Dave's Picks for WCI 2025

This is your one-stop for my recommendations of sessions at the WCI 2025. Below is my day-by-day, hour-by-hour list of recommendations. Now, if you are a judge, you should be in the judiciary college learning to be a better judge (every class). Regulators, well, the regulator college (same—every class). But, if you are in any other career path, the recommendations below are my best advice.

One of the great challenges of attending the annual WCI event each August is the vast assortment of available programs at any given moment. There are large and small rooms, broad and narrow topics, and many outstanding speakers. These are all organized in the ”big book” that has been published for decades, and which provides more information than I could include here. That is all available in the familiar format as a PDF, also. Or, if you are one of the hip and tech-savvy, "there is an app for that," called Whova.

So, here are my “Breakout” recommendations, with a first, second, and third (In the order listed) for each time slot. If you would understand the broadest issues and foundations in workers’ compensation, these would be the programs you would grace with your presence, intellect, and engagement. Tell 'em Dave sent you. 

Sunday, August 17, 2025 9:00-5:00 

        9:00-5:00, Grand Ballroom 8B

The mediation program is open to anyone. Its breakouts on Sunday have no competing programming. Want to be a better adjuster, case manager, risk manager, attorney, or mediator? There is no better spot to spend your time understanding how disputes are discussed, negotiated, and resolved. This is a diamond in the rough, too often overlooked and too valuable to be ignored. 

Sunday, August 17, 2025 5:00-6:00 

5:00 PM - 6:00 PM The OJCC meet and greet in the Anaheim, Atlanta and Boston rooms (Hall of Cities) will be a great time to (1) meet our team, (2) put names with faces, (3) see old friends, and (4) kick off your WCI 2025 experience. 

Monday, August 18, 2025 7:00-8:30

7:00 AM – 8:30 AM  Prayer Breakfast; Pastor Ron Simmons, DWAY Praise Team; Crystal Ballroom H.

Separate registration and fee required 

Why- a great way to get the brain working and to start the day with energy and community.

Monday, August 18, 2025 10:00-11:00 (Not a breakout)

9:55 AM – 10:55 AM Industry Keynote Address – Speed, Complexity, and Noise: Navigating the Chaos of Modern Risk Management, Kimberly George, Mark Walls, Palms Ballroom, Canary.

Why- there are many issues percolating in this community throughout the year. If you consider yourself scholarly about workers' compensation writ large, this would be the update you would find time for annually.

Monday, August 18, 2025 1:00-2:00

1:00 PM – 2:00 PM Controversial Medical Issues; Teresa Bartlett, Robert Hall, Michael Lacroix, Paul Meli; Grand Ballroom 8A.

Why- the world of workers’ compensation revolves around the diagnosis, treatment, and remediation of medical conditions. This is a foundational challenge that is at the root of everything in workers’ compensation.

1:00 PM – 2:00 PM Aligning Metrics with Risk Strategy; Mark Byers, Michael Fountain, Lesley Zielinski, Laura Noble, Grand Ballroom 7A.

Why – every professional in workers’ compensation is contributing to a singular goal of injury treatment, remediation, and return to function. All of those decisions will be increasingly driven by metrics in the age of AI. Know how the metrics are perceived, and you may be better able to see your future.

1:00 PM – 2:00 PM What is Workers’ Comp? How it All Began; Stuart Colburn, Mark Pew, Timothy Conner, Roberte Mille, Robert Wilson, Magnolia Ballrooms 7-10.

Why- The panel will be intriguing, engaging, and anything but subdued. The history of this community, process, and system is studied and appreciated too little. Bob Wilson will moderate this, and he is one of the few left here who remember when workers’ compensation started at the end of the 19^th century - a rare opportunity to engage with a true historical hysterical luminary.

Monday, August 18, 2025 2:00-3:00

2:30 PM – 4:30 PM National Regulators Roundtable; Regulators from multiple states and Melodie Belcher, Crystal Ballroom G1. 

Why- these are the regulators at 30,000 feet. They see and hear much, watch horizons, and are challenged with your issues. Hear what they see and where this is all going.

2:10 PM – 3:10 PM Preventing Burnout in Healthcare; Ashley Catapano, Josh Schuette, Howard Weiss, Gia Sawko, David Jennings, Grand Ballrooms 13–14.

Why- the medical care is at the root of all that is workers’ compensation. How is the medical team to do their best? Two of the most fanatically energetic people I have ever known are on this panel. See if you can figure out which two.

1:50 PM – 2:40 PM Injured Workers Are Humans Too; Debra Livingston, Gloria Fagan, Melissa Jorgenson, Denise Evans, Taurus Glass, Magnolia Rooms 1–3.

Why- A reminder of the human elements, for both injured workers and their employers, is an admirable topic that is worthy of our time. If Debra Livingston has not encountered it, it is likely not in workers' compensation. 

 

Monday, August 18, 2025 3:00-4:00

2:30 PM – 4:30 PM National Regulators Roundtable; Regulators from multiple states and Melodie Belcher, Crystal Ballroom G1.

Why- these are the regulators at 30,000 feet. They see and hear much, watch horizons, and are challenged with your issues. Hear what they see and where this is all going. If you make it through the first hour, this second hour is your chance to see them all struggle with more issues. 

3:15 PM – 4:15 PM Building Trust in the Claims Process; Felicia Snead, Beth Koller, Amy Wilds, Vera Hill, Magnolia Ballrooms 4–6.

Why- the work injury and recovery is a journey with many guides. Trust is a critical component for every professional involved. And, you get to hear from Vera Hill, an OJCC Certified Scholar!

3:15 PM – 4:15 PM Mitigating Psychosocial Barriers Through Work; Adam Seidner, Bryan Conner, Drew Cashatt, David Hoyle, Grand Ballrooms 13–14.

Why- everyone has psychosocial factors that affect them. Understanding is the beginning of meeting those needs.

Tuesday, August 19, 2025 9:00-10:00

8:45 AM – 9:45 AM Mental Health Risks in the Workplace; Thomas Aune, Jennifer Dean, Danielle Hill-Lamoureau, Bill Brueckner, Greg McKenna, Crystal Ballroom J1.

Why- the human element will be the one that persistently requires our attention, management, and focus. This will impact every workplace and, therefore, every workers’ compensation professional.

8:45 AM – 9:45 AM From Team to Impact: Driving Financial Success with RTW; Omar Perez, Eddie Martinez, Patti Colwell, Shandra Burkhardt, Zachary Rosenthal, Crystal Ballroom H.

Why- the ultimate goal following any work injury is remediation, recovery, and return to work. Maintaining our focus on these goals is a critical part of workers’ compensation.

 

 Tuesday, August 19, 2025 10:00-11:00

9:55 AM – 10:55 AM The Perils of Misperception: Separating Objective Facts from Subject Emotion, Les Kertay, Geralyn Datz, David Langham, Grand Ballroom 8B.

Why- predisposition is impacting every perception, reaction, and conclusion you make. These are inherent, and your knowledge of them is critical to success.

9:55 AM – 10:55 AM Organizational Evolution & AI; Janet Tucker-Coffey, Kimberly Vaughn, Tim Benson, Joe Powell, Crystal Ballroom J1.

Why- artificial intelligence is here. There will be changes in duties, functions, and even workplace structures. Everyone should be interested and concerned.

9:55 AM – 10:55 AM Time is Not on Our Side, Rivera, Gillock, Joyce Weimer Taysha Carmody, Magnolia Ballrooms 4–6.

Why- the how, and the why are critical to good outcomes and return to function. But the “when” can be a challenge in a busy world.

 

Tuesday, August 19, 2025 11:00-12:00

11:00 AM-12:00 PM Discover Innovative Strategies to Engage Injured Worker; Tara Acton, Tracey Davenport, Benedict Nawachukwu, Teresa Bartlett, Grand Ballroom 8A.

Why– the injured worker, their remediation, recovery, and return to work are the meaning of workers’ compensation. How to best engage and involve them is critical.

11:00 AM – 12:00 PM The 3 D’s and Their Impact on RTW Success; Rosa Royo, Les Kertay, Brittney Parr, Debra Livingston, Crystal Ballroom H.

Why- The remediation and recovery mindset. What is frustrating worker recovery?

Tuesday, August 19, 2025 1:00-2:00

1:00 PM-2:00 PM Work Comp Immunity Waived: What Happens When We Lose Exclusive Remedy, David Greene, Michele Maffei, Melissa Spurlock, Steve Figliuolo, Grand Ballroom 7A.

Why- with a variety of potentials for civil liability, and the challenges of tort litigation, including some opt-out proposals, this is a topic for consideration.

1:00 PM-2:00 PM Live Oral Argument; Florida First District Court, Palms Ballroom-Canary.

Why- everyone in the workers’ compensation world should strive to understand the role that appellate decisions play in day-to-day decision making.

Tuesday, August 19, 2025 2:00-3:00

2:10 PM – 3:10 PM Credibility: The Currency of Success in Workers’ Compensation; Sheila Reecer, Chris Siderio, Suzy Braden, Grand Ballroom 8A.

Why- Because credibility and trust are critical elements of every relationship in the workers’ compensation community. The presence or lack of credibility drives many reactions and decisions.

2:10 PM – 3:10 PM Preparing Your Risk Management Program for 2026 and Beyond; Kelly Cyler, Joan Vincent, Max Koontz, Grand Ballroom 7A.

Why- The Risk Managers make decisions that impact the entire claims process, every professional involved, and the ultimate recovery/remediation of the worker. Their perspectives on today, tomorrow, and beyond will touch every aspect of this community.

2:10 PM – 3:10 PM Faking Good or Faking Bad – Identifying Illness Exaggeration with Confidence; Mark Glencross, John Dsumy, Greg Iannuzzi, Michael Bunte, Crystal Ballroom C.

Why- This perspective on the subjective and the potential to influence recommendations or decisions is tied inexorably to the human mind, credibility decisions, and inherent predispositions.

 

Tuesday, August 19, 2025 3:00-4:00

3:15 PM – 4:15 PM What Got You Here, Won’t Get You There: Lloyd Brown, Evelyn Eure, Steve Figliuolo, Kurt Leisure, Deedee Gasch, Caryn Siebert, Jennifer Morris Jones, Grand Ballroom 8A.

Why- Because everyone needs to grow and learn. Building skills and setting goals is healthy, engaging, and important. Every professional should have some degree of focus on their personal development.

3:15 PM – 4:15 PM Transforming Lives – A Powerful Story of Recovery Through Early Intervention; Jack Richmond, Jan Saunders, Teddy Gonzalez, Crystal Ballroom C.

Why- because the human element must be remembered and celebrated. The concerns of the injured and their employers must play a pivotal role, and stories of success are inspiring and motivational

 

Wednesday, August 20, 2025 9:00-10:00

8:45 AM – 9:45 PM Elevate your negotiation skills and transform your approach to securing what you deserve, Elizabeth Constantin, Crystal Ballroom C.

Why- Leadership and growth come through negotiation, investment, and engagement. The Alliance of Women in Workers’ Compensation bring keys to negotiation to the fore in this hour.

9:00 AM – 9:55 PM AI Jeopardy: AI’s Star Power in Workers’ Comp! Rao Tadepalli, Stan Smith, Nathan Taekema, James Benham, Grand Ballroom 10-12.

Why- AI is here, and what we don’t know is how much we don’t know. The implications for workers, employers, and workers’ compensation are patent to some, but will impact all.

8:45 AM – 9:45 PM Barriers to Implementing Effective Mental Health Solutions in Workers’ Compensation; Les Kertay, Marcos Iglesias, Adam Seidner, David Hoyle, Chris Cunninham, Crystal Ballroom C.

Why- Because the panel is stellar. But more so, because the human mind engages every decision, analysis, and challenge. Mental health matters in planning, safety, treatment, recovery, and return to work. It is ultimately foundational.

 

Wednesday, August 20, 2025 10:00-11:00

9:50 AM – 10:50 AM Restoring Confidence in Scientific Research; Mark Williams, Melina Griss, Rafael Silva, Crystal Ballroom J1.

Why- Medicine and science are at the root of workers’ compensation. There are significant challenges to the credibility of some science and scientists. Negative perceptions may discourage workers and employers alike.

9:50 AM – 10:50 AM GLP-1 Medications in Claims; Julie Black, Danielle Quinn, Gerry Stanley, Adam Seidner, Teddy Gonzalez, Crystal Ballroom C.

Why- obesity is a major concern in both pre- and co-morbidity. The supply and cost of GLP-1 will be of concern to patients and payers alike, as both obesity and diabetes influence treatment.

9:50 AM – 10:50 AM Premium Fraud Schemes; Dominic Dugo, Jay Bobrowsky, Chris Welch, Shaddi Kamiabipour, Joe Benevides, Thomas Donahue, Crystal Ballroom G1.

Why- fraud is a persistent challenge to the workers’ compensation system. Some understanding of the breadth of potential challenges provides a foundational understanding of systems and actions.

None of these is guaranteed to deliver (well, most are not; Tuesday at 9:55, the panel with Datz and Kertay will undoubtedly rock). Nonetheless, these are the broad topics that bear study and consideration. There is much to learn and so little time. See you in Orlando!

 

Trust but Verify

Many attribute the phrase "trust but verify" to Ronald Reagan. It was undoubtedly stressed by him and his team during the 1980s arms negotiations that brought some respite to the nuclear threats of MAD—Mutually Assured Destruction. If you are too young to remember the Cold War, the U.S.S.R., the Berlin Wall, and such, bless you. Despite that clear example of the phrase, some attribute it to Winston Churchill and others.

The reader will likely recall some posts here that focused on artificial intelligence (AI). I have penned a couple over the years. I am pleased to have been invited to speak on AI at various conferences and have been studying it, robotics, and their impacts on the world of work for over a decade. Nonetheless, there are more prolific AI writers, one of whom I married long ago, in a galaxy far, far away.

As she and I recently discussed the AI threat to legal systems, I mentioned "the judicial example" that I found so disappointing. Though she agreed, our conversation soon revealed that we were each citing the same problem, a judicial disappointment, but we clearly were not on the same page factually. I was focused on the new(er) judge in Georgia whose order was vacated by an appellate court for being fiction. See Better Look That Up (July 2025).

However, she was referencing a more recent example(s) of judicial criticism cited recently by Reuters. These instances involve federal judges "in Mississippi and New Jersey." Judge Henry Wingate of Mississippi was appointed in 1985 by Ronald Reagan. Judge Julian Xavier Neals was appointed by Joseph Biden in 2021 and has been on the bench for four years.

According to Reuters, Judge Wingate entered an order "in a civil rights lawsuit." Lawyers then brought to his attention that the order "contained 'incorrect plaintiffs and defendants' and included allegations that were not in the complaint." The lawyers contend that "the decision contained a number of inaccuracies."

Judge Neals "withdrew a ruling he issued in a securities lawsuit." That order allegedly included "factual errors and ... quotes that the lawyers said were not in the cited cases." Allegedly, "the decision in three places misstated the outcomes of other lawsuits that the ruling cited." The situation was explained by one observer, noting:

1. "Research produced using artificial intelligence was included in a draft decision." And that
2. "was inadvertently placed on the public docket before a review process," and
3. "The court's chambers has a strict policy against the unauthorized use of AI to support opinions."

Reuters notes that in neither case did the lawyers make allegations about "how the apparent errors were included in ... decisions." They "did not mention AI or other possible causes for the alleged inaccuracies." 

There is a certain amount of reticence involved in correcting the judge. Every lawyer knows that, feels that, and reacts accordingly. I, for one, appreciate lawyers pointing out mistakes and errors. Rehearing is far preferable than an order reversed by an appellate court for fiction. And, rehearing is far more rapid than the time required for appellate review. 

In Better Look That Up, I noted that judges should be able to count on four things. The fourth is likely the most important (we are only human). But the corollary is as compelling. Lawyers should be able to count on judges:

1. Not to rely on what a pleading says that a statute or a case says or stands for.
2. To look at the actual statute and published opinions before ruling.
3. To be open to and introspective about motions for rehearing that cite concerns about misapprehensions or even hallucinations.

Reuters cites a law school professor who concluded that there is potential for error. His caution was clear: "These errors are going to come out if you don't pay very careful attention to the output." Errors are going to come out regardless; they will persist if we are not persistently attentive. 

AI is here. No retreat path is either practical or debatable. I am drawn in that regard to lyricist Jenna Raine:

Okay! It's not the end of the world

There's always light where it burns

Just remember the words, and it goes like this

It is what it is, what it is, what it is, what it is

It is what it is, what it is, what it is, what it is

And there is the critical point to which we return time and again. Certainly, lawyers are obligated to tell the truth. When a lawyer says "it is what it is," other lawyers and judges should be able to rely on that. There are ethical rules of candor, and that should be the end of it. Lawyers speak the truth.

That said, there will be mistakes made—"it is what it is."

Lawyers will use AI—"it is what it is."

Judges will use AI—"it is what it is."

"strict policies against ...use of AI" will be broken—"it is what it is."

And, in truth, "It's not the end of the world." It is potentially corrosive. It is likely distracting. It is going to be periodically embarrassing for the lazy or inattentive. I am now also confident that it will be pernicious, persistent, and at times perplexing.

The cure? It is simply "Trust but verify." Whether it is written in a pleading or an order, it should be read critically and carefully. If there is pause, concern, or question that should be raised by parties, attorneys, clerks, and judges. Those case citations should be checked. Those factual findings or allegations should be checked. Verify, verify, verify, just like Churchill's thoughts on surrender: "never, never, never."

It is not that these efforts will render perfection. It is not that rules ("strict policies against") will preclude errors. It is simply that computers allow us to make mistakes at an epic pace. They empower and enable in ways that are the truth of our modern day. Humans also make mistakes. No one can change these absolute truths. "it is what it is."

The only hope we have for minimizing their errors is in our human, patient, and careful verification. This means reviewing what is generated by staff, by lawyers, by judges, and by AI. Review and verify. 

Bias is Pernicious

The attorney opens a mediation negotiation with a superlative bloviation: "This case cannot be worth less than $1 million," or "There is no way the alleged accident or injuries are compensable." These may be posturing points, exaggerations, or mere overstatements. There is a desire in any negotiation to start in a posture from which there is room to maneuver.

The treating physician evaluates a patient and, despite the expressed intent to obtain various tests, hypothesizes, "This will not require surgery," or "Surgery is likely inevitable; it is a question of when."

The claims professional contacts counsel regarding representation. The facts and circumstances from their perspective are conveyed, including that "This report of injury is very suspicious" and "This supposedly happened on Tuesday after a holiday weekend—we know this employee engages in extreme sports and was scheduled for a trip that weekend."

The injured worker presents for medical care and provides a description of the injury, along with their current complaints. This stresses a particular anatomy because of its severity in that moment, compared to other complaints that pale in comparison and are seemingly less important. But only less so in that moment. The severe anatomy becomes the singular focus of the treater, the ancillary care providers, and the records that are created. 

In each, we observe someone in the workers' compensation orchestra receiving information for the first time. Each is a "first impression." It is likely that the various individuals will compare every informational input they receive after that to their first impression or first information.

The tendency to do so is "anchor bias" and is broadly defined as a tendency to adopt conclusions and resist moving away from them as contrary indicia or evidence emerges. All of the new information gleaned over time will likely be filtered through the initial information.

This predisposition is interrelated with the "primacy effect," which causes us to assign significance to our first exposures and conclusions. Logically, we also like what we are already used to, and what we learn earliest has the most familiarity to us as we proceed through the gathering and assessment of new information. This is heightened if that initial impression/information is reiterated and reinforced.

Over time, some "facts" such as this may become more pernicious to our analysis, though each may not be a fact at all. The mere repetition of either an initial fact/statement or some contradictory fact/statement thereafter may gain prominence through Illusory Truth, the frequency of repetition (frequency), or the credentials of the person adding that new fact to the melange (Authority bias).

How we perceive or accept facts may be influenced by our personal worldview (Belief Bias), and concerns such as the Just-World Hypothesis or our tendency to more readily accept new evidence that fits our existing hypothesis (Confirmation Bias).

These are but a few. With them, we can see the potential for an attorney to pollute negotiations, for better recollections of certain facts by observers or care providers, and for our own innate tendencies to either retain or disregard data. And these are but a sampling of the challenges that we face with our own brains.

If you want to know more about predisposition, read my latest free book, Unseen Influence: Unconscious Predisposition in Dispute Resolution (2025). I have tried to address about 150 predispositions and to relate how they are important for attorneys, physicians, mediators, and more. 

And, join us at the WCI, where I will be on a panel with two learned psychologists of great repute. They will help work through how we can recognize and utilize predisposition and bias in our consideration of information, formation of conclusions, and evolution of disputes. 

The Perils of Misperception: Separating Objective Facts from Subject Emotion to Achieve Objectivity, Accuracy, and Better Outcomes

August 19, 2025

9:55 AM – 10:55 AM

Grand Ballroom 8A

Cats and Dogs

The Internet is replete with websites explaining the difference between cats and dogs. Trust me, or Google it sometime. It is an interesting topic that has evolved into a broader societal comparison regarding people who are "dog people" or "cat people."

Discover Magazine returned to the topic in December 2021 with The Truth about Cat People and Dog People. It is perhaps one of the few remaining categorizations with which society remains comfortable denigrating groups based on personal preferences or paths.

The truth is that people are different

I have spoken at a fair number of conferences and seminars over the years. All told, including my efforts as a college instructor, I have delivered over 2,000 presentations over many years. As a member of a panel or solo, I have spoken to business owners, risk managers, human resource managers, claims adjusters, attorneys, doctors, nurses, brokers, consultants, safety professionals, and more. This has included audiences and conferences of various sizes, and at conferences large and small.

In the course of this, I have spoken at many of the premier workers' compensation events including the Workers' Compensation Institute, the National Disability Conference, the CompLaude program, the Florida Bar and Workers Compensation Claims Professionals Forum, The NCCI Issues Symposium, WCRI Issues and Research Conference, the American Association of Orthopedic Surgeons Workers' Compensation program, and a host of acronymic and state-specific programs across America.

Through those experiences, I have met a vast assortment of brilliant, motivated, inspired, and incredible people. I have also met a few who aspire to such adjectives and who may yet progress there with time. It has been an intriguing journey, and all of those people have contributed to my education, experience, and perspective.

Returning to the cats and dogs. We do not like to categorize people. We struggle against illusory superiority, assumptions, prejudices, and attributes associated with various groups. There are at least perceptions of pigeonholing, typecasting, and worse. Of course, it is still somehow acceptable in various circles to denigrate various professions and occupations with broad oversimplifications and insults.

The trend has largely passed, but it was once hip to make sport of attorneys. There are always those who find humor in physicians. There is something similar about accountants, engineers, dads, and blondes, and, in my youth, the denigration of various nationalities was in vogue. Now, somehow, we have reached an inflection point and are no longer able or willing to categorize.

There is an old lawyer joke about white mice, a laboratory, and lawyers. I have heard it told many times, in many ways. One of the punchlines about why labs use lawyers instead of mice is that "The medical researchers don’t become as emotionally attached to the attorneys." That is harsh, but it usually elicits a laugh. We like to make humor at the expense of others, and that has gotten a few into difficulties over the years.

The foundation of all of these constellations is the tendency to entertain predispositions and to stereotype large swaths of individuals based on some commonality that we are willing to label them with. That process of categorizing is both a human defense process and a convenience. Our predispositions make our day-to-day easier. We can judge the ___________ without too much analysis, thought, or introspection.

This human trend toward predisposition reliance has been studied, though not nearly exhaustively. It is a periodic topic at educational events, where speakers and panels strive to scratch the surface on the vast spectrum of potential predispositions and the myriad of potential impacts on our lives, personal and professional.

My exposures to these topics led me recently down a rabbit hole, and into an eye-opening journey. It was no Through the Looking Glass, Charles Lutwidge Dodgson, 1872, but it was an eye-opener nonetheless. I expected to define the predispositions to which we are all amenable and to strive to explore how some subset of them might impact the world of workers' compensation.

Despite years of contemplating some of these predispositions and a wealth of workers' compensation exposures, I was unprepared for the result. In the end, I found a far broader population of predispositions than expected. Obviously, my bias toward them was ill-conceived or underdeveloped.

In the end, I was able to accept that each of these could potentially impact the investigation, provision, claiming, negotiating, mediating, and adjudicating of workers' compensation benefits. The recognized predispositions can be categorized, compared, and differentiated. Nonetheless, each could impact perceptions, expressions, reactions, and more.

The result? I find myself now back in the armchair in Paradise. I reflect on the hours spent in study and contemplation and wonder at the experience. Unlike Alice, I am under no disillusion of reality. But I nonetheless reflect continuously on the journey.

The product of my journey is now available for free download. I encourage all who dip their toes in the world of workers' compensation to review and digest Unseen Influence: Unconscious Predisposition in Dispute Resolution (Langham, 2025).

It is not a short read, but the price is right (free), and the reader might benefit from my perspective and analysis or from their own contemplation or conclusions as to where I missed the boat. 

In an effort to illuminate the topic further, I will be moderating an intriguing panel at the 2025 WCI. Come join us for some thoughts on predisposition, bias, and how it both enables and constrains our daily lives, personal and professional. 

The Perils of Misperception: Separating Objective Facts from Subject Emotion to Achieve Objectivity, Accuracy, and Better Outcomes
August 19, 2025
9:55 AM – 10:55 AM
Grand Ballroom 8A

Come join us for a brief foray through the looking glass!

Pride and Performance

There was a time I worked in retail. That is a tough profession and has only become more so in recent decades as social media, the internet, the big-box, and more have relentlessly pursued the little mom-and-pop on the corner. Nonetheless, it was in the mom-and-pop that I did my time. I learned a great deal there, good and bad.

The world of retail is challenging. The fellow I worked for had grown up in the retail business. He was a clerk during and after high school and progressed through management and partnership to eventually sole ownership with his spouse. He had taken no shortcuts to the pinnacle on which he perched. He was successful but not the least bit pretentious. Well, he was mighty proud of his Cadillac. 

I recall several aspects of that store and its ownership.

First, it was a family affair. The husband ran the store and was there daily. His wife kept the books for the store, which included the normal bank balancing and bill paying. But she also kept "accounts," as the store offered credit to its regular customers. Many items left the store each day "on account" or "on approval." 

Such purchases were noted on paper cards and kept in an alphabetical index box. Goods could be returned, and the purchase entry merely lined through to reflect it (erasers were never used). People came in periodically and wanted to "pay my bill." Those who did not do so received a bill at the end of the month—typed on a typewriter and sent by U.S. Mail.

The owner was always at work before 08:00. He was retentive about the appearance of the premises. He would walk through the store's aisles picking up stray threads, lint, tags, or other debris. I would often find him spraying the sidewalk with a hose or shoveling ice/snow/salt. He was adamant that his sidewalks would be clear, clean, and presentable. He spoke derogatorily of neighboring stores and their appearance. 

Often, when I arrived in the morning, I would find him discomfited from his aisle walk. He would want some rack of clothes straightened, something restocked, the vacuum re-run, or a mannequin changed. He was present, interested, persistent, and proactive. His primary focus in life was the presentation, appearance, and success of that small store. 

I recall being appalled at some of the merchandise he ordered. I recall specifically a brand of trousers that was designed to be beltless. He wore them, raved about them, and sold them by the ton. He talked me into a pair once; I was not a fan. 

I thought he was pushing snake oil on the old gentlemen customers, but years later, I realized that he was meeting their desires, needs, and market point. They loved that oddity. Decades later, writing this post, I confirmed that the brand is still in business, making those beltless trousers. They seem more attractive to me now, and I am not sure why.

One of the more frustrating aspects of that job was being watched. The owners were persistently present and watching. When I would mark a pair of trousers for length, it was common for a coworker or one of the two owners to step in and check. The same was true when something was rung up at the register. They were attentive. I saw that as distrust in me, but reflecting, I came to realize it was their pride. They wanted everything to be right.

In another example, we offered free gift wrapping. Each purchase included the inquiry, "Can I wrap that for you?" The "yes" responses predictably increased in the holiday season. There was competition among the clerks (and owners) as to who could wrap most rapidly, but also whose packages looked the best. We creased the edges and added a bow; it was classy and personal in a way you cannot order from the internet.

I did not care for retail. It was monotonous and repetitious. I look back on my brief years there and wonder at the enthusiasm the owners and their managers exhibited. They found it possible to care about the appropriateness, fashion, and flair of each sale, right down to the socks. They remained engaged with each customer, day by day and year by year. 

Their customers were not destined for any catwalk or Vogue shoot. They were not models, millionaires, or moguls. They were ordinary people shopping for a classic blazer for the club, a new dress for an event, or the craziest trousers for the golf course. And those owners/managers found meaning in each sale.

The underlying theme of that experience, only realized years later through the benefits of retrospection, was pride. They cared what the store looked like, in and out. They worried about the freshness of displays, the organization of products, and the customer experience. They had pride.

That is pride in their product, profession, and appearance. They cared. As I ruminated recently on my post regarding Ignorance and Ambivalence (June 2025), I realized that they were the antithesis of IDK and IDK. Those retailers' focus was narrow: a small town, a specific merchandise category, and a specific clientele.

Their's was never a global impact. They were not influencers to millions or internet famous. But they did a job each day that they took pride in. They delivered for their clientele with humility and enthusiasm. They were inspirational and yet part of a now-extinct generation that persists only fossilized in my mind.

What would someone say of you in 40 years? Would you hope that they thought you cared and were proud of your efforts? I spoke recently to an attorney who lamented a perception that the law and lawyers have become "transactional." That is, strictly "business," or "revolving around cost and benefit." 

Certainly, every business must consider the transactional elements and analysis. Books must balance in order to remain in business. But, there seems to be too much focus on the short term, the now, and too little on the building of customer relationships, interaction, and the long run. That long run might include the community generally, future firm growth, and a thriving referral source. 

Is your day-to-day driven by pride in where you are, what you do, and how you are building the present and your future? Are you performing at your best, or at least focused on that goal? Pride and performance matter. That is worthy of consideration. 

Unseen Influence

I "discovered" inherent predisposition, or "bias," in much the same way as Columbus "discovered" America. Not only am I not the first to step into this topic, but I am not even close. Inherent predisposition existed long before my arrival, just as groups of humans long inhabited the North American continent.

Some perspective on that is provided in my book about Florida's economic and workers' compensation history - Floridiana and the Workers' Compensation Adjudicators (free to download). There are likely facts about this unique state that will surprise even the most ardent students of history. In a nutshell, however, humans migrated to North America long before Columbus "discovered" them.

Similarly, I cannot claim to have "discovered" inherent predispositions. Nonetheless, it is fair to say that the study of inherent predisposition is reasonably recent. It first began to attract significant scholarly investment in the 1980s, according to Daedalus.

Coincidentally, that era also brought alternative dispute resolution to the fore in Florida—specifically, mediation. After some contemplation of the tool, Florida led the workers' compensation world to mandatory mediation in the early 1990s and has never looked back.

The 1980s also saw a litany of other imperatives, including "new Coke," interesting pop culture, iconic music, and the end of such symbols as the Berlin Wall. It was undeniably a time of great change.

It is perhaps a coincidence that the following decade brought focus on both ADR and inherent predisposition. In any event, there is a great breadth of potential to employ sound comprehension of these human inclinations in both the litigation and resolution settings.

As I have studied the breadth of predisposition, I have compiled an overview reference to illuminate these challenges. For each, I have tried to provide some analog from the perspective of three critical injury dispute perspectives: lawyer, physician, and mediator.

The result is Unseen Influence: Unconscious Predisposition in Dispute Resolution (2025)(free to download). It has been an odyssey of introspection and study. There have been questions, curiosity, and collaboration. As noted in the acknowledgments, I have been blessed to discuss the topic with some exceptional minds, which has both facilitated analysis and suggested diverse viewpoints and considerations.

The human brain is amazing. I note in Unseen Influence that "We all struggle each day to harness the complexity and capability that have been placed at our disposal." We are indeed both blessed with capacity and capability, and yet challenged to channel and utilize this amazing brain. As we employ it, like any other tool, we seemingly give little consideration to its complexity, utility, and potential complications.

In the journey, I am convinced that I have asked myself some important questions. I am hopeful that I have provided some worthy insight. I am unequivocally certain that I have merely scratched the surface of this topic. There remains much more in predisposition that is worthy of study.

The most apparent flaw in Unseen Influence is the limited scope. From my perspective, the impacts on three specific professions were patent. As I discussed the topics during the text's development, I was driven to similar considerations for a host of professions that also touch injury litigation but that I would require significant study to fully appreciate.

In fact, my own predisposition for what was familiar to me influenced the content and perspective of Unseen Influence. Imagine that—my own bias influenced my book on bias. In the end, I concluded that striving to address the panoply of professions and potentials was beyond my present resources—particularly time. 

Rather than address more professional perspectives, I elected instead to encourage the reader to bring their individual perspective and ponder how each listed predisposition might impact their own profession. Perhaps, with feedback and engagement, more variety in occupational or vocational perspectives could be offered one day in a second edition.

This odyssey has also led to an opportunity to share some of these thoughts. At the 2025 Workers' Compensation Institute in Orlando, I will moderate a panel of exceptional intellect. I am joined by Dr. Geralyn Datz and Dr. Les Kertay for 

The Perils of Misperception: Separating Objective Facts from Subject Emotion to Achieve Objectivity, Accuracy, and Better Outcomes

August 19, 2025

9:55 AM – 10:55 AM

Grand Ballroom 8A

There is no one better able to provide insight into the human mind. These two experts are conversational, approachable, and exceptional. An opportunity to hear either is amazing, and yet this hour will bring you both. Their team effort will provide an exceptional and perhaps even unique opportunity. 

In an exceptionally short hour, we will strive to raise consciousness regarding the propensities, perils, and amazing capabilities of our minds. This program will introduce attendees to the inherent predisposition and the variety of challenges they pose. This presentation will inform and hopefully inspire further consideration and analysis.

In fairness, at a given moment during WCI, there are a dozen outstanding presentations competing for your time and investment. With all due respect to the others, this one hour might be the very key to a more prepared and perceptive you. If you are seeking takeaways and insight, find a spot for this hour on your agenda. 

Connecticut Price Fixing

The class of medication referred to as GLP-1s is back in the news. The focus of these is primarily diabetes, but the drugs have become popular for the ancillary purpose of drug-induced weight loss. See Whoa Nelly (June 2025). The rapidly expanding use of these drugs and their market costs have created impacts on state budgets.

Various federal legislation includes Medicare negotiation of some medication prices (the Inflation Reduction Act). The same legislation more specifically impacts insulin costs in terms of patient cost sharing. Eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid may be affected by the One Big Beautiful law recently signed, and various states may make changes in their administration of these programs.

The discussion in Whoa Nelly provides some illustration of the cost of medication in our world generally. Those who are familiar with the world of workers' compensation will readily recognize that obesity is a potential comorbidity that requires attention in the process of treating a work injury. See Obesity yet Again (January 2023), and the posts it cites.

In response to the price of obesity drugs, various states have sought solutions, according to the Associated Press. There have been efforts to constrain patient populations, restricting the use of this diabetes medicine to diabetes patients. That is the approved use, but many seek this for the ancillary weight control benefits.

Then came the idea of simply taking the medication, using a process similar to the government taking of real property, called eminent domain. Some have perceived an increase in the breadth of eminent domain with the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005). This is a complex topic that pits the interests of private landowners against the interests of government.

Essentially, Kelo concluded that a government can seize private property and transfer it to a private person if there is a financial benefit to the government. Until 2005, the common use of eminent domain was to seize real estate for clear government purposes such as post offices, highways, courthouses, and similar.

A corollary to eminent domain is now being pursued by Connecticut (coincidentally the state in which Ms. Kelo lost her real property). According to Yahoo, a bill signed by Governor Lamont in July will direct attention at reducing the state's cost for "GLP-1 drugs, similar to Novo Nordisk's (NVO) Ozempic and Wegovy and Eli Lilly's (LLY) Mounjaro." Though this is being led by Connecticut, the implications are broader.

The Connecticut bill will result in the state "petition(ing) the US Health and Human Services Department (HHS)" to essentially seize the property rights of medication manufacturers. While this is similar to eminent domain, it is statutory, "a section in the US Patent Code, 28 US 1498."

The effect would be for the federal government to "claim ownership of the patent(s)" for various medications. This would allow the government to determine and control the price of what it consumes. Instead of paying a "market price" to obtain these medications, or negotiating its own price, it would dictate the price charged by manufacturers.

If the current owners of those patents elect not to produce at the established price(s), then the government would "contract with generic manufacturers to produce a version of the drugs in exchange for royalties" that the government deems fair.

The implications of this are broad. In one perspective, the cost of medications might be broadly impacted. This example of significant medication cost might lead to similar government involvement in a broader spectrum of medication. Those who invest in the research and development of remedies may be less inclined if they perceive a greater potential for government seizure and moderated profits.

In another perspective, the financial impact of GLP-1s might decrease markedly. The budgetary relief on government might be mirrored for health insurers and other consumers, affording less sacrifice in other spending.

Some may see the potential for less focus on healthy diet and exercise if the GLP-1s become inexpensively available. In short, why eat right and care for the body when a cheap, simple, pharmaceutical path is available?

What of the potential for liability? GLP-1s have been researched and developed since 1984. The first Food and Drug Administration approvals came in 2005, and yet the popularity has been more recent still. As broader populations use these substances, is there potential for as yet undiscovered side-effects or other detriments?

Some will see this employment of section 1498 as a government overreach. Others will see it as a necessity. The discussions and perspectives will be intriguing as the coming months bring broader debate of the Connecticut proposal.

Oh my god, just stop

An interesting headline in May caught my attention. It is hard to tell what an “indeterminate leave of absence” is. That is an odd statement in any employment setting, generally, but more so for a judge. That first story was short on facts as to why, but provided guidance on how the community would be served in the meantime. 

The story detailed that the judge was admitted to The Florida Bar in 2009 and “gained election to the Circuit Court in 2020, running unopposed." According to The Florida Bar, she earned her Jurisprudence Doctor from Barry University School of Law. My first thought of "indeterminate" was illness (I'm old), but her relative youth made that seem less likely. When you reach my age, it seems that peers are dying with increasing frequency. But I digress.  

The reported matter remained a curiosity. About a month later, a June 2025 headline noted that the judge had resigned from the $196,898-per-year job. The resignation was submitted (dated April 29), which essentially created a three-month paid absence, as it was effective July 1, 2025. I suspect there are challenges in any transition between vocations. 

That second story detailed a writ of prohibition proceeding and various orders of the Florida 6th DCA in the fall of 2024. Though the news report seems to suggest a potential connection to the resignation, that is conjecture. The report regarding the Sixth DCA is nonetheless worthy of discussion.

For more on extraordinary writs, see A Law Student and a Series of Dumb Mistakes (May 2018). These writs are fundamentally tools for asking a court to affect some other court, elected official, or agency's process, action, or inaction.

That writ focused on a custody case with troubling facts. A mother “traveled to an apartment (with her infant daughter and a toddler son) … in a car containing drugs and guns.” The mother and her boyfriend “knew (this) was unsafe because they had been warned they would be killed if they went there.” 

That ended in tragedy; a shootout resulted, and the toddler died in his car seat. One must feel sorrow for the toddler, and the impact on his infant sister is profound. Custody of the infant was given to her father, and the mother sought to change that, to regain custody, in proceedings before the now-resigned judge. The state instead sought an “involuntary petition for termination of parental rights.”

Death, drugs, weapons, shootings—there is plenty in the reporting to trouble the reader. 

Nonetheless, ten or more issues here are of interest to all judges.

First, the judge told the parties, “She wanted to discuss a case plan instead of setting a hearing on (the) termination of parental rights.” A decision-maker holding “conferences” is curious to some. They see adjudicators instead as hearing arguments and making decisions. There are undoubtedly times when some conference is of use, but motions are worthy of hearing and decisions. 

Second, the judge later voiced settlement suggestions: “I’m still confused as to why you haven’t made any kind of offer to this woman.” The decisions of settlement offers and responses are the parties' and should be of no moment to an adjudicator. Such statements can be seen as coercive and inappropriate. Then, disregarding the termination petition, the judge heard the mother’s motion to modify custody to return the infant. 

Third, a legal constraint, a statute requiring a “home study” in custody determinations, was raised. The judge adjourned so the mother’s counsel could research. Such a delay is common and consistent with both due process and deciding cases on their merits. But, the judge also allegedly suggested to the mother that a motion to dismiss, if filed, would be heard when the case reconvened. Some might see that as the umpire departing the objective arbiter role to be a coach?

Fourth, “the next day,” a motion to dismiss was heard over the state’s objection. The judge allegedly commented on the case, saying to the state:

“ it does not look like a great case for you guys.”

“ I’m just not seeing it. I don’t know how you are going to get there.”

“ it bothers me that she is still away from her child.”

“I can’t see a path to a victory for you.”

Reaching conclusions and making decisions should be a task undertaken after the evidence and argument is heard (fifth?).

After the hearing, the judge did not dismiss but modified the custody and ordered the infant returned to the mother. Such decisions have to be difficult; weighing a child's best interest must be excruciating. 

Sixth, the state sought to renew its objection because the statute requires a “home study.” Acknowledging the law, the judge reportedly said:

“And you know what I said? I said appeal it. I’m going to do it anyway because it’s wrong. It’s just wrong. And I’m just not going to abide by it. I get that statute says that. I fully understand it. But what is right to be done here is to return this child to her mother.”

Judges have a duty to follow the law. That said, a law can be subject to review by courts. They might be unconstitutional, conflict with other statutes, or otherwise require study and consideration. But "it's just wrong" is not seemingly at that level. 

Seventh, the state sought to disqualify the judge, alleging

“the judge’s statements demonstrat(e) she had pre-judged the evidence and that she would not abide by controlling statutes,”

The judge denied the motion, and the state petitioned the 6th DCA for the prohibition. That court "stayed" the trial proceedings. That is a court order that means “stop.” When the court or tribunal above you says "stop," what do you do?" Emeline sings “And I'm like, ‘Oh my god, just stop’" (Everything I’m not, 2023). Good advice—when the court says "stop," then "Oh my god, just stop."

For whatever reason, the trial judge did not stop. The judge “the same day … entered an order striking … witnesses.” (Eighth?).

The next day, the judge “convened an evidentiary hearing … (on the mother’s motion) to further strike … witnesses.” The state objected, but proceedings persisted." (Ninth?)

The story says that “the judge interrogated DCF (the state's lawyer) counsel for almost an hour about DCF’s investigation of the case and preparation of its witnesses for trial, allowing Y.B.’s (the mother's) counsel to freely interject comments on DCF’s answers.” Judges are listeners, adjudicators, not inquisitors. See Sleuthing Addressed Again (January 2018)(Tenth?). 

Judges should maintain order in any hearing, which is not usually "allowing ... to freely interject." This extended beyond the judge taking a side noted above, as it looks like the mother's attorney and the judge ganged up on the opposing party (DCF)(Eleventh?)

There are many reasons to question counsel. Was a document filed? When was some fact known or disclosed? Was a document served? What efforts were made to produce the witness here? How do I spell that? And many more.

However, beyond questioning counsel, reportedly, “The judge also called one of DCF’s trial witnesses to the witness stand, placed her under oath, and conducted her own examination of the witness.”  (Tenth, Eleventh, Twelfth? at least)

With significant speed,

“the Sixth DCA on Nov. 13 granted the petition, disqualifying (the judge) from any further proceedings in the case and quashing all orders she had entered after the show cause order.”

The DCA noted judicial comments regarding prejudging and the statute. It also noted a “knowing violation of this Court’s stay.”

These ten or more lessons are reasonably patent. Judges are not advocates. Lawyers advocate; mediators facilitate; judges decide. Judges follow the law. Although that may be challenging when statutes and appellate decisions conflict, no conflict was noted here. Judges follow orders from appellate courts.

As Train put it, we obey the appellate court “even when I know you’re wrong” (Drops of Jupiter, Columbia 2001). The review and correction of appellate decisions are for other appellate courts, legislatures, and others. It is not relevant whether the trial judge finds appellate decisions correct or not. They are the law. The role of a trial judge is not to ignore what appellate courts say. 

I’ve noted Paul Harvey frequently. It is possible there is more to this story. Nonetheless, there are multiple concerns worth every judge's consideration. Remain impartial; this is not your case. Follow the law; you weren’t elected or appointed to make law. Obey the appellate court; they are doing their job, so do yours.

A judge inclined to coach, interrogate, collaborate with a party, coax (coerce?) a settlement, or ignore statutes or appellate courts might simply think of Emeline. On the topic of agreeing with appellate decisions, perhaps simply, instead, just think of Train. There is much to consider in the reported facts, and there may be some Paul Harvey out there. But in the end, some reasonably simple conclusions. Remember Emeline ("just stop"), Train (“even when"), and their sound lyrical advice.