Drive Carefully

There is an element of society that engages in not-so-appropriate activity. In that, there is too often some human tendency to believe "it cannot happen to me" or "cannot happen here." This is an optimism bias or predisposition. See Langham, Unseen Influence: Unconscious Predisposition in Dispute Resolution (2025). We all suffer from predispositions. 

That said, it can happen to any of us. That "it" is almost anything. There is deception, aggression, and worse in this world. These thoughts returned when the Associated Press (AP) ran a story some years ago about a "federal judge robbed at gunpoint at home." The idea of violence in the world is a bit easier to disregard than such a threat at home.

The experience could not have been anything but terrifying. Late one Friday night, three miscreants are alleged to have "kicked in the basement door" and started "removing items from the house." At that point, it was a simple burglary. The judge's husband then confronted the alleged miscreants, and the situation deteriorated.

They were both "held at gunpoint while they were robbed" of valuables. One was "pushed down" some stairs, resulting in injury. There was then an attempt to steal their automobile, but that ended with the miscreants spooked and fleeing the scene. The burgled/robbed couple called the police.

The AP noted somewhat stoically that "the couple is uneasy about what happened." Police noted that such an experience is "a little unnerving." And they say the art of understatement is a lost skill.

Coincidentally, on this occasion, "police in (a) neighboring" town happened to make a traffic stop when a car failed to stop at a stop sign. The officer(s) there suspected the vehicle occupants of being involved in the robbery, and a search revealed some of the stolen items in the car.

Soon thereafter, two of the three pled guilty to a string of charges, related by WLWT5. That coverage provides more detail of the miscreants following the two victims' home based on their "luxury car," and witnessing them entering their "27,000-square-foot home."

The two were sentenced to minimums of 18 and 20 years in prison. Mr. Kinney was 21 at the time and will therefore be 39 when released in 2033. Mr. Jackson, who did the pushing down the stairs, was also 21 and will be 42 when he is released in 2036. A third also pled guilty and was similarly sentenced according to WLWT5.

One wonders, perhaps, whether the three would ever have been caught if their driver had not run the stop sign.

The folks at Pew note that many crimes are never reported:

"Only about half of the violent crimes and a third of the property crimes that occur in the United States each year are reported to police."

Only a fraction of the reported crimes are "cleared":

"46% of the violent crimes and 19% of the property crimes reported to police in the U.S. were cleared."

These statistics are independently concerning. But consider that if only half the violent crimes are reported, and less than half of those are "cleared," that means about 25% of all violent crimes are "cleared."

If only a third of property crime is reported, and 19% of those are cleared, that means that 6% of all property crimes are "cleared."

Additionally, our police make about 13 million traffic stops annually, "5.2% of the driving population" (not counting accidents). There is always the chance that such a stop has broader implications, but most are primarily revenue-generating driver fines. There is, seemingly, more interest in traffic enforcement than in property crime. 

According to the Prison Policy Initiative, we have "nearly two million people behind bars" in the U.S. We spend $445 billion annually to house them. While those are significant figures, worthy of thought, the vast majority of the actual crime is apparently never cleared. 

The contradiction is curious. To quote the eloquent police officer above, it is all "a little unnerving."

Extraneous and Inappropriate

A judge in Florida's Ninth Circuit is facing discipline for comments from the bench. The story has been run by The Independent, The Tampa Times, and an Orlando television station. Though the complained-of comments date to an April 2025 jury selection and a July 2025 plea hearing.

The recent news coverage was apparently stimulated by the publication of a report of the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission. It made for interesting reading on the various platforms.

The public comments were a broad spectrum of thoughtful reactions, agricultural advice, and borderline vulgarity. I am persistently astounded by commenters who publish insulting remarks about stories and each other.

In fairness, the complaint against the judge centered primarily on the comments in the July plea hearing. The April 2025 jury selection infraction was a simpler, and perhaps frustrated or excited, utterance—"shut up."

This is not to excuse that incident. Telling people to "shut up" is perhaps an Americanism that has become too familiar to shock or surprise. In any event, it is less offensive than threatening to have the lawyers shot, even in jest. See Shoot the Lawyers (November 2025).

The July 2025 plea hearing is the more noteworthy statement, which is driving the attention and the judicial complaint. There, "a 33-year-old Black female defendant" was to be sentenced, and her black great uncle was also present.

The judge inquired of the great uncle whether he owned land, "where I could have her work it for 30 hours," as part of a sentence. The judge expressed his own familial agricultural experiences and then inquired, "You ever chopped cotton before?" HE then explained how that phrase describes weeding.

The umbrage at the comment is crystaline in retrospect. Nonetheless, the judge has noted that he simply

"failed to consider how his comments could be interpreted in light of the historically demeaning stereotype associating Black people with picking cotton."

The judge further explained that he had "spent summers as a youth working ... farm fields in Texas," and that recollection may have contributed to his comment. From the perspective of a long-time Florida driver, I cannot ever recall seeing a cotton field here, except in the panhandle.

Nonetheless, there is undoubtedly agriculture in central Florida. Anyone who has never engaged in agriculture should never doubt that the work on a farm is intense, hard, and persistent. There are many farm tasks that I would certainly see as punishment.

But the real point is not whether this or that punishment is appropriate. The point is in two parts:

1. There is some chance the judge intended the comment as light-hearted; the uncle reportedly laughed. But there is no room in judicial proceedings for humor, and increasingly no room in society. See My Way (December 2025).
2. Intent is not ever the point. Comments are interpreted by the listener, not the speaker.

Judges should focus on this and simply avoid humor attempts in proceedings. See Humor and Failure (August 2022); Laugh and the World Laughs With You (August 2019); Science or Art (November 2023); My Way (December 2025); Night Court (May 2025); Funny or Offensive (October 2022).

In Funny or Offensive (October 2022), I explore when it is seemingly acceptable for a judge to tell untoward jokes. The answer is never. And yet it is periodically experienced. Sure, one might say "she got away with it," or "it was not as bad as ________." That never worked in grade school. 

Those deflections may make the speaker feel better, but they will not change the fact that someone perceived the comments as offensive. Judges should simply stick to the business at hand. 

Of course, accept that people in legal proceedings are uncomfortable. Nonetheless, ease that with compassion, persistence, and patience. 

Leave the humor to the comedians, the public forums, and the non-judicial. No hearing is the place; the judge is not the humorist. The reception may be an illusory acceptance or a laugh, but the real result is unlikely to be reflected in the audience faced with judicial attempts at humor.

 

Assisted Suicide News

The subjects of euthanasia continue to make news. The topic is not new, but is gaining recognition. See Evolving Morality (July 2025) and Who Should Live? (January 2023). The Evolving highlights how legislators around the globe are pondering self-harm. At the outset, there is ample opportunity for self-harm in the world.

Recently, the story of Noelia Castillo, a 25-year-old, brought the realities of Spanish euthanasia to the fore. ABC7 explained an extended and involved process through which Ms. Castillo travelled to her ultimate demise. The reports suggest that the story made bigger headlines in Europe, with the BBC also picking up the story. Britain's euthanasia debate is central to Evolving Morality. That the BBC has had some credibility issues is acknowledged.

Ms. Castillo's life is difficult for most to understand. Her experiences are profound and troubling. She "struggled with psychiatric illness since she was a teenager." Her short life included two previous suicide attempts. The second, "in 2022, left her unable to use her legs and in a wheelchair." In the milieu of challenges, she was "sexually assaulted," adding to her stressors, emotions, perceptions, and conclusions.

In 2024, Ms. Castillo sought permission to exit this life through "physician-assisted suicide," which Spain had legalized and formalized in 2021. At 23 years old, this human decided she could no longer persevere. She was granted that permission by a "medical body in Catalonia."

One pauses in such a story to wonder at the level of pain, despair, or other emotions that would drive one to a self-imposed and utterly permanent outcome. It is important to remember that there are various worldviews, see Cultural Relativism (March 2026). There are differences and distinctions throughout the world.

Nonetheless, many societies cling to a prohibition on killing, such as the Sixth Commandment. Intriguingly, some academics now contend that mandate should be interpreted more narrowly as "thou shalt not murder," an interesting distinction.

Such a distinction could be meaningful when the morality of self-termination is discussed. Succinctly, "murder" is the act of a human killing another human. Definitionally, the "murder" prohibition perhaps seems inapplicable to suicide generally.

Nonetheless, those of the Catholic faith have an involved history regarding suicide. There have been perceptions and portrayals of condemning suicide. Some see those perceptions as softer, but nonetheless incompatible with faith. And, there is acknowledgement that suicide persists in modern society.

Ms. Castillo's parents are Catholic, and with legal assistance, they resisted the state-approved suicide for about two years. They first resisted the application to the Catalonia medical body when Ms. Castillo submitted her required "two requests in writing" to be assisted to die.

When that medical body granted permission, Ms. "Castillo's father appealed the Catalan body's decision, and a court in August 2024 suspended the euthanasia request while it deliberated." While those legal efforts delayed the suicide, the Spanish Supreme Court concluded in January 2026 that Ms. Castillo had the right to die.

Her family expressed disappointment in that decision. There has been significant criticism of the enabling law and the acceptance of self-termination. Ms. Castillo acknowledged her life, and family, conceding that she is a "pillar of the family," a seeming admission of the hole her absence may leave in the lives of others.

Nonetheless, she steered the conversation to her pain and suffering, and her personal decision to end it. She told the press, "The happiness of a father or a mother should not supersede the happiness of a daughter." There is the real rub, too often Rights Collide (February 2016).

The implications of this debate remain at the core of humanity and society. There are strong emotional arguments on both sides of these discussions. The bounds of such debates may be difficult to define.

There are efforts and expenditures to prevent suicide, see AI Lacks Conscience (September 2025) and the posts cited there. And yet, some cultures are concluding that the desires of the individual are paramount. This will involve issues of culture, faith, conscience, and more. 

In the end, it is difficult to conclude that there is a winner in such debates. Certainly, someone got their desired outcome while others did not. But in the death of a human, is there ever a winner? In the forced prolonging of suffering, is there ever a winner?

As I see so many struggle to live, to deal with the incurable, to strive for one more day.... I am inspired by their spirit. What horrors drive one, instead, to voluntarily cease? This will be a long and difficult debate. Ms. Castillo and her family are in my thoughts this morning. 

Everyone Gets a Trophy

We, as a society, have likely hit our nadir, though there is some chance we have further to fall before some sudden stop marks our complete demise. I have written about the decline in education and capability.

The National Literacy Institute has noted that (il)literacy is tied to "some of today's most pressing concerns." We face teacher shortages, teacher competency issues, and various other secondary education challenges. The Institute notes "21% of adults in the US are illiterate," and "54% of adults have a literacy below a 6th-grade level." Like it or not, this is largely influenced by immigrants: "34% of adults lacking literacy proficiency were born outside the US."

For thoughts on literacy, see Screen Time Wins (February 2026); It's Your Kids! (February 2026). Students are showing up to college, and they lack the basic skills of reading and writing.

The University of Florida reports that "reading for pleasure (is) in free fall." The author of the study says this is not "a small dip—it's a sustained, steady decline of about 3% per year." If you don't do something, practice, you will lose the muscle memory to do it. 

And it is not some systemic change; the drop is steeper among some demographics, which the author attributes to "disparity in reading access and habits." Notably, "women are still more likely to read." Those who exercise skills will better retain them. 

Another dichotomy, perhaps more predictable, is education-based: "People with higher education levels ... are more likely to read." The other good news in the study is that "reading with children did not change over the last 20 years." We may not read for ourselves, but we are at least reading with children. They need us more than ever. 

A Stanford professor is proposing and supporting the "science of reading." She notes that "at least 40 states" have proposed "legislation aimed at reversing the downward trend." There is also interest in teacher preparation, requirements for curricula, and "mandates to use evidence-based screeners to identify students who may need additional support."

There may be some belief that the 20th-century "every kid gets a trophy" has contributed to the decline in competitiveness, refuted by some. Nonetheless, a recent decision by the Los Angeles Marathon to award medals to those who ran 18 miles instead of 26 miles gained headlines. Why 18? Next year 17? 

Will we reach a point where I could get a marathon medal (at the outside, I might do three miles)? Technically speaking, the 18 milers have no more finished a marathon than I have. Where is my medal?

Every kid getting a trophy for finishing the (pick a sport) season is seen by some as rewarding mediocrity. The LA Marathon's decision to award those who did not even finish has been viewed a bit more harshly in some quarters. 

On the other side of the world, the Chinese culture is struggling with the opposite. China announced recently that it would "promote students' physical and mental health" with mandates that limit "excess homework," "reduce academic pressure," and promote "two hours of physical activity ... every school day." 

Might such a move help us with the bane of obesity? Many of our schools do not provide the more moderate recommendation of one hour daily "moderate to vigorous physical activity" now.  

Thus, there is some recognition of the value of exercise and activity. There is the potential of pushing academics too hard. But there is the challenge of illiterate adults and the difficulties that they could present in the world of work and democracy.

In all, there is some need for moderation. Nonetheless, we are societally yielding our futures if we accept "Johnny can't read" as a normal outcome. We can reverse that, but it will require some focus and commitment to teaching, learning, and less screen time, videos, and social media nonsense.  

Thanks for reading this, and for knowing how. 

Ineffective Assistance

In the world of workers' compensation, you never hear about ineffective assistance of counsel. It is a criminal law maxim. And yet, there are those who tell stories of lawyers who struggle with witnesses, evidence, and argument.

To be fair, you don't hear about ineffective assistance of counsel often in any context. Nonetheless, an action early this century made the news in West Florida. Despite the lack of news coverage, it is a motion often filed in criminal cases that result in a conviction. The Innocence Project says that there are some discernible patterns with them, and they say there are major categories.

"(1) lawyers who: failed to present defense witnesses; (2) failed to seek DNA testing or have serology testing done to try to exclude the client; (3) failed to object to ... or to evidence; (3); and failed to interview witnesses in preparation for trial or to cross-examine ... witnesses." Other examples were (4) "failure to investigate" and (5) "failure to present expert testimony."

The incident that made the news began with a lawyer who "tried to withdraw before trial" because his client did not pay the agreed-upon fee. When the lawyer was interviewed after, he explained that "he would have presented expert witness testimony" if he had been paid in full. Moreover, he claimed, "he gave '110 percent' to the case."

The lawyer complained that the judge was hard on his side of the case, "denying every objection he made." Criticized for calling his client to testify, he explained that "he did so to show jurors that Rolon hadn’t been coached into what to say.” The lawyer criticized the judge. That reminded me of a judge teaching a class in which a student plaintively inquired, "Why did you give me a D?" The judge/teacher replied, simply, "I did not give you anything; you earned a D." You get what you earn. There is no giving.

The order on the post-trial motion for ineffective assistance included that the lawyer "told jurors he had spent less than five minutes reviewing (his client's) testimony before putting him on the witness stand."

There was a Bar investigation, and in 2011, the lawyer was disbarred. In all, the situation provided a rare look into the perspective that can come from the bench.

Certainly, the perils of criminal law are easy to appreciate. The outcome for a criminal defendant may include loss of liberty or life. Nonetheless, the outcome of any trial can have life-altering impacts on the parties. The workers' compensation trial is no exception.

Employers may find their business interrupted by a workplace injury, employee absence(s), factual disputes involving various employees, and there are financial implications for the insured and self-insured.

The impact on the injured worker is as easy to see. The complaints and claims are related to injury, symptoms, pains, and even dysfunction, impairment, and disability. The outcome of such a trial can have profound impacts on the life and livelihood of the worker.

For either party, the challenges of Florida's workers' compensation statute, procedural rules, and evidence code can present a variety of hurdles, imperatives, and demands. The trial can present the unexpected, the contrary, and errors. Trials are stressful, and outcomes can be difficult.

Despite that periodic disappointment, the lawyer's best tool is readily available. Its employment is no guarantee, but there are no such guarantees in a trial.

The lawyer cannot control everything. We are reminded that "The race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong" (Ecclesiastes 9:11). But the trial will often go to the most prepared, the lawyer most familiar with the facts, the arguments, and the law. Despite all else, the lawyer can choose to be the most prepared. That does not make it easy, but the path is at least clear.

I tell my students all the time: "You cannot choose to be the smartest, prettiest, funniest, or a slew of other superlatives, but you can always choose to be the hardest working." Effort matters, and it shows. 

Out in California

A California judge will resign after pleading guilty to a felony mail fraud charge for allegedly hiring a physician convicted of health care fraud to prepare medical records to submit to the state’s workers’ compensation program, the U.S. Department of Justice announced Wednesday.

According to Ballotpedia, Israel Claustro was elected January 3, 2013, In the primary ... after the general election was cancelled." He was a judge of "the Superior Court of Orange County,_which appears to be California's court of general jurisdiction. Judge Claustro presided in Orange County, home of Anaheim, Irvine, and more. The job paid almost $180,000.

In fairness, Mr. Claustro was not a judge at the time of his felony; he "was an Orange County prosecutor at the time." He operated Liberty Medical Group, "despite being neither a physician nor a medical professional as required under California law." The company, Liberty, employed physicians to provide patient care.

The U.S. Attorney says that one "of Liberty’s employees was Dr. Kevin Tien Do, 60," and that he was previously convicted of fraud. That conviction led to "suspension from California’s workers’ compensation program." Nonetheless, Dr. Do was paid "more than $300,000" to prepare "medical evaluations, medical record reviews, and med-legal reports after Do’s suspension."

The secrecy of this action was preserved by "listing other doctors’ names on the billing forms and reports," concealing Dr. Do's involvement. The impact of the "known" falsity, according to the U.S. Attorney, was about $38,670, which was "paid to Liberty" as a result of the various "fraudulent submitted reports. The overall payments to Liberty were "hundreds of thousands of dollars."

In March 2026, the California Commission on Judicial Performance concluded its disciplinary proceeding against "former Judge Claustro." It concluded that his guilt of a felony "constitutes conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute." The Commission noted that despite his conviction, he "failed to promptly report to the commission when he was charged."

Mr. Castro agreed, therefore, to a "censure and bar." 

Censure is a public notice of "improper conduct," akin to a public reprimand. The "bar" is a "lifetime bar on future judicial service," according to Metropolitan News. The lessons are worth consideration. Behavior before taking the bench is actionable. Pleading guilty to crimes is a first step, but reporting to the qualifications authorities is also imperative. Finally, at least in California, the authority to impose discipline survives a resignation from the bench.

The Pre Law Club Debate

In April 2026, I traveled to Panama City to attend the Florida State University First Amendment Debate featuring professor Denise Harle and attorney Michel Stone. The experience was intellectually intriguing and encouraging from several perspectives.

My primary encouragement came in the form of attendance. The Florida State University campus at Panama City cannot be described as large. It is led by Dean Randy Hanna, and his commitment to legal studies is patent. 

An assortment of local attorneys, faculty, and others attended. But I was more struck by the various Pre-Law Club attendees. They were not only present but had obviously devoted time and effort to planning and executing this event. I was also struck by the approximately 50 high school students in attendance.

I struggle to believe that a high school student is more prepared for the Constitution today than I was so many years ago. Nonetheless, they were present, respectful, and at least receptive. Among their number, undoubtedly, there are a few who will eventually pursue law as a career. Feeding the curiosity and interest of the next generation is our obligation. 

Following a cordial introductory lunch, we transitioned to a large lecture hall for the debate. During the lunch introductions, I was encouraged by the variety of Pre-Law students, and the engagement of Florida State leadership. The school was obviously engaged with these young people on a personal level, and the familiarity was evidence of their past collaborations. 

Professor Harle has recently been involved in founding the Florida First Amendment Clinic. This brings clinical experiences for students to engage in actual advocacy and litigation while in law school. Her brief overview was inspiring. Her enthusiasm and academic perspective on the First Amendment were both encouraging and refreshing. 

Nonetheless, there was some pre-debate debate on the topic. What students and guests saw was the reality that there can be disagreement and yet discourse. There was a sharing of perspectives and differences, disagreement without disagreeableness. That is healthy, and the cordial engagement was refreshing. 

So often in the world today, individuals cite the First Amendment as protecting their right to both speak their mind and suppress the views of others. Nothing could be more anathema. The First provides protection for most but not all speech. There is no “freedom to cancel” clause. Nonetheless, there are even those who are opposed to the protections of the First Amendment. 

I was particularly struck by the courage of one student who jumped into the pre-debate, noting something to the effect of people not needing to be so rapidly triggered or offended. He was many years younger than those who started that particular point, entered the fray professionally and courteously, and demonstrated class and intellect. 

Michel Stone is a local Panama City attorney. He is involved in representing a variety of clients but harkens back to early constitutional experience in criminal defense around Panama City. He has been significantly involved in the defense of murder and other serious felonies. His depth of experience was patent. 

Chiles v. Salazar was the obvious focus of the main debate. Nonetheless, the conversation strayed periodically into more fundamental discussions of constitutional law. Mr. Stone's initial statement was to the effect of “we have been lured here under false pretenses,“ suggesting that Salazar is not a First Amendment decision in any instance, but a "police powers" discussion. 

Salazar is a recent 8-to-1 decision of the United States Supreme Court. Someone would argue that numeric is as close to unanimous as the present Court is likely to come. The case focuses on a Colorado statute precluding licensed counselors from providing “conversion therapy“ to minors.

Professor Harle’s perspective was focused more precisely on the First Amendment issue, specifically the freedom of expression. 

Mr. Stone made multiple arguments in favor of a ban on “conversion therapy.” His focus was less upon the First Amendment and more upon the detriment he perceives of “conversion therapy." In this, he argues that there is persistent, if not consistent, governmental authority under the auspices of “police power" to protect the public from legislatively perceived harm. He quoted a volume of statistics that he believes demonstrates the potential or probability for damage from "conversion therapy."

In a somewhat unscientific manner, his comments perhaps suggested that correlation is the equivalent of causation. See Disparity and Evolution (August 2024). One of his primary examples was the prevalence of suicidal ideation or attempt in those who have attempted conversion therapy compared with those who have not. This blurred distinction between correlation and causation was questioned by several attendees.

Unfortunately, the time for this discussion was too short. As I age, that seems to be increasingly true. I wanted to hear more. Where did the speakers not venture? A fundamental that I stress to my students is that there are a variety of rights with which we are endowed by our creator. Our Constitution and American jurisprudence recognize many of these, and as yet omit others. 

Unfortunately, they are not inherently congruous. Your rights to enjoy your property may, in fact, interfere with my rights to substantive liberty. Similarly, your rights to freedom of expression or association may, in fact, impede upon my rights similarly. See 

Fundamental Rights (April 2019). 

There is no absolutly clear outcome in so many of these conflicts between and among individual rights and societal powers. There are balances and compromises. 

Thus, we periodically see divergent voices on some boulevards throughout the country, separated by the thin blue line that somehow keeps our discourse (usually) civil. There is strong disagreement at times. There is the right to speak, and yet the government has the power to keep both (all) sides in such a discourse safe from each other, and from the public generally (some views are not so popular). 

I was particularly grateful for the leadership of the Florida State university pre-law club. Their advisor, Professor Lucy Hoover has obviously devoted much time to the development and growth. Dean Randy Hannah has an obvious interest in the club and delivers support, engagement, and encouragement. Associate Dean Irvin Clark has likewise been engaged since the club began. Their involvement and familiarity with the students are patent as they enter a room of students who all readily greet them as you would old friends. 

All of that said, the success of this future lawyer launch platform is so demonstrably due to the efforts of Judge John Mooneyham. He has been the students' community resource, their reference, and their advisor since the club began about four years ago. I am proud of all of these Boomers who are striving to deliver something to the next generation. 

And the next generation is pretty impressive. The following club members/officers provided overview of the Salazar opinion, introduction of speakers, and more. They shined and delivered both intellect and community engagement. 

Lindsey Dey

Alex Kinchen

Tyler Zheng

Jennifer Giraldo

Cathy Buller

Nicholas Cooley

Florian Riemer

I spend a fair amount of space here advocating for mentorship, support for the next generation, and efforts directed at their success. See Starfish (February 2022). We may not pull all of these club members into the legal profession. But if we manage to help one or two on their professional quests, then it is worth all the effort.

Kudos to Florida State University Panama City, the individuals who made the great debate possible, and all the interested and engaged who took the time to both attend and engage the challenge of peacefully and intellectually discussing differing viewpoints. 

First Principles

There will be lively discussion today at the Workers' Compensation Forum. I am honored to be on a panel led by Ya'Sheaka Williams, Esq. and including Gloria Garcia, Esq., and Hon. Jacqueline Newman. They call it "Current Trends," and it is always interesting. 

One of my foci this morning will be "First Principles" as recently discussed by the Sixth District Court of Appeal in Ruffenach v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co. as Tr. for Ameriquest Mortg. Sec. Inc., Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates Series 2005-R8, No. 6D2023-1482, 2026 WL 785140 (Fla. 6th DCA Mar. 20, 2026).

At first blush, the workers' compensation community should first say "what does the 6th have to do with us?" or even "this is not a comp case." Both would be apt. Both might be a bit short of the mark.

The court notes that there is some perception that various District Courts have wandered over the years. It notes this regarding the perceived need for attorney fee hearings. The court makes the point that an old workers' compensation case from the Florida Supreme Court suggested a hearingless procedure long ago. Crittenden Orange Blossom Fruit v. Stone, 514 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 1987). I have cited it often.

The Sixth District certifies that it disagrees with the decisions of the other five Districts, 37 such decisions. That is an amazing outcome. This new District Court has concluded that these others have been misguided many times. And it suggests that an old workers' compensation case is a great guide forward for the law regarding how attorney fees are determined.

To do so, the court draws back to "First Principles." This is not an attack on the idea of stare decisis, though some perceive it as such. It is a return to the fundamental process of examining the law, be it statute, rule, etc., that lies at the foundation of prior court decisions. It is not that we cannot follow precedent but that we must question the foundations of such decisional law.

Having done so, the Sixth District concludes that

"Sixty-two years ago, the Second District invented a requirement for trial courts to receive expert testimony before granting an award of attorneys’ fees."

"Invented" may be a bit strong? Nonetheless, having so concluded, the Sixth departed from layers of precedent and made a decision based on the law or the absence of it. The court thus departs from long-established decisional law that has heretofore been consistent across the state.

In this, some in the workers' compensation community may see some parallel to Estes v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sch. Dist., No. 1D2025-0079, 2026 WL 796496 (Fla. 1st DCA Mar. 23, 2026). There, the First District concluded:

"Our duty, however, is to faithfully apply the plain and ordinary meaning of the enacted text."

In doing so, the First District receded from several of its own cases interpreting the section 440.19 statute of limitations. It did so openly. It said that when there is an issue as to the efficacy of the foundation in prior decisions, then

“[t]he proper question becomes whether there is a valid reason why not to recede from that precedent.”

The Estes decision does not mention First Principles, but the logic may seem similar to some observers.

What decisional law in Florida workers' compensation might be subject to such arguments? There are several that jump to mind:

• Why does the evidence code apply in workers' compensation? 
• Why are repetitive trauma injuries considered under an accident/disease hybrid? 
• Why can an issue be barred if claims for it are dismissed voluntarily twice? 
• Why must a worker show an exceptional exertion to demonstrate the compensability of a heart attack? 
• Why are statutory provisions of "arising out of" subject to interpretation? 
• Why is medical mileage a benefit in Florida workers' compensation? 

These are discussion points. There are appellate decisions on each. They are perhaps interesting, and some would suggest that other corners of the law might be as readily discussed. The point is that Judges of Compensation Claims are bound to follow precedent. Nonetheless, there is some potential that appellate courts will elect not to, either in rejecting the logic of their peers or revisiting their own decisions.

Nonetheless, there is some likelihood that litigants will increasingly raise arguments that contradict prior precedent. They will perhaps strive to see the law change in their circumstance based on a new look at the underlying statute or rule. That is advocacy and is the root of effective lawyering.

It is an intriguing time to be in this practice and to hear the perspectives of the many intellectual and engaged professionals that inhabit this space.

 

It's not the end of the world

The Smart People's Club was in the news regarding their prognostications on Doomsday. See Relatively Speaking (March 2026). The Hill picked up the theme that month in an opinion piece that encourages, or at least claims, a Chicken Little approach to worldview. It asserts that many Americans "now believe the end is near."

There is some good humor about the word "Armageddon." I like

So what if I don't know what Armageddon means?

It's not the end of the world

or

All this drama in the world. Makes me want to watch a nice light movie.

You know... Like Armageddon.

Well, that is part of our problem societally; we seemingly can't laugh at much anymore. The Hill does not use "Armageddon" but focuses on "doomsday" and "apocalyptic." The author pokes fun at some societal elements and manages to be insulting and petty in the process.

The piece then turns from poking fun at groups to a contention that the fear of the "end of the world" is now mainstream. The evidence asserted is what phrases are trending on social media and social attitudes of Americans gleaned from polling.

The author focuses on conclusions that "100 million Americans expect the world to end in their lifetime." Their fears are apparently not united or focused. Some fears include "climate change, nuclear war, economic collapse, and artificial intelligence."

Those people are apparently not watching television. The ads I see are more focused on reasonably rare medical conditions that we should all rush to our doctors for. The premise is that we could all do better with our plaque psoriasis, cystic fibrosis, and narcolepsy. That industry says we can all self-diagnose our declining health.

The Hill author argues that in this "sky is falling" mindset, the population might be divided into two groups. One group will "take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing end them" (Billy Shakespeare, Hamlet, 1599). The second group, he claims, is more fatalistic and less inclined to action in the face of what they perceive is inevitability (think Eeyore from Winnie the Pooh).

The article takes a tack that the pessimists have it right. There are various cited examples of the challenges we face on economic, violence, and technology fronts. He contends people have quit making fun of "the doomsday crowd" and begun googling survivalist thoughts himself.

His expressed fear is not so much that the sky is falling but that there is consequence when people begin to believe that the sky is falling. The article included a poll gauging the extent to which one agrees "with the idea that the end of the world is near." When I took it, the outcome was not so supportive of the author's pessimism.

Nonetheless, perhaps there is some room for discussion? Maybe we could all use some news stories that are actual news? Perhaps there could be benefit from news coverage that features what the service club people are doing to improve communities, and less about the perpetual string of violence that so enamors the media? Are people pessimistic because of the world or merely because their social media, television, and more are pushing persistent messages of negativity and pessimism?

The Hill author concludes that there is danger for us in "point(ing) to the different dashboards flashing red" (the various reasons people express for their anxiety and fears). He concludes that there is a spirit of doom and that this mental attitude could itself be contributing to doom. His exposition of self-fulfilling prophecy is not inspiring or encouraging.

The thinkers in the world, however, will realize that the media is interested in shock value. Social media is designed to drive clicks. There is money in anger and by feeling it, tuning in, and clicking, you are feeding that monkey. There may be great benefit to you and society in simply not participating. Take a walk in the park. Build a Habitat home. Volunteer at a shelter. There is more than good around us. There is greatness. Go be a part of that and see what it does for your outlook.

The end of the world is not imminent. The future will bring change. The fact is, it always has. Ride with that. Get over the change, the pessimism, and the slop delivered daily to your screens. Pessimism and doomsdayism are easy, but neither is healthy nor productive. It's not the end of the world (that is just a movie). You heard it here first.

Experience and Expertise

There is a sentiment that the world of workers' compensation is difficult to comprehend. Legislatures have specified that those who would make decisions about disputes should have some degree of experience in workers' compensation. The Florida law is in Section 440.45(2)(a):

"a member of The Florida Bar in good standing for the previous 5 years and is experienced in the practice of law of workers’ compensation."

I have been involved in this system for a few years, and I have only heard this section raised for discussion a handful of times. That said, the Florida phraseology is not very demanding: "is experienced in." That has been sufficient for the nomination of lawyers who never tried a case or represented a client in a workers' compensation proceeding and lawyers whose workers' compensation experience was primarily in other jurisdictions.

These recollections came to me when I saw a news story about lawsuits that are being pursued in Ohio (the old riddle is "what's round on the ends and high in the middle," the answer is o hi o). The plaintiffs there are contesting the composition of the Ohio Industrial Commission. Florida used to have such a commission; more on that below.

The Ohio plaintiffs are focused, at least in part, on qualification language like Section 440.45(2)(a). Their statute requires gubernatorial appointment just as Section 440.45 does. The three members there are partisan, with one each mandated to be (1) "a representative of employers," (2) "a representative of employees," and (3) "a representative of the public." Ohio Revised Code section 4121.02(A).

An interesting sidenote, the statute precludes more than two "belong(ing) to or be(ing) affiliated with the same political party," and one must be "an attorney registered to practice law in this state." Ohio Revised Code section 4121.02(A).

But the qualifying language applies to all three:

"Each member shall have six or more years of recognized expertise in the field of workers' compensation," Ohio Revised Code section 4121.02(A).

Signal Ohio reports that the lawyer for one injured worker who was denied benefits is

"seeking a reversal, alleging each of the three commissioners is legally unqualified to do the job, which by law requires six years of “recognized expertise in the field of workers’ compensation.”

There is at least one additional lawsuit that is similar. Nonetheless, this seems irregular, a collateral attack on an appellate decision(s) by suing the decision maker instead of seeking appellate review through the normal course. 

The Signal article notes examples of commissioner experience, including work as a "state lawmaker," chair of "an insurance committee," "city councilor," at the "Chamber of Commerce," "Attorney General’s office and in private practice as a lawyer." Without editorializing on any specific one, the article notes none of the published biographies "mention any direct intersection with the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation."

There is a discussion as to whether a court has authority in such a challenge. The statute calls for gubernatorial appointment and the "advice and consent of the senate." Motions to dismiss the challenge lawsuits assert that is the check on qualifications and the path to challenging someone already appointed is through the impeachment process.

A spokesman for the Senate noted:

"This amounts to nothing more than a poor legal strategy to avoid having claims heard by the members of the Industrial Commission."

The distinctions here are noteworthy. First, Ohio is not alone in having an adjudicatory body that includes non-lawyers. That is not as common as it once was in workers' compensation, but it is not unique. Furthermore, the partisan requirements of representing employers and employees, though also abandoned by some, persist in other states as well.

Florida had such a commission until the late 1960s, with similar appellate review authority and partisan definitions. If that group had been more effective and timely with the appellate process, it would likely persist today.

However, their slow reviews led to discord as the age of administrative law came into its own. States like Florida evolved with executive branch agencies, first Commerce, then Labor, and the evolution continued into the 21st century. This is detailed in Floridiana and the Workers' Compensation Adjudicators (2024). My other publications are also on my website, https://dwlangham.com/free-publications.

Also noted in Floridiana, there are three instances in which the composition of the Florida Industrial Commission was challenged. While litigation existed, the pleas did not all reach judicial conclusions. One did notably, resulting in a change in Commission membership.

It is intriguing to see history repeat. Different jurisdiction, venue, statute, and century, but similar arguments were raised.

I was left wondering whether the Ohio law or Florida's is more precise. Florida requires "is experienced in the practice of law of workers’ compensation," and Ohio requires "years of recognized expertise." While the Ohio use of "expertise" might seem more stringent than our "experience," Florida's specificity on "practice of law" might be seen as more constrained. 

The Ohio law does not specify how their "expertise" might be gained. In that vein, one might wonder whether "expertise," without a specific statutory definition, might mean the same as law has defined it for decades? In deciding whether someone has the requisite expertise to opine on ultimate issues in litigation, we tend to look toward definitions like "An expert witness is a person with specialized knowledge, skills, education, or experience in a particular field."

That broad description of "expert" might influence conclusions as to expertise, and allow it to come from practice, education, skills, licensure, and more. The outcome in Ohio will be intriguing to watch, so many decades after Florida both saw similar litigation and abandoned the Commission model.