured in the story. If "lawyer" is strong in headlines, it is likely "judge" is more so. That's worth remembering.

This instance occurred on the Norwegian Encore. The lawyer allegedly encountered a 67-year-old who told the lawyer he could not enter a "restricted area." The story makes no mention of the 67-year-old's vocation, but he is described as a passenger. It is therefore unlikely he was a Norwegian Lines official. Nonetheless, the 67-year-old told the lawyer he could not "go into the restricted area."

There are many in this world who take it upon themselves to direct the rest of us. I have often been told I cannot drive, walk, park, or stand somewhere. Perhaps their directions are for our safety. Perhaps they are deputized for such directions. Or, perhaps they are merely overzealous. Nonetheless, there are some who like to tell folks what and where to do. 

The attorney in this situation, a trained professional advocate, allegedly attempted to converse persuasively with the passenger to convince otherwise. He allegedly de-escalated (sarcasm, apologies) the situation with a simple “Who the f*** are you to tell me what I can and can’t do?” As unlikely as it may seem (apologies), this apparently did not calm the older passenger.

The attorney then allegedly escalated the situation with physical contact. That is almost never a good idea. Nonetheless, the attorney allegedly pushed the elderly passenger, punctuating his persuasive vocabulary. The older passenger allegedly pushed back, and a woman identified as the attorney's wife then allegedly joined the fray, also pushing the older passenger.

As a side note, the article makes no mention of the wife's vocation or occupation. For that matter, there is no mention of the older passenger's occupation. 

At some point in this tete-a-tete, the attorney allegedly "became enraged" and "continued to attack" the passenger. The passenger is said to have retreated into the very passageway he had initially tried to block, but the attorney got past the door and "allegedly charged at the elderly man."

The passenger tripped, fell, "landed on his head," and was unconscious. That is not a good outcome. The Associated Press recently reported that Older adults in the US are increasingly dying from unintentional falls. The World Health Organization claims that "Falls are the second leading cause of unintentional injury deaths worldwide." That is an astounding thought. Safety tip: avoid falls.

The attorney allegedly chose that moment to exercise de-escalation and walk away. That would have been an advisable action when the elderly passenger first tried to direct foot traffic. Some readers will question why the passenger was interceding in people's activity in the first instance. That is a fair point, and criticism may be warranted. Nonetheless, arguments and physicality are rarely advisable.

Had the lawyer and wife walked away when first confronted by the passenger, perhaps that would have been well advised. Perhaps they might have walked away after the unfortunate "f-bomb" and sought assistance from the ship's crew?

Nonetheless, they allegedly walked away after the fall, leaving the unconscious sexagenarian where he lay. Other passengers (this suggests that perhaps more than the three had by then entered the area that was allegedly closed) "stepped in to perform CPR on the elderly man," who "was later taken to a nearby hospital for treatment."

The attorney was arrested thereafter, though it is not clear whether before or after the cruise. His counsel spoke to the press and conveyed “My client vehemently denies that he is the primary aggressor.” In that, it is possible that there will be conflicting testimony and perhaps a finder of fact will conclude the attorney acted appropriately. 

However, the point is the behavior, the coverage, and the relevance.  The story is not about legal practice. It makes no mention of the occupation of either the passenger or the attorney's wife. Nonetheless, the article leads with the headline "Florida lawyer," (or "Miami Attorney") and concludes with a recitation from The Florida Bar website regarding his "good standing" to practice law. 

The story becomes about the occupation or profession, with the poor behavior being relegated to foundation. The real point should be "pushing people is wrong," and this should be true whether untoward words were uttered, behavior was inappropriate, or who was involved. In short, it is not relevant that the alleged assailant was an attorney. 

The profession is impacted. A person is accused and potentially guilty. A sexagenarian was injured, revived, and treated at a hospital. All of this is relevant. The situation is unfortunate, unflattering, and untoward. Nonetheless, the occupation is not the story. 

Smarter than Kim?

It will be decidedly rare that I hold up a celebrity as an example. There is little, in my experience, that they bring to the table for frank or even useful discussion. Certainly, their perspective matters, but no more or less than anyone else's.

At a recent lecture, we devolved into a discussion of the challenges of law school and the bar examination. A college student voiced some trepidation regarding the testing requirements for bar membership, to which another noted, "Kim Kardashian did it," and a lively debate ensued.

To be clear, Ms. Kardashian has not passed the bar exam (she passed the "baby bar exam"). But a great many famous folks failed a bar exam along the way. I have met a few who did not pass the exam on the first or even second try. Those I have met are nice people. Some I practiced against were adequate attorneys. Nonetheless, it is not a good sign when someone who has three years of quality education cannot pass the exam.

There is one rub. Ms. Kardashian elected not to attend law school. Now, many who did will likely tell you they did not learn much from their law school professors. But most I have spoken with admit they learned a great deal from the scholarly experience. This includes the reading, the discussing with classmates, and the processing that is a blue book exam. Of course, for many, it also includes life skills like eating on less than $20 per week, but I digress.

By the time a law school attendee reaches the bar exam, they have written thousands of words in response to conniving and contriving interlocutors. In other words, they are used to the exercise and they have built muscles for it.

So, let us not be too hard on Ms. Kardashian. After all, despite not being a lawyer, she plays one on television. But there is a point raised in my recent classroom discussion that is worthy of further attention.

In a recently published Vanity Fair interview, Ms. Kardashian explained that she uses ChatGPT for legal advice. With all that has been written about the advent of large language models (LLM), hallucination, and unreliability, that is simply astounding. It is an admission on par with "I often perform surgery on myself and friends, despite never studying medicine."

She noted that she "use(s) it for legal advice." She inputs a concept and looks to the LLM to provide solid and useful analysis, and Kardashian said, “When I am needing to know the answer to a question, I’ll take a picture and snap it and put it in there.”

She confided that the answers provided were "always wrong." Thus, ChatGPT has "made (her) fail tests all the time." Uh, no, and neither has people allowing me to do surgery on them "made" them suffer injury and death (this is fictitious; I have never performed surgery). 

No one (or thing) "made" Ms. Kardashian "fail tests." Non one "made" anyone do anything. This statement is about as delusional as "the devil made me do it."

Having received LLM advice she did not like, she has been further disappointed that the LLM has been less than supportive. She blames the tech for her failure. But, in a constructive manner (sarcasm), she has found it helpful to "get mad and yell at it and be like, ‘You made me fail. Why did you (do) this?’" This, according to Futurism. 

No, yelling almost never helps anyone in any manner unless their point is to somehow become hoarse. And yelling at a machine is perhaps even less likely to help than yelling into the Grand Canyon.

Despite the increasingly lifelike nature of chatbots, they are not human. They are computer programs. Sophisticated, complex, and intriguing computer programs. You do not blame your car for "making" you wreck, your fork for "making" you fat, or your LLM for "making" you flunk. You put the responsibility where it belongs, on you.

So, the real point is simple. If you dream of a legal career, find a good educational program. Strive to enroll in a school that offers you instruction, interaction, and growth. Don't take shortcuts, such as relying blindly on law professors, fellow students, or computer programs to tell you the answer. Understand that the answer in the law is almost always "adult diapers." 

The answer for the lawyer is rarely "the answer," but an interpretation, argument, or nuance through which the advocate expresses understanding of and application of the law. The answer almost always "depends," and even the best LLM will not master that nuance and complexity as a well-trained lawyer can. 

For Whom?

I have recently taken to a taste in walking music that would be unfamiliar to most in my aging cohort. My streaming service channel delivers such artists as TAELA, Hailee Steinfeld, Tate McRae, jax, Ava Max, Chloe Adams, Leah Kate, Ana Clendening, Mimi Webb, Madison Beer, Chelsea Collins, Halsey, Ke$ha, and similar. Most of my readers will recognize perhaps only one or two (if any) of those names.

It is a genre designed and destined for a younger crowd. Let's "be real"; when you get to be my age, essentially everyone is a younger crowd. It struck me recently that this music "channel" has evolved in regard to its advertising. We all know that advertising is targeted. They do not push Sugar Corn Pops during news shows, and they do not push blood pressure monitor brands in rom-com movies.

For a long time, the advertising I heard on that channel was for a particular toilet tissue, a soft drink, a tempting fast food outlet, and the occasional cosmetic product. Those never struck me as out of the ordinary or unexpected. However, I was surprised recently when repetitive pharmacy advertisements began to occur between the ballads of the youthful and soulful artists above.

The drug names are not important, but the context is interesting to me.

One advertised drug is supposed to treat a malady that was new to me: ATTR-CM. Sometimes acronyms are for saving space. Other times, we use them because no one could pronounce the actual thing: "Transthyretin-mediated amyloidosis." Apologies to my medical compatriots; we know you can pronounce it, but the rest of us, not so much. The ads encourage me to "ask my doctor."

My unfamiliarity with ATTR-CM made me wonder, how prevalent is this disease that is popping up every few songs in my feed? A bit of research revealed that this is sometimes hereditary (hATTR) and sometimes idiopathic (wtATTR). Either sounds ominous.

I found the condition described in Epidemiology of transthyretin (ATTR) amyloidosis: a systematic literature review, Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, January 16, 2025. The title "rare diseases" was perhaps an initial clue? How common is this "rare disease?" It turns out that is hard to estimate, and depends on geography. That said, the study authors conclude that

"ATTR prevalence ranged from 6.1/million in the US to 232/million in Portugal"

Spoiler alert, I am not listening to my dance, contemporary pop, or indie pop while streaming in Portugal. I am right here in Paradise (where it is currently the year 1972, but it is nonetheless the U.S.).

That was intriguing to me: 6.1 people in a million may be affected by this disease/condition. That is 0.00061%. To reach a volume of 1 million people in the Florida Panhandle, you would need Escambia (334,516), Santa Rosa (211,737), Okaloosa (221,342), Walton (92,944), Washington (27,461), Holmes (20,090), Jackson (51,229), Calhoun (13,059), Gulf (15,995), and Liberty Counties (8,139), and you would still be a few short (total is only 996,512). 

Geographically, driving east across Florida on I-10 from Alabama, you would be just shy of Gadsden and Leon Counties (Tallahassee), or about 180 miles into Florida (leaving out only Bay County, Panama City) to compile such a population. In that expanse, there would seemingly be 6.1 people who need to ask their doctor about the "rare disease" Transthyretin-mediated amyloidosis.

To get over 10 people (12.2), you would need to include the following territory:

And, according to some, the average age of onset for this disease is >60 years"; though the onset of the "hereditary" disease "can be 30+ years old." About 38% of the U.S. population is under 30 years old; 77% is under 60.  Therefore, even in the two million people between Alabama and I-75 (see above), the statistics suggest a very small cohort in the affected age groups, and a minuscule potential for this malady. The rarity in general makes one question why the advertising. 

But the narrow listening band presents only greater scarcity. Not to put too fine a point on it, I am likely the only person over 50 in the world listening to this particular music channel. The "over 30" listener population for these artists is also unlikely to be all that large. Of the 6-10 people in the Florida panhandle that may have ATTR-CM, I am doubtful any are listening to this music or hearing this ad. 

Somehow, it is in the advertiser's interest to pepper the music service channel catering primarily to the 16-25-year-old, TikTok-thematic audience of the artists to which I listen with advertisements for medication for an admittedly "rare disease" that affects the target audience of hits from the 70s, 80s, and 90s.  Is it random? Is it me?

From a broad perspective, there seems incongruity. I am convinced I must be missing something. Or, perhaps, I am channeling Rosanne Rosannadanna. 

"My Way?"

The title of this post is the title of one of the King's hits, written by Paul Anka and others in the early 1970s. Elvis Presley--I have never been a big Elvis fan, but he was iconic in my childhood. A great many people I ran into claimed his acquaintance, worshiped his talent, and revered his presence. 

My Way had reflective lyrics. The writers are compelling us to live a life fulfilled, to do it our own way:

"And more, much more than this
I did it my way
Regrets, I've had a few
But then again, too
Few to mention
I did what I had to do"

In Missouri, there is a judge who has done it his way. A "funny" way.

There is a place in legal proceedings for humor. The hearing room environment can be unfamiliar, even alien. The experience is infrequent for most, and for some, the experience will be once-in-a-lifetime. There are those who see humor as a method for diminishing the angst and anxiety caused by unfamiliarity and uncertainty.

In Night Court (May 2025), the efforts of a Florida Circuit judge are described. The humor reported in that instance might be characterized as crass. There are other thoughts on judicial humor referenced in that post. Humor is a difficult endeavor in any setting, only more so in judicial proceedings.

The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) recently reported on a Missouri judge being "disciplined for wearing Elvis wig in court." That makes for a catchy headline, but there is more to the story. Though the BBC has some credibility challenges, similar stories about this judge appear on the N.Y. Times, Associated Press, and St. Louis Magazine. 

Judge Matthew Thornhill recently resigned from the circuit bench in St. Charles County. The news notes he is "the longest-serving circuit judge" there, and Ballotpedia says he was elected in 2014. That posting contains the indicia that it is incomplete or dated: "term that expires on December 31, 2018." Nonetheless, it appears he first ran in 2010 and has served since. 

The Ballotpedia page also notes he was "reprimanded" as an attorney for his actions as a "county prosecutor in 2006." He allegedly "asked a forgery defendant for a baseball autographed by former football star Terry Bradshaw." That is a curious sidenote; it seems a bit like asking Stan Lee to autograph a DC comic.

The humor element, as described by the BBC, includes the judge wearing a preposterous pompadour wig and sunglasses a la Elvis Presley during court proceedings. This was on or around Halloween. The judge also "would give litigants or witnesses the option of being sworn in while playing Elvis music from his phone." Perhaps there are those who would find these entertaining or amusing, but comforting?

The story also notes that Judge Thornhill would "refer to (Elvis) occasionally during court proceedings." This included "mentioning his date of birth or death" as well as interjecting various "lyrics from his music." 

The judge noted that he now understands "that this could affect the integrity and solemnity of the proceedings." Nonetheless, he believed he benefitted those present by adding "levity at times when I thought it would help relax litigants." Can you see "all shook up" as a calming influence?

Nonetheless, it appears that other factors may have driven the conclusions of "Missouri's Commission on Retirement, Removal and Discipline of Judges." While the BBC story says the Commission report mentions all of the foregoing, the report also includes more serious allegations or conclusions:

"sharing his political affiliation or preferred candidates in elections from the bench." See Canon 4, Missouri Code of Judicial Conduct.

"promoting his own election campaign by asking witnesses, lawyers and litigants if they had seen his 'Thornhill for Judge' signs around town." See Canon 4, Missouri Code of Judicial Conduct.

Failing "to maintain order and decorum in the courtroom." See Canons 1 and 2, Missouri Code of Judicial Conduct.

The Commission "recommended he be suspended without pay for six months, then serve for another 18 months before retiring." Judge Thornhill responded with a letter that "did not dispute any of the allegations" and asserted that "he had made a mistake." The tenor seems to suggest he perhaps made several mistakes. 

Nonetheless, he essentially "agreed to the terms set out by the Commission, which allowed him to conclude his service on the bench and retire after 20 years."

From this, it appears the judge will be away briefly, but will be back on the bench before his eventual retirement. The six-month suspension without pay is a significant punishment from any perspective. According to Government Salaries, Missouri circuit judges make $156,055 per year, and so this penalty is about $ 78,027. That is a notable amount. But he will be back, perhaps acting as before?

There are lessons here. First, the easy reinforcement of the perils of humor. The fact is simple—humor is in the eyes of the beholder. What one sees as hilarious, another may see as irrelevant, insulting, crass, ribald, or worse. Judicial attempts at humor, if any, should be bland, brief, and universal (e.g., "I can't find my pen; I would lose my head if it were not attached").  

Second, the engagement in political activity by a judge is a clear impropriety. Some think Twain said "Never discuss politics or religion in polite company." It is hard to find any reference to support that, but it is nonetheless sound advice for all. Those topics will generate strong emotions, and conflict. Humor is just as risky.  

Judicial proceedings do not need additional emotions. And judges should remember, discussing politics is a topic of specific Code focus. Despite the tendency to view the Code as something less than defining, it is a valid and helpful guide (most judges like declining to help raise money at the local school bake sale). 

Finally, in any judicial comments (and perhaps all comments everywhere), "in the end you gotta listen to yourself." Judges should present their public persona with a focus on business, with a side of humility, cordiality, and dignity. That will calm the participants much more than quoting a pop icon of any era, or playing music in proceedings. 

Yes, do it "your way," but make your impression with professionalism and decorum, not corny jokes, lyrics, and buffoonery. Judging does not require a costume, and no costume will enhance your role. 

Revisiting Limitations

In December 2024, the Florida First District decided Ortiz v. Winn Dixie, Inc., 1D2021-0885, see Ortiz is Decided Again (December 2024). That decision had an intriguing procedural history that is described in that post. There is also a chronology to aid in understanding the August 2020 to December 2024 progression in that case.

The history of Ortiz created uncertainty in the community regarding the workers' compensation statute of limitations. And the ultimate decision in December 2024 left various questions for another day. That is often the case with litigation; judges address the questions the parties raise and litigate.

There is a potential that the Florida workers' compensation community will soon learn more regarding the statute of limitations in section 440.19. In this, litigation is like physics. Fundamental to physics, energy may be expended or stored.

When energy is stored, scientists refer to that energy as "potential" or "at rest." In the Newtonian model, this energy waits to be acted upon by some outside force, thus enabling or releasing it ("A body at rest stays at rest," Newton's first law).

For more on Newtonian workers' compensation, see Conflicting Rights (April 2024), AI in Your Hand (April 2024), Sometimes an Angel (March 2024), Potential Energy (March 2024), Comparative Redux (March 2023), "No Driver" Wins a Race to the Bottom (April 2018), Defining "Progress" (December 2016), What is Right with Comp? (June 2016).

Thus, I use the term "potential" because perhaps there is a harbinger, as the District Court announced it will consider en banc a trial decision that concluded the statute of limitations had expired in a case. That decision to proceed en banc may suggest to some that a significant decision could be coming regarding the interpretation of section 440.19.

Similarly, the Florida Supreme Court granted jurisdiction in 2024 in Normandy Ins. Co. v. Bouayad, 372 So. 3d 671, 674 (Fla. 1st DCA 2023), review granted, No. SC2023-1576, 2024 WL 4449458 (Fla. Oct. 9, 2024). That granting of review suggests to some that the Court could do something different than the District Court opinion concluded. There is, thus, "potential" in the Supreme Court's acceptance of jurisdiction (authority) and that it granted oral argument in June 2025.

Of course, there are various potentials in any appellate review. The reviewing court may take a particular course that is novel, restorative of the trial decision, or simply overruling the trial decision. Thus, review does not equate to change but suggests it could happen—it remains, for the moment, "potential."

To the original point above, the District Court has granted en banc review of Estes v. Palm Beach County School District, Case 1D2025-0079 (OJCC Case 24-014555GJJ)(Order of December 12, 2025). The review en banc means that the entire court will consider the appeal rather than a three-judge panel. To some, this may suggest the court views the topic as important or challenging.

En banc review has some intriguing history in Florida workers' compensation. See Lessons in the Law (August 2023), Reminders and Lessons on Appellate Review (December 2021), Constitutional Law in Florida 2016 (December 2016), Westphal is Over, Questions Remain (June 2016), Stare Decisis, Goodgame, Livingood, and Westphal (October 2015), Court Watching (May 2015), Westphal is Decided (September 2013).

The trial judge in Estes concluded that the statute of limitations had expired, thus barring the claimant's claims for benefits. This 2024 trial decision noted the 2023 Ortiz decision and some reliance on it. However, that opinion had been withdrawn. Days before the Estes trial decision, the court had issued its new Ortiz decision, also noted by the trial judge.

The 2024 Ortiz decision did not address "tolling" of the statute as the original 2023 decision had. The trial judge in Estes noted that the 2024 Ortiz decision included "a comprehensive concurring opinion," which did address "tolling," but concluded that a concurring opinion was not controlling.

The trial judge also noted prior decisions by the court interpreting section 440.19, including Orange County School Board v. Best, 728 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999), Claims Management, Inc. v. Philip, 746 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999), Varitimidis v. Walgreen Company, 58 So. 3d 406 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011), Sanchez v. American Airlines, 169 So. 3d 1197 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015), and American Airlines Group v. Lopez, 388 So. 3d 843 (Fla. 1st DCA 2024). See also David W. Langham, Fla. Work. Comp.; History, Evolution, and Function, 2023.

The December 2024 trial decision in Estes concluded that various prior appellate court  decisions "remain binding precedent." In that vein, the district court has reminded:

"Although a lower tribunal or court may bring its concerns regarding the application of specific case law to the appellate courts, it is nonetheless bound to follow precedent." Andrews v. McKim & Creed, 355 So. 3d 957, 963 (Fla. 1st DCA 2023).

The interpretation of 440.19 will thus be considered by the appellate court en banc and decided, likely in 2026. There is the potential that the various discussions of the statute of limitations and tolling will be clarified, though the outcome could be an "affirmed" that leaves questions for further discussion. And, as in Bouayad, there is always the potential, except in the event of a simple per curiam affirmed, that some party could seek further review from the Florida Supreme Court. 

Time will tell.