Florida Workers' Comp

"a compulsive, chronic, physiological or psychological need for a habit-forming substance, behavior, or activity having harmful physical, psychological, or social effects and typically causing well-defined symptoms."

Addiction can be positive (e.g., "addicted to life man!" or "addicted to volunteering") or negative (e.g., addicted to crack, coke, or methamphetamine). Some of that is likely perspective-driven. I personally am addicted to workers' compensation, which Chicago noted in 1984 (Warner Bros.) is "a hard habit to break." Actually, they were singing about some love interest, not workers' compensation. The spirit is there though.

Apropos of our current human condition, scientists are now telling us that Artificial Intelligence (AI) "power users" are "becoming dependent upon — or even addicted to — the chatbot." No, the chatbot is not a person, and no I doubt that Chicago would sing that "hard habit" to some machine any more than to workers' compensation. Chicago was all focused on some person.

There are those who believe that our brains react to Large Language Models (AI) much in the same way we do to social media, but with a Serotonin response rather than Dopamine. Nonetheless, a chemical reward. They believe this is because LLM experiences are more interactive, more sustained, and require mental processing in a back-and-forth (i.e., a conversation). Use of the LLM "can foster a sense of accomplishment and intellectual satisfaction."

Unlike social media that links you to "friends," the LLM essentially becomes your friend, confidant, and even counselor.

Chicago explained the Jonesing in 1984:

Now being without you, Takes a lot of getting used to
Should learn to live with it, But I don't want to
Being without you, It's all a big mistake
Instead of getting easier, It's the hardest thing to take

So, "hard habit to break" borders on addiction, or compulsion.

Well, like James Taylor (Smiling Face, 1970, Columbia), "I thought I was in love a couple of times before," but that was never with some AI, some chatbot, some computer program. Nonetheless, there are reports of some exceeding addiction and falling for an AI in a romantic way. Seems like falling in love with a toaster to me, but I am no scientist.

The scientists have studied the "small subset of ChatGPT users engaged in" significant use. For the most part, the studied users are using AI LLMs like we all use an ink pen, stapler, or paper clip - as a tool. But others are drawn to it, ensconced in it, and Jonesing for it. They may not be at addiction yet, but the researchers see that as a real potential. They are beginning to consider the chatbot a "friend" or companion.

The conclusion seems to be that those who are susceptible to this substitution and transference are those who have social "lives (that) are lacking." They are "the neediest people," and may form "sad, scary, or somewhere entirely unpredictable" relationships with these tools (I know, we all know someone who fell in love with a tool, but this example is literal).

This emotional attachment also feeds into the drive to use AI for mental health therapy. There are seemingly credible care providers who are promoting and providing this AI counseling. Because of convenience, confidentiality (real or imagined), and likely cost, more people are turning to chatbots for emotional support. An article this month noted that "Chatbots are replacing therapists faster than anyone expected." There is some great attraction to this paradigm.

This may be of concern in terms of addiction, see above. Or, perhaps it is a codependency in this context. While there may be some economic constraints on how often one could see a human therapist, LLMs are cheap or free. I have never heard of any LLM responding to a Prompt about something with "Perhaps you have spent enough time with me today? you should go outside."

Even if money was no object, the human might nonetheless start to limit you or caution you about your counseling consumption. The chatbot never will. And if it does, you could just log into a different "friend" and start over (as an aside, this reboot likely works with the dating an AI issue also). Yes, people have dated AI LLMs, back to Chicago, James Taylor, and all that entails. Some are a bit hurt when people ITRW question their compu-amorous engagements.

Beyond the sheer volume of potential "counseling," and the impersonality of it, LLM emotional counseling is also concerning from the perspective of harm. Some are beginning to caution that Chatbots may not always be your friend. The "nation’s largest association of psychologists" recently expressed such concerns.

Cynics may say they are protecting their economic turf. Nonetheless, they "warned federal regulators that A.I. chatbots 'masquerading' as therapists ... could drive vulnerable people to harm themselves or others." Certainly, a professional counselor may not be the best life-influencer, but would still be unlikely to encourage harm.

Some say that Instagram has. There have been accusations against LLMs reported by CNN, Futurism, and MIT. In fairness, your corporeal friends could do that. See Is it Manslaughter, Does it Matter if it it's not? (April 2015). There is no guarantee that malice or indifference is necessarily only going to come from the technology.

Combine these stories and a theme evolves. People are increasingly dependent on AI, some are clearly Jonesing, some are frankly exhibiting addiction signs, some are demonstrating anthropomorphism or even objectophilia, and some are even trusting it to provide emotional counseling. To make it worse, this trust and LLM interaction appears most threatening to the humans who are in isolated, lonely, and even in need of support, services, and human interaction.

There has recently been mounting discussion about the impacts of social media. Some say it destroyed a generation, and others disagree. This may be much like masking during the Great Panic and no clear answer will ever come. But, the corollary to AI is worthy of consideration now rather than later. Is AI addictive, is that harmful, should there be guardrails, is there a solution?

Maybe I will ask my friend Claude after my date with Anthropic and my counseling session with GPT. Or, maybe I will just go outside and throw a stick with the dog? It has been a long winter and I am really just Jonesing for sunshine, green grass, and being laid back. Now that is a "hard habit to break." But perhaps that is just me. You go talk to a computer instead if you wish.

Editor’s Note: Help is available if you or someone you know is struggling with suicidal thoughts or mental health matters. In the US: Call or text 988, the Suicide & Crisis Lifeline.

Globally: The International Association for Suicide Prevention and Befrienders Worldwide has contact information for crisis centers around the world.

Tuesday, March 25, 2025

We are Regressing

I was recently drawn back to my 2024 rant on Idiocracy (Nickelodeon, 2006) and Disuse Atrophy (November 2024)." There, I suggested that the brain is a muscle that needs exercise and stretching to remain functional and effective. It needs challenges to grow and develop. As Hippocrates is said to have phrased it: "That which is used - develops. That which is not used wastes away."

Horace Middlemier* knows these things interest me and sent an article in which Nature (February 2025) has concluded that "search engines, GPS maps, and other tech can alter our ability to learn and remember." It cites anecdotal examples of technology overreliance and function loss. However, the authors there conclude that broad "claims such as 'Google is making us stupid' are 'overstatements.'" Nonetheless, they suggest that AI may have a more pervasive effect in this regard.

Futurism recently published shocking news that "people really are less smart than they used to be." We are notably declining individually (micro) and societally (macro). There is a lot there to unpack, but the consistent end of the maze is that we are declining mentally.

The story quotes from The Financial Times (FT) with assessments and statistics regarding our decline in "concentrating and losing reasoning, problem-solving, and information-processing skills." Each of those seems somewhat critical, like say oxygen, hydration, and even "more cowbell." That last one is fanciful, no one needs "more cowbell," not even the celebrity who proclaims it so insistently (I cannot remember his name).

The decline conclusions regarding the loss of mental function are not opinions. That said, there is some degree of opinion involved; more on that below. However, the FT notes benchmarking tests of cognitive skills. They have been studying "15-year-olds around the world" for some time, and the results are from comparing the outcomes and abilities. This is not measuring today's 15-year-olds against us 30-somethings or other generations, but measuring today's 15-year-olds against those of decades past. And the results are alarming.

Some of this is likely related to the Great Panic, which included a Great Pause in education opportunities and challenges. The consensus on the impact of school closure has been relatively well documented. That is noteworthy as a contributor and worthy of some consideration. However, the researchers are convinced (opinion) that the decline is more than that which the Great Pause might plausibly suggest or explain.

There is reason for fear in the decline in our reading (remember when every little town had a building full of compressed pulp products that we called "books?"). Readership is down. Comfort working with numbers is decreasing as is our ability to do so (remember when you paid people with "checks" and had to keep a mathematical record of your bank balance?). Remember when you could hand a clerk paper money and they handed you back "change" that you had to count and confirm?

I saw my first calculator in 1975. I remember it cost close to $100 back then and all it could do was rudimentary math. We were never allowed to use a calculator on an examination, even when I got to college and was asked to work calculus and statistics equations by hand. No calculators, show your work and resultingly work your way through it.

The tech has brought us comfort. Calculators, digital assistants, smartphones, tablets, GPS, and so much more. In 2009, Apple brought us the new world order with the catchphrase "There's an app for that," and we bought it. We all have a raft of apps on various devices and they have relieved us of the need to think, not so much remember, but think. There is too much screen time and not enough challenge (remember chess club after school? it was also a social event where we actually spoke to people).

The FT article concludes that the downturn in our function and ability is real. This is troublesome. It is easy to identify some culprits:

Devices - who studies when all the world's knowledge is in your pocket?
Decreased reading, both recreational and occupational.
Calculator apps, instant number information, and decreased use of math.
GPS apps with instant mileage, arrival times, and more.

Each of these allows us relief from the challenges of daily life. They can relieve us of processing responsibility. Some are so concerned that they are practicing "appstenance."

But, what of a deeper look? Is it possible that our attention span has also been affected by the 30-minute news cycle? How about the great composition and art of such societal gems as Gilligan's Island (CBS 1964). Let's not blame Gilligan for all our woes, I Love Lucy (Desilu 1951) had a lot of the same inane schtick. And, they all delivered a dopamine rush in just 30 minutes, including commercials.

Same schtick? Almost every television sitcom I have ever watched reminds me of Lucy. The contrived misunderstandings, human frailties, and comedic set-ups. Pick Friends, How I Met Your Mother, and on and on. You can see a bit of Lucille Ball in all of them. When you view these shows, picture any character with Lucille Ball's face and you will likely see the schtick it as well. So much recycled pablum providing a quick laugh, and a dopamine shot to the distracted, sedentary brain.

Is technology giving us progress, or is it allowing us to divest, detach, and disengage? I explored that in Retrograde (March 2022). I quoted Timothy Leary and suggested that these devices we are glued to are not the answer to our prayers. We are too focused on our screens, our fictional social media "friends," and our introversion. We are avoiding in-person interaction and it is killing us, see Uncle Buck to Ray Kinsella (July 2021).

The perils of device dependence are in front of our eyes. I see it and believe most of us do. And yet, we sit each evening plopped in front of the "idiot box" as it feeds us and degrades our sense of perspective. We keep consuming the same familiar material, aided by various streaming services and intractable habits. We actually come to believe that every problem, mystery, or challenge can be solved in less than 60 minutes. We accept that the good always prevails and that results will be achieved.

Just when things were bad on the attention span front, after we adjusted to the 30-minute cycle of news and short sitcom focus, the age of social media further assaulted our intellect and focus. As we diminished from the shortened span, along came tick tock and brought us ridiculous, vacuous videos averaging about 30 seconds.

And we are surprised that our attention span is short? People sit and watch amazingly mindless shorts, but will spend hours doing it. And, most do not even watch the whole 30 seconds. We don't even have 30 seconds of patience? Somehow in our path to such brevity and detachment from the real world, we began to lose our concentration, reasoning, and intellectual function. Who'd a thunk it?

There is a great threat to society, micro and macro, that emanates from social media, apps, idiocracy, and the fallacies of digital "connection." The threat is real, imminent, and terrifying. We are hard-wired to process and think. Saving us from thinking and processing is not helping us. We are losing our ability to think, communicate, and interact. It is happening before our eyes, empirically quantified, and widely ignored.

Congratulations on sticking to this post to the end. I am proud.

*Horace Middlemier is a fictional affectation. Any resemblance to any real person or persons is coincidental and utterly unintended.

Sunday, March 23, 2025

How much does it cost?

Comes now the critical choice between content creators and the boon of artificial intelligence (AI). Or so says Team AI. These are perhaps the days of angst, anger, and brewing discontent. Camps are seemingly forming in the great AI war, and people are somewhat torn between sides. Some of that is traditional nation-state rivalry that is certainly not new. But this is also a culture issue.

There is much to know about AI. First and foremost, they are (mostly) not databases. I thought this revelation was among the best delivered by the AI panel at the recent OJCC First DCA seminar in Tallahassee. The speaker stressed that the AI are not storage, but tools to access what is stored. And, to be fair, virtually everything is stored. Nonetheless, there are those who say AI Large Language Models (LLM) are storing and regurgitating much, so they are at least mimicking databases. Copyright Infringement (December 2023).

There is not much choice about publication. If an artist elects not to put their lyrics online, someone will do it for them. If they choose not to put their music on the internet, someone will use it for background in a YouTube or tick-tock video. In the real world of 2025, everything is subject to replication and publication on the web and social media, whether the producer agrees or not. That is, whether the producer is paid or not.

There is some appeal to fairness. Why should a producer (author, singer, musician) live a life of luxury forever based on the production of a pièce de résistance? Well, perhaps because they have the talent to produce it? The protection of that work is seen through two lenses. One perspective is respect for the rights and investment of the producer. The other is the egalitarian or democratization perspective of access and entertainment. What is fair use? Who is John Galt? How much wood would a woodchuck . . .? (you get the point).

The art of piracy is not new. People recorded songs from the radio and concerts onto cassettes back in the day. Movies were replicated from one video cassette recorder to another. Sales occurred from blankets and tables on street corners, flea markets, and car trunks. Technology, content, and talent were readily lifted, replicated, and sold. Modern technology has not created the idea of content (mis)use, it has merely made theft and distribution easier, faster, and more attractive.

The idea of copyright, to protect the content creators, is not a natural law (gravity, thermodynamics, etc.) but a law of humans. Mankind creates law and the might of nations enforce it. There is, therefore, a probability that different nations would have different perceptions and conclusions about what, when, and how to protect.

The law is thus a patchwork of regional, national, and cooperative (treaties) intricacies, differences, and distinctions. In the context of AI and intellectual property, perhaps the most important conflict is in how China and the U.S. view it and each other. In short, "China enforces its copyright laws less strictly than the U.S." according to InfoSec.

Thus, in the continuing debate of Copyright Infringement (December 2023), we must Consider the Source (December 2024). Lawsuits abound in America as thousands of content producers seek recompense for the benefits AI has enjoyed by perusing their creations, innovations, and prognostications. Wired reports that "dozens of other copyright lawsuits against AI companies have been filed at a rapid clip." Some of these have been by major, well-known media. Others by people I had not heard of previously.

Last week, The Wrap reported that various millionaires and others have called upon government to stop the "Exploitation of Hollywood," in a petition-style letter to the President. They make a balance of equities arguments in which their millionaire status is countered by the billion-dollar market capitalization of LLM developers/owners.

The celebrities were responding to pleas from the LLM industry, previously reported in The Wrap. That describes that American AI companies are aware that they compete with international populations of scientists and researchers. They have noted publicly that there are national security, economics, and freedom issues at stake. One prominently stated that we need a "copyright strategy" in order to train AI and to "retain() America's AI lead over China's communist government."

This AI proposal is apparently not a proposal for changing the copyright law. It seems more of an interpretation adjustment in which this "strategy"

"would extend the system’s role into the Intelligence Age by protecting the rights and interests of content creators while also protecting America’s AI leadership"

This includes

"a regulatory environment that is not burdensome and advocates 'voluntary' partnerships between the federal government and the private sector; promoting American AI companies at home and abroad; and investing in the infrastructure needed to scale America’s AI industry."

It is possible that the whole conversation stems from the judge's ruling in Thompson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-613-SB, U.S.D.C. DE, February 11, 2025. I have written about Ross before. Ross, AI, and the New Paradigm Coming (March 2016). Not to put too fine a point on it, but I have been telling you about AI and these challenges for almost a decade.

There is some degree of belief that the breadth of concern here includes content creator concerns. It is worthwhile to consider whether there will be any content if the producers have no protection or profitability. Likewise, those building AI LLMs are not altruistic, despite some protestations to the contrary.

However, in a broader context, comments from national leaders suggest a fear that "AI (becomes) a superpower" in and of itself. The tone of the second Wired article is on how American AI can progress, or fail to if it "can't learn from copyrighted material." And yet, significant research on search engines and various AI programs has not yielded any indication of even the most minute example of any rule, regulation, or law that would prevent such learning.

The point is not about whether AI companies may use the work product of others. They can. The point is not whether you may cover Beyonce's Single Ladies (Boom Boom Room, 2008). You can. The questions are all about whether the AI companies should be able to use that work product free of charge, royalty, and remuneration. That, as they say, is the real question. And for clarity, you will have to pay Beyonce or some copyright holder if you cover Single Ladies.

Copyright does not prevent use, it prevents free use. It allows those who create to maintain some control over that use. Their control is not forever, and expirations have made news in recent years including Mikey Mouse and Winnie the Pooh. Those protections lasted only 95 years. But in that period, the creators reaped their reward for the innovation, creativity, and culture they provided.

Therefore, as I read these sources, and wrote this post, all I could focus on was sunshine. No, not the free light from the sky, that is free daily at a sidewalk near you. No, I kept hearing the song Sunshine (Intermedia, 1971):

Some man's come he's trying to run my life
Don't know what he's asking
When he tells me I better get in line
Dan't hear what he's saying
When I grow up, I'm gonna make him mine
These ain't dues I been paying

How much does it cost?
I'll buy it!
The time is all we've lost
I'll try it!
He can't even run his own life,
I'll be damned if he'll run mine--sunshine...

There is the real question: "How much does it cost." In our society, is there a national security issue in using other people's thoughts and things without their permission or compensation? Is our property worth so little that others might use it at their behest and will? Well, in some countries - yes. Amazingly, there are a great many creators who are strong advocates of taking and using property, as long as it is someone else's.

Remember the whole ox-goring conundrum of other people's money? Margaret Thatcher famously noted the trouble with socialism:

“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”

There is some potential for humor there. Socialists and socialism have always intrigued me, not unlike they intrigued John Galt. But, I digress.

There are some free trial AI tools available. I have used them. I asked one recently about the woodchuck conundrum and got an eerily similar response to the information in the link above ("How much wood would a woodchuck ....?"). I am not saying one of them copied from the other; I am just saying they were very similar. Even though there are free trials, the AI LLMs are charging people. They are businesses. They are hoping to make money as tools in the marketplace.

If I cover Single Ladies with the intent to sell that entertainment (it would not be entertainment if I sang, unless except perhaps exquisite comedy) and I am making money from Beyonce's work, why would I be free of copyright because it is cheaper for me to sing what I glean from others? Am I free to print copies of J.K. Rowlings' books here because it's cheaper and easier than writing my own fantasy stories?

The easy path is often correct, and the answer is "no."

In the interest of full disclosure, I own some stock in a couple of companies tied to AI LLMs. I also own a copy of Single Ladies and some Rowling's books (do not judge me). But from 30,000 feet, I wonder if there is some room here for compensating the content creators while still feeding the LLMs enough to grow, evolve, and develop?

If we do not, then the Beyonces and Rowlings may become extinct. While some LLMs may sound like them, emulate them, in fairness they will never be them. Are we ready to live in a world without the creative, innovative, scholarly, musical, etc.? Certainly, it is hard to feel sorry for millionaires fighting other millionaires (billionaires?), but it is as challenging to adopt the "ok to steal" that is foundational to the theme of socialism so many of those millionaires embrace.

I am sure that the LLMs are consuming this blog. That would explain a lot, no? They are welcome to my ramblings. In the end, you should know every restaurant review, face post, tweet, and more has likely been consumed, digested, categorized, and stored. The LLMs are learning from you already, like it or not.

The point is not about what LLMs consume or whether they need to. The point is simply whether there is some national interest that compels taking creator's product and property for free. There is not, the fact is that protecting producers, workers, and owners from socialism and theft is a large part of what draws us all to capitalism in the first place.

Thursday, March 20, 2025

DOGE 2025

I recently had a chance to review how things are going with the Florida OJCC. There is a lot of interest in government efficiency. The Governor issued Executive Order 25-44 on February 24, 2025. There are broad requirements and instructions there. Florida's government will emerge more efficient and effective in the coming months. There are going to be difficult questions asked, perspectives analyzed, and changes made.

I strove to put the efficiency idea into perspective. From the OJCC standpoint, efficiency has been our hallmark for 20 years. From electronic filing, to e-service, to child support information provision, to video hearings, our efforts have been focused on making the world of workers' compensation litigation a more functional, efficient, and effective place. Have we ever stumbled? You bet we have, but in the broad view, we have come miles from the OJCC of the 20th century.

Examples? Glad you asked.

Budget

Since 1994, the OJCC budget, in real dollars (inflation-adjusted to 2024), has decreased 29%.
During the same period, the Florida Budget, increased 36% (an aggregate spread of 65%).
Florida’s population has increased 66% since 1994, 14.2 million to 23.4 million.

Litigation

PFB/Claim filing volume today is 212% of 1994 (increased 112%; 81,145 from 38,254).
Petition (litigation) volume is up 16% in the last four years.
Compliance with statutory time parameters nonetheless is now consistent.

Workload

Each OJCC division (one judge) processes about 81-85 inbound filings daily.
Many require data updates, status changes, name changes, etc.
JCCs review/prepare and enter an average of 20 orders daily.
Gone are the days of handwritten, sloppy, and often illegible orders.
JCCs average 2 “other” hearings weekly, in addition to trials, daily orders, etc.

Staffing

JCC and mediator counts are now each 94% of 1994.
JCC/Mediator staff FTE is now 87% of 1994.
JCC/Mediator staff FTE is now 62% of 2012.

Are we perfect? Absolutely not. There is persistent room for any organization to reevaluate, reconsider, brainstorm, and learn. We are very likely to learn from those who ask hard questions. Those questions may not be comfortable, but if taken in the right spirit they may lead to self-awareness and better value. We are already implementing changes designed to enhance efficiency and the economy.

There has long been discussion of the challenges of group environments. See The 5 Monkey Parable (February 2021). For more on "Group Think" and its perils, see Consensus in the Absence of Proof (January 2021) and Hippocrates, Harm, Racism (May 2022). We are all likely to form habits, get in a groove, and begin to ignore the forest and the trees. Now it is time to acknowledge all the great progress of the OJCC noted above. It is also a prime time to ask ourselves why we do as we do and what we can do better. I am up for it, are you?

Tuesday, March 18, 2025

All the Cool Kids

A lawyer has been mentioned in these pages before. It all began with A Disciplined Attorney and Repercussions (September 2018). That was a reasonably long time ago, in what some refer to as "BP," which is before, and could be pandemic or panic depending on your views and conclusions. That post lists eight people who may have been impacted by an attorney to the tune of over three hundred thousand missing dollars. The story in 2018 was about the attorney asking the Florida Supreme Court to disbar him and it agreeing.

Mr. Douglas next made the news when he was Then Arrested (August 2020). That post recounts that the clients who were ill-treated had voiced "complaints to 'The Florida Bar and the Davie Police Department.'" That is a point on which I am fairly clear with people. When you think a crime has been committed, the proper person to tell your story to is a policeman or prosecutor. There is some inclination to call or write to me when those perceptions arise, and I am certainly no policeman. Mr. Douglas was arrested in 2020.

To be fair, that was at the height of the pandemic or panic. Some believe that various courts essentially shut down in that era. Nonetheless, that seems like a very long time ago.

In an unrelated matter, I posted Petition for Disciplinary Revocation (August 2022). That recounted a tale of another lawyer who was accused of taking things that did not belong to him. He sought and was granted disbarment. That case was likewise referred to the State Attorney.

No news has surfaced about criminal prosecution since. However, the Legal Newsline published a report in May 2023 about a former client suing that law firm for "malpractice, fraud, and other claims." There was a report by Law360 of Georgia reciprocally disbarring the attorney. The current state of affairs is unclear.

I wish this were a more novel story. Google "lawyer stole money" sometime. When I did, recently, I easily found allegations published in Kentucky, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, California, Tennessee, Mississippi, and more. Apparently, "all the cool kids are doing it." I tried that excuse one time with my mom. The results were less than spectacular from my perspective.

Some of those stories included a novel and unexpected outcome. The accused who were found guilty were committed to an incarceration facility. You know, a jail or prison. They were put away, confined, taken into custody. In short, there were repercussions from their decisions.

Returning to Mr. Douglas, who was arrested in 2020. His criminal case concluded in February 2025. The public records in case number 20000099CF10A in Broward County, DV19001199 seem to suggest that the outcome there was a built adjudication and ten years of probation, and restitution was ordered both regarding the "victims" and "Fla. Bar." There is also mention of continued medical care and treatment.

There is a great deal of trust in the attorney-client relationship. Attorneys are given access to their clients' deepest secrets, mental impressions, suspicions, and more. The client is literally placing themself in the lawyer's hands. The lawyer has much about which to be wary, careful, and conscientous. It is fair to say that too often that trust is being violated and even abused (one instance of a lawyer stealing someone's money is too often).

We find ourselves in a complex world. There are a multitude of reasons that might compel someone to hire an attorney, to trust an attorney, to believe in an attorney's promises and commitments. The client deserves communication, confidence, and compliance. When money is due to them, they deserve to receive it rather than their attorney

using it "to fund a lavish lifestyle" or

"gambling it all away" or

to "buy a puppy."

The recurrence and trend are troubling. The stories errode public confidence in the profession and damage the reputation of thousands of ethical, professional, caring, dedicated, and honest attorneys who devote a lifetime to helping people through the most desperate and challenging moments of their lives.

Sunday, March 16, 2025

Happy Anniversary?

An intriguing anniversary was marked last week, but with little fanfare. The news has been hyperfocused on a multitude of societal issues that confront our present. Wars continue to rage, economics challenge us, and there is a seemingly unending parade of "this" and "that" on which we could focus.

But March 11, 2020 was a big day five years ago. The World Health Organization (WHO) issued a dire warning that day, declaring SARS-CoV-2 a pandemic. There was some surprise as I recall the time. I had been warning my students about it for about a month as I recall (random pictures of Corona Beer in my business law slideshows). It was, after all, a coronavirus and the students did readily respond to the reference.

The ensuing days, weeks, and months seem a blur in retrospect. There was a great deal of debate about how society should react to this threat, what the source was, and our personal protection. There were debates, recriminations, allegations, and vacillations. It was an odd time to live. I have some vivid memories, and reflection now is a positive exercise. At the time, it was more stress and reflection was neither helpful or positive.

A primary recollection was discussing the virus with our "purchasing" group. I had this thought early on in 2020 that we might need to stock up on disinfectant spray for the districts. That was belittled and minimized. The accountants told me I was overreacting, but eventually, they came around. By that point, we had to buy the spray on internet auction sites, at exorbitant prices. I still have a can in my office, with French labels, from Canada.

There was discord and confusion. I recall almost daily changes in what was known, suspected, and conjectured. I vividly recall a parade of advice and information in the weeks that followed the WHO proclamation. There were some advocating drugs or vitamins, others masks, others this, that, or another. The pace and variety of advice seemed to be frantic at times. A recent story on MSN recounts some interesting memories in Europe.

I first knew COVID was significant when I got an email from the university. It essentially said to enjoy Spring Break the next week. It concluded that the virus threat might be significant and that the university would therefore extend Spring Break an extra week. Almost immediately, that communique was followed by another that we should strive to continue teaching the week after Spring Break, but without being in class.

I had no Zoom or similar experience. I had You Tube. I found a free program that allowed me to record my computer screen and I used it to make a video of my lecture and power point for the week after Spring Break. I uploaded that to You Tube and sent the link to my students. But one week led to the next. We muddled through that semester without ever returning to class. I got most of them through, but a few dropped by the wayside. I will always remember those who went from "camera on" to audio only, to not attending. Then, I could not get an email response. Those few just faded away.

We muddled through in the world of workers' compensation. There were various Florida localities that strove to shut down. There were local shutdowns ordered by various Florida municipalities. We heard of states shutting down. When Florida joined the movement on April 1, 2020, National Public Radio (NPR) reported that more than 30 states were in "lockdown."

Governor DeSantis' order directed

"all Floridians to limit movements and personal interactions outside the home to only those necessary to obtain or provide essential services or essential activities."

I was convinced then, and remain so now, that workers' compensation is an "essential service." I thought we needed to keep the documents moving, the cases developing, the motions heard, the orders entered. We touch a great many lives in this little corner of the law. We persevered while other state workers' compensation systems and government functions shut down, sent teams home, and waited.

The OJCC stayed in the office. I sent all the mediations telephonic. There seemed a fair balance in continuing to deliver services but in a manner that minimized risk to our public and team. We all began spraying things with disinfectant, evolved to distancing, and kept working.

We left the hearing issue up to the judges individually. Some held live hearings throughout. Some adapted to telephonic when they could. Others shifted their trials to other judges. We had a lot of experience with Videoteleconference hearings, and it was not long before we discovered Zoom, Google Meets, and Teams. I was very fortunate to get a lot of access to these programs and training through the university, and that experimentation aided me in workers' compensation.

Florida reopened rapidly in the early summer 2020. Hurdles remained, but it was nice to see the state returning to normal and to evolve through the challenges. But, I will always remember that the OJCC never stopped.

At the end of it all, however, our OJCC success was all about the people. Those who work at the OJCC and those who practice here. They were the best, day after day, through good and bad. I will forever be highly proud of the dedicated and focused OJCC team that continued to deliver consistently, earnestly, professionally, and patiently in that era.

We began to explore the potential for work-related SARS-CoV-2 and the challenges of compensability and proof surrounding disease. There was significant discussion, some pleading, various allegations, and disagreement. We shifted a bit into the counselor mode. I recall various calls with attorneys and others who were frustrated, anxious, and uncertain. They did not seek answers or advice, but they wanted to vent about how their world was not working.

We evolved. I recall when we bought plexiglass shields for keeping people separate in hearings. The effort was likely futile. But remember, there was a time when the scientists argued with each other as to whether the disease "could" be airborne. In retrospect, that seems odd. But in the moment there was uncertainty. Listening to the scientists seemed a good plan.

Plexiglass. I recall conversations with other states' leaders in which they described spending the money to build workspaces of the stuff by extending cubicle walls, dividing rooms, etc. They bought the stuff in huge quantities, spent significantly installing it, and then lacked the fortitude or leadership to return their teams to those plexi-clad offices. I recall one calling me with "how did you get your people to come back?" He was incredulous when I replied, "we never left."

I look back now and can only hear Truckin (Warner Brothers, 1970) by the Grateful Dead in my head:

Sometimes the light's all shinin' on me
Other times I can barely see
Lately it occurs to me
What a long, strange trip it's been

Strange indeed. COVID eventually came to a close. We were blessed with state leadership that got Florida back to work, to function, to productivity so rapidly. There is no state that handled it better (personal opinion). We struggled to implement and to accommodate, but the OJCC led in the effort for normalcy. We persevered and we produced.

I lamented the many systems that did or could not, but tried. And I can think of some things I might do differently if faced with that again. However, I am confident that I will not be around for the next great pandemic and my lessons learned will have to be learned then by someone who will likely not even recall the Great Panic of 2020.

Over the months, I spent a lot of time working on understanding COVID and thinking through various implications. It may be the most prolific composite topic in this Blog. I reflect now on the strange five years stretched out in our wake. It is surreal and amazing all at once.

I recall much discussion of when the Great Panic ended. That discussion was largely regional. It ended more rapidly here than elsewhere. In May 2023. President Biden declared it over in the U.S. The WHO soon followed. Despite being "over" as a pandemic, the virus has persisted in an endemic state. I know people who say they have it today. The numbers are significantly lower than during the Great Panic, but the disease persists. It is now in the endemic state that was predicted.

Nonetheless, I started feeling it was "over" in April 2021. I had an experience then, described in A Great Hamburger with a Smile (April 2021), that made me hopeful and motivated. While that date was likely too soon to label "over," it was certainly not the "end of the beginning," but was the "beginning of the end." I struggle, in retrospect, to think of things returning to normal, but it happened.

I knew it was conclusively "over" when the scarce and coveted became commonplace. I took the photo below of sale-priced disinfectant in August 2024. Remember when you couldn't find cleaning supplies? Then the hasses with quantity limits and recriminations? I pitied the poor store staff who tried to enforce those rules on everything from spray to bleach to toilet paper to hamburger.

The WHO says 1.22 million Americans died. Most of those were in the annual spikes in 2020, 21, and 22. The graphs in a recent ABC News story are very informative. Some strive to include more deaths in the total, noted by Boston University and others. The scientists continue to debate "excess death," causation, and more. Reminds me that Tootsie Pops Make You Think (August 2021).

There is also discussion in the ABC News story of "Long COVID," and the impacts that it has as people suffer symptoms for months. I got some grief from readers when I raised that topic in October 2020. Some ridiculed the idea then, and some still do. The effects and impacts of this virus have been significant. The recovery and perseverance have also been.

My former discussion efforts are listed below. A "strange trip" indeed.

125 prior blog posts re COVID-19:

Corona Virus COVID-19 03.10.20;

COVID-19 All OJCC Mediations Temporarily Telephonic 03.14.20;

Remotely Swearing Witnesses 03.15.20;

Stress in the Time of COVID 03.19.20;

Shifting Paradigms 03.22.20;

COVID-19 Update 06.09.20;

Six Degrees of COVID-19 04.02.20;

A Mistaken Motion 04.14.20;

We will Get Through This 04.19.20;

Science, Standards, and Government 04.26.20;