Self Insurance

I recently had the chance to speak to a group of workers' compensation professionals from around the nation. They are each involved with "self-insurance," a term that has evolved over the years that I have been involved in this community. 

Some are surprised when they are reminded that the vast majority of obligations in the workers' compensation law are the employer's. There is habitual reference in this community to the "employer/carrier," and certainly, there are contractual obligations between employers and carriers. By this contracting, the employer's statutory obligations can become the carrier's as well. 

This reminds me of the many discussions of "tripartite relationships" that arise in the realm of attorneys who defend insurance companies. I have heard many debate whether the insured (policyholder) or the insurer is "the client." The easy answer is "both," but there may arise instances in which the attorney will perceive conflict between the two clients' interests. Those may be difficult courses to tread. 

Many in the community do not recall, but in the 1970s it became difficult to obtain workers' compensation coverage in Florida. There was a perception of risk and pricing that led to diminished coverage availability. Insurance carriers became selective in their selection of employers, and some left the market completely. 

The solution was for employers to provide their own coverage, "self-insurance," which was realistic for some employers but financially beyond the reach of others. This is a simple thought; you might choose to buy insurance on your car or drive it without any. If you have an accident with insurance, you have less financial responsibility, but if you are without coverage, you are fully responsible. It is easy to see that the choice may be more available for those with large financial resources. 

The solution to that inequity in 1970s workers' compensation was that employers banded together and formed "funds" to provide coverage to those in their group. They were still "self-insured," but not individually so. This started a new lexicon with phrases and abbreviations. There were "self-insureds," "individual self-insureds," and more. 

There was soon a realization that the day-to-day of adjusting or managing a loss could be both time-consuming and complex. The logical path might be for a self-insured to hire adjusters and managers or to contract with a company that has such expertise on staff. Thus, self-insureds came to be referred to also as "self-administered" (expertise on staff) or not (contracting for that expertise).

The trend continued, and there were bumps. There had long been state funds as safety nets for insurance company financial failures (guarantee funds). Florida had the Florida Insurance Guarantee Fund (FIGA). The advent of self-insurance prompted a similar response in the Florida Self-Insurance Guaranty Fund (FSIGA). 

And yet, as the 20th century drew to a close, the insurance markets were more accessible. Self-insurance began to lose adherents. Large companies abandoned the challenges of financial disclosure, regulation, and hiring/managing expertise. They shifted back to insurance, but with a twist. 

Much as you might make a choice to self-insure your car, you might choose to reduce the cost of your auto policy with a "deductible." This merely lowers the insurance company risk and therefore lowers the policy price. If you have a $500 deductible, there are many minor events the insurance company will not have to pay for. 

As the deductible increases, the volume of avoided risks also increases, and the policy price decreases accordingly. Those deductibles might be "per claim" or "per year." The "per year" model is popular today with many health policies. 

In the 1990s, I had a client with a $5 million per-claim deductible.  That meant that for any accident, the expenses had to reach $5 million before the insurance company owed a nickel. However, the adjusting and management (expertise) was included from dollar one, just like in the example of non-self-administered self-insurance above. 

Complex enough? Well, stay tuned. 

In the self-insured model, a customer might choose to limit risk by buying "excess insurance." This would pick up at some preset level. The effect is much like a deductible. Once the age of guaranty funds began, states started mandating that all self-insureds would have "excess insurance." That is, all self-insureds had to have insurance. 

In the insurance model, a carrier may do the same. Having signed on for the risk of loss for an employer, the carrier may manage and finance that risk entirely, or it may likewise purchase excess insurance to limit its losses. In effect, the carrier takes some of the premium it receives and pays another carrier to assume some of the risk. 

That brings us back to the "tripartite" relationship. The employer may be a client, with responsibilities and rights. The carrier may likewise have responsibilities and rights. And, there may be one or more excess carriers stacked up on top, each with responsibilities and rights. 

Why would it matter? From the defense attorney's perspective, it may matter in terms of reporting, documenting, and discussing. It may be important in terms of representation, competing rights, and duties. And, for the worker, it may be important as regards the negotiation process (who is making decisions) and timing (how many layers, meetings, or committees will examine the decisions). 

But, at the foundation, the main point is that whoever has a "self-insured" portion or a "deductible" is self-insuring some portion of the potential financial responsibility. They are at risk and therefore should be conscious of the decisions being confronted, the analysis process, and the recommendations. Despite being "insured," the responsibility may suggest some "self-insured" risk to be managed. 

Despite the decreases in "self-insureds," there is a fair volume of self-insurance remaining in the marketplace, and those who would resolve or litigate claims would do well to understand the implications of it. 

Process and Balance

It is impractical today to know if there are trends in the real world. Our news sources track what we read and how long we linger on stories, and mathematical algorithms analyze and proselytize. The computers push content that the math suggests will draw our clicks, hold our attention, please their advertisers, and maximize their platform profits.

Social media is no different. Click on a post that advocates eating avocados, and you will likely see more avocado references. Do a few Google searches for avocado, and that may also drive such a trend.

And none of this is in a vacuum, as the advent of artificial intelligence has accelerated and empowered this process of categorizing and steering us. I recently heard from a friend whose AI research led to various humorous references that suggested such algorithm involvement. 

The AI, perhaps, seeks to please the user. Pam Langham is an eminent AI expert and says that LLMs are much like golden retrievers in their drive to please us. 

Thus, whether there has been an uptick in landlord/tenant disputes is unclear to me. But clearly, I am seeing more of them in the news recently. Some involve the formerly famous, like Denise Richards, or Mickey Rourke. Those seemingly involve eye-popping dollar figures. Others involve simple people like the rest of us.

The balance of equities is a persistence. There are concerns expressed by landlords, who perceive themselves as being frustrated by laws, regulations, and processes governing the eviction of tenants. Their stories note the challenges of a small property owner, who might require a year or more to reclaim their premises from a tenant who has ceased to pay rent.

There are also advocates who lament the ability of landlords to do as they wish with their property. They see inequity in a tenant being forced to find new accommodations, and particularly with short notice. These find equity and socialistic controls of private property as paramount to mere ownership.

For examples, look to the content of Buzzfeed about landlords, or the subreddit about tenant horror stories. A Google search will find you more examples, accusations, and likely some embellishment and hyperbole on both perspectives and the perceptions of each.

I see the competing interests of property law, contracts, and due process. Those who make policy have to balance the interests of broad constituencies like landlords and tenants. They enact statutes, ordinances, and regulations that govern how the rights of each are recognized and the extent to which they are protected.

It is always possible that policymaking will result in unintended consequences and may shift the rights/burdens analyses in expected or unexpected ways, according to the New York Post. Nonetheless, these articles are about real estate, not workers' compensation. But is the policy process and the balancing of rights and burdens really any different in workers' compensation?

That said, the main connection of the real estate issue is the litigation necessary for eviction. This pertains to expenses associated with the due process of determining how statutes, regulations, and contracts are applied to the tenancy in those properties. This is no different than the process for determining entitlement to worker benefits, and the related expense of both prosecution and defense.

Therefore, it was interesting to read some of the comments readers posted; those below were similar to others. The first commenter, "Lawrence," suggests avoiding the expense of a lawyer and "use AI." He provides advice on what to tell the large language model (LLM) and how wonderful the result will be, complete with "legal terminology and case precedents."

Another commenter, "Ed," responds with the fundamental truth that AI cannot be trusted. He warns of hallucination, ineffective responses, and the potential for tribunal sanctions. He also points out that how laws work often depends on the precise jurisdiction; state laws may differ, and local ordinances may differ even within the same state.

"Jim" jumped in to caution that even the best AI will not "help you think on your feet at a court hearing. Just the opposite."

As I reflected on these, it occurred to me that some who write comments on articles are likely not so well informed ("use AI"), while others are much better informed than some lawyers. See Lazy and Sanctioned (December 2025).

In the end, the whole discussion leads to some broad recommendations. Disputes over property, whether a leased premises or a worker's benefits, will potentially be time-consuming and challenging. Internet chats, article comments, and artificial intelligence are not likely the best places to get legal advice.

Competency for Incompetents

In the old days, we geriatrics were told we had to learn math, trigonometry, and algebra manually. The academic premise, boiled down to stock, was that we should not rely on calculators because in "the real world," we would not always have access to them. 

That guess was spectacularly wrong, and today we each carry more computing power in our pockets than NASA had to send Neal Armstrong to the moon (or to make deep fakes to make you believe he did).

I learned to process calculations for the mean and standard deviations a million years ago in a galaxy far, far away. We took a great deal of time to do these calculations in an era that had just discovered the spreadsheet. 

After graduating from college, I was introduced to the PC, VisiCalc, and later SuperCalc, Lotus123, Quattro Pro, and eventually Excel. Today, the standard deviation calculation that used to take me an hour can be done in seconds in Excel. It is so easy, I have forgotten how to do it manually (atrophy)

A few years later, I struggled to research decisional law, draw inferential distinctions and similarities, and build arguments. This also included assuring the currency of law through a book-intensive process called "Shepardizing." That company published a book of cryptic codes alerting to the citation of authorities. 

As I Shepardized, I had free access to the then-nascent innovations called Westlaw and Lexis, which each did the Shepardizing function. They were clunky, unfamiliar, and of questionable efficacy, but they did it. 

The academics told us we really needed to know how to do it the manual way. They cautioned that computers and software were expensive, and we might not always have them handy. I recall students using the tech to check their work and others using it to avoid their work. I still have an old Shepards; why can't I part with it?

I have written about the process by which unused skills decay and disappear. See Disuse Atrophy (December 2024); More Proof of Idiocracy (September 2025). What we do not practice, we lose. That is as sure as the sun will come up tomorrow, Annie, "bet your bottom dollar ..." (Annie, Broadway, 1977).

So, we face a similar moment in 2026 regarding technology. Academics across the country are struggling with how to effectively teach writing, test inquiry, and measure achievement in a world where Artificial Intelligence (AI) writes without spelling, grammar, or syntax errors. 

Academics, judges, and others insist that people need to know how to write. Just as they clung for a long time to cursive writing, and so much more. 

But academia may be shifting. TCD noted in December that Purdue University would be among the first to bend the knee to our new robot overlords. In the pragmatist spirit of "If you can't beat them, join them," Purdue is shifting curricula.

In 2026, the school is adding "a new graduation requirement" for incoming freshmen. It is adding five AI core competencies in which students will be tested as a requisite for graduation. It is essentially embracing an enemy against which others argue and rebel. 

Notably, it is doing so before the ultimate impacts and results of AI are known, in a time when conjecture, pontification, fear, and anxiety rule. Another current evolution example is Macrohard, and the implications are intriguing. Mr. Musk may be viewed as a heretic, but that does not mean he is wrong. 

Purdue may be the thought leader of tomorrow, or a dimly lit bulb. The TCD article notes that its "announcement was met with widespread scorn" and skepticism. Embracing the purveyor and enabler of plagiarism is not seen as progress. One commenter described the plan as requiring "demonstrating 'competency' in a tool that's primarily a shortcut for incompetent people." 

Ouch. That is fairly critical. In centuries past, thinkers like Giordano Bruno and others confronted threats to their forward-thinking heresy. Power and institutions have always feared and disliked change. 

The Purdue announcement harkened back to summer and the Hechinger Report article on AI integration in higher education. This exposé noted that employers are seeking workers with AI skills and comprehension. The writer claims that "Generative AI technology is rapidly changing the labor market," and that trainers and educators will either get with the preparatory bandwagon or be run over by it.

Thus, colleges and universities are integrating AI into "their course catalogs, and individual professors are altering lessons to include AI skill building." There is a tacit admission there that perhaps calculators and computers will be part of our future and that there is merit in both learning to calculate standard deviations and using VisiCalc to do it for you.

The questions will be multifaceted. Students who lack skills beyond using AI, (manually calculating deviations, checking case citations, writing) may find some purchase in the market. However, those who lack skills will never know for sure if AI is hallucinating, misunderstanding, or misrepresenting.

Those who can both do the calculation and know how to engage a calculator will be more functional, competent, and effective. The same for the lawyers who can both build and support arguments and can use IA to polish, streamline, and perfect. 

They will be competent "humans in the loop." For now, at least, there is enough distrust and discomfort that we will demand "humans in the loop" for the foreseeable future until the AI becomes smart enough to oversee itself (and us). 

In the legal profession, it has always been reasonably easy to spot an advocate making arguments they read somewhere but don't really understand. Some of that is ignorance (not smart) and some is merely ambivalence (not invested). What is the difference between them? I don't know, and I don't care (ponder that).  

Both will persist with AI, indistinguishable from the mediocre lawyer who has a brilliant and imaginative paralegal (partner, associate, clerk). They will persist. As Wanda so poignantly noted, apes do read philosophy, "they just don't understand it." Fish Called Wanda (MGM 1988). 

Nonetheless, there will be arguments, disagreements, and posturing in education, training, and workplaces. Are we training philosophers or apes? Higher education and academia will struggle with whether today's skills are as important or as measurable as those of yesteryear. 

There will be early adopters, adherents, and patrons. There will be critics, detractors, and denigrators. There will be false starts, failures, and victories. 

Time will tell whether AI is the Brave New World of tomorrow or merely another tech bubble waiting to burst. There will be successes, failures, and much in between. But that has been true with various prior innovation waves. 

Progress is a path paved with many potholes and with only a few glorious destinations. There have been many visionaries vilified for their heresy, and yet a fair few who turned out to be correct in the end. This will be fun to watch, but perhaps difficult to live through. 

A hero?

It is all about perspective. Well, perhaps. I was reminded recently of an old joke. I have heard it many times, in many ways. If the following offends your particular school loyalty, feel free to repeat it with the names changed to protect your sensibilities.

Two boys are playing football in (your locale) when one is attacked by a rabid Rottweiler (if you are a Rotty momma/daddy, change this to whatever breed you wish). The joke is as funny if it is a toy poodle, but harder for some to understand. 

Thinking quickly, the other boy grabs a stick and strikes the attacking dog, averting the threat. A passing reporter witnesses the heroic act and comes over to gather facts for a story (perhaps today, the passer is an "influencer" who shoots a social media "short-form for Tick Tock?")

The reporter/influencer begins, "Young Gator Fan Saves Friend." 

"I don't root for the Gators," the youngster replied.

The reporter-influencer is not deterred and immediately begins again—"Little Seminole fan is a hero for..."

"I would never root for the Seminoles," the young man corrects. 

The reporter/influencer is confused. "Surely you cannot root for UCF?" and then immediately, "There are no other teams in Florida?!?!"

The heroic youngster quickly corrects, "I root for Alabama." 

The reporter/influencer begins anew yet again and intones, "Rotten little redneck delinquent kills innocent and beloved family pet." 

Told this way, you also accomplish insulting both Miami University and the University of South Florida by simple omission. Of course, if you tell it with the home state theme in a smaller state (Indiana), the omission part is a bit more challenging (Purdue, IU, and Notre Dame, but who would include Ball State or Indiana State in any frank or earnest football conversation?).

Nonetheless, the whole point here is perspective. There are any number of ways to look at anything, and much of our own perspective will be based on our personal experiences, encounters, education, socialization, and more. We will be "predisposed" to conclusions on a variety of levels. 

When someone lives in Florida, why would we instantly gravitate to a belief that they are a Gator fan? Is the South Carolina resident automatically a Gamecock, a Hoosier a Boilermaker, or a Californian a Bruin? Why would we assume someone roots for any team, football, basketball, or hockey?

We make assumptions. It is a natural human reaction to the input of data. We presume that others share our interests: "I like badminton; she must also follow badminton." We form associations between thing one and thing two: "He lives in Florida, and the Seminoles are in Florida; he must root for the Seminoles."

We are each hard-wired to make assumptions. Over our lives, we gain experiences that are built on those assumptions, and each time the assumption proves correct, it is reinforced in our inherent predispositions. Those predispositions are invaluable to us in many contexts: ice is slippery, stoves are hot, and dogs bite. 

We all know that these can be disproven. Some ice has been salted/sanded and is not slippery. Some stoves are turned off and are not hot. Not all dogs bite, but we greet each one with caution and inquiry before we assume we are safe. These predispositions can be quite helpful in various contexts. 

To the contrary, there is no corresponding benefit to our assumption that if someone is from South Carolina, they must (1) follow football and (2) root for the Gamecocks. 

In my latest book, Unseen Influence: Unconscious Predisposition in Dispute Resolution (2025), I have tried to peel back a few layers of the onion on these influences. I have applied their definition and essence to the field of dispute resolution. There are definitions, applications, and thoughts regarding how these various assumptions may be deceiving us in our day-to-day lives.

The example of the young ball fan here could be "context effect," "stereotyping," or the "well-travelled road." We might also be simultaneously impacted by all of these and a raft of other predispositions. These are influencing, impacting, and interacting in our day-to-day. 

We cannot (and should not—see the hot stove above) seek to eradicate predisposition from our efforts and endeavors. What we should seek is a better understanding gleaned from introspection and insight. In the words of Mark Cohn, "Do I really feel the way I feel?" (Walking in Memphis, Atlantic Records, 1991). 

We owe it to ourselves to be conscious and to consider how predisposition is coloring our perceptions, conclusions, and actions. It is an imperative in our daily lives, personal and professional. Download the book today and start that beneficial journey of awareness and consciousness. 

There is a free webinar opportunity, the Perils of Misconception, sponsored by WorkCompCollege on February 19, 2026, at 1:00 Eastern. Debra Livingston will moderate the discussion, and I am looking forward to a lively conversation. Join Dr. Geralyn Datz and Dr. Les Kertay for this event!

Ignoring and Distrusting.

I read a fair volume of news headlines daily, and likely peruse two to three dozen news articles. In fairness, the length of news articles seems to have diminished in recent years, and this volume is not so time-consuming.

I strive to pull those stories into my weekly legal lectures at the business college. The news so often includes great examples of legal topics. That effort frequently falls flat as none of the students have seen a headline event. They are busy, distracted, and frankly disinterested in the news.

Occasionally, after scanning an article, I will click on the "comments/" I am usually amazed at much of what the public has to say about the stories.

In a recent comment on a national news story, a local news reporter lamented the quality of that coverage. Their allegation was that the headline was misleading, unsupported by the body of the story, and unworthy of consideration. The local reporter encouraged readers to consider the local coverage instead.

That struck me. The news media being criticised by the news media. (Why don't sharks eat lawyers?)

Within days of that, the Associated Press (AP) ran A lost generation of news consumers? Survey shows how teenagers dislike the news media. That headline resonated because of those college lecture experiences. And it perhaps explained another reason the college students are not following the news.

The Literacy Project reportedly asked teenagers "to describe today's news media" in one word. The adjectives were not flattering:

“biased,” “crazy,” “boring,” “fake,” “bad,” “depressing,” “confusing,” “scary.”

Some of these might well have been similar responses in the 1980s. The news has always been somewhat "scary" and "confusing." That seems old hat. But the other adjectives are intriguing. The Generation Z (1997-2012) and Generation Alpha (2010-2024) each include current teenagers. They are using words like "biased," "crazy," and "fake."

The AP story goes on to describe perceptions of reporting "out of context," journalistic favoritism, fabrication, and more. There are broad negative perceptions ("about half of the teens surveyed"). The AP strives to place blame on prominent political influence and the "fake news ... mantra."

The author conceded, however, that there are examples of "mistakes or ethical lapses that make headlines." There is also acceptance that "opinionated reporters or commentators ... make readers wonder what to believe." This is blamed on recent "industry financial troubles," and "hollowed out newsrooms and fewer journalists."

There is also lamentation of the lack of positive Hollywood portrayals of the journalist profession. The author notes that the same Literacy survey asked teens to name such portrayals, and the leading answers were "the 'Spider Man' franchise" and "the movie 'Anchorman: the Legend of Ron Burgundy,'" neither of which was "particularly flattering."

This made me think of the legal profession, which has been the butt of more than a few jokes over the years (see above re sharks). In a parallel path, the legal profession is rarely portrayed by Hollywood in a complimentary or flattering manner. The public's impression of lawyers is largely drawn from increasingly aggressive and often degrading advertising campaigns, some seemingly just trying to out-buffoon the next one.

The proposed solution for journalists is to stop striving to pull the next generations to what "captivat(ed) people 20 years ago," and to instead engage in "things that captivate people today." This seems an admission that most young people live on some form of social media and, coincidentally, do not pay attention to news websites, broadcasts, or even those antique "newspapers" they might see on a rack at the local store (if they ever visit a store).

That said, someone posted a video of a black screen, with no sound, that runs for ten hours. Over two million people have viewed it (guilty as charged, officer). Over on the Tick Tock channel, there is a wide assortment of "who would watch this?" There is no accounting for taste. 

While the "got to the young people where they are" path may draw some eyes, it is not likely to cure the "biased," "crazy," and "fake." In the end, the cynicism of those kinds of adjectives is not positive for the journalism profession, regardless of how many eyes they draw.

The author was short on suggestions about how to gain credibility, engage honest debate, and separate the wheat from the chaff. If the news industry cannot regain credibility, can it hope to prosper or even survive? Can it compete with the biased, base, and cheaper social media posts?

More importantly, can a free society survive with an electorate that is uninformed? As I ponder my recollections of my youth, and the amount of time devoted by the news to box scores, weather, and human interest stories, I suspect that society has likely been largely uninformed all along. 

Just because the Boomers bought the paper in no way means they read the important parts, digested, and thought. I would like to think they did, but perhaps past generations were equally disengaged, but merely through different media?

Perhaps the cynicism and disengagement today are no different than yesteryear. Possibly only the mediums have changed, and today's youth doubt and discount apps the way yesterday's kids doubted and ignored news shows, papers, and magazines? That said, I for one fear for a future in which journalism is reduced to thirty-second soundbites that are half-ignored and mostly distrusted. 

A Milepost

In September 2025, I celebrated a plateau in Thousands and Thousands. In 2025, I presented my 2000th professional lecture and wrote my 2000th blog post. That was a combination of this blog and others to which I have contributed over the years. Admittedly, most of those were here.

Nonetheless, this post is the 2000th in this blog, Florida Workers' Comp. It is a surreal moment, despite my anticipating it over the last several months. As I write that, I am not sure anticipation is the right word. I struggle to find a better one: trepidation? reckoning? dread? Mileposts can mark progress, but progress can be challenging to accept.

Each iteration draws to the next. Every reflection or citation of a past post reminds of so many hours dictating these thoughts into my phone or cleaning them up into this format. I have pontificated here regarding a great many topics. I have undoubtedly offended a few, perhaps inspired one or two, and at times even evoked a laugh. Unlikely a belly laugh, but perhaps a smile and a chuckle.

My peddling here has become much like the perpetual motion machine I have been refining in my basement these many years. I just cannot seem to stop working on it. Reflect on that, a guy in Florida who has a basement (they say a basement in Florida is called a pool, that's a good one).

I had no intention of this 2000th-post reminiscence last fall when I wrote Thousand and Thousands. Yet, these thoughts came to me in reflection. What do mileposts mean? Some people encourage us to mark all the mileposts in life. Perhaps it is merely the "progress principle?" There is merit in perceiving yourself as moving forward. But only if you are truly moving, not "ghost promoting?"

In any event, there is the danger of falling into the trap of Sarah Lockwood Pardee Winchester and her never-ending home renovation, or the Song That Never Ends.

Do you stop at some milepost and finally simply change course? Forrest Gump never really knew why he was running, but one day he just quit, "after 3 years, 2 months, 14 days, and 16 hours." When Forrest stopped, he said, "I'm pretty tired... I think I'll go home now." Anticlimactic as a conclusion? Or just confusing?

My first post here was posted at 13:27 on March 10, 2012: Changes at the OJCC for Fiscal Year 2013 (March 2012). If I stopped with this post, published January 22, 2026, at 05:00, I would have been writing, in the spirit of Forrest, for 13 years, 10 months, 11 days, 15 hours, and 33 minutes (including leap days), and "That's all I have to say about that." (Forrest Gump, Paramount, 1994). 

Perhaps, I will keep writing this blog in some ever-insistent loop, a la Groundhog Day (Columbia 1993), until I finally get it right; in that moment, perhaps I will move forward without further exposition or explanation? Or, maybe, in the midst of that final post, I will finally "achieve total consciousness" (Caddy Shack, Warner Brothers, 1980).

So, tune in January 25, 2026, and see. Have I hit the wall, paused for a speed bump, achieved existential epiphany, or just kept on truckin? In any event, "thanks for playing my game" (Ready Player One, Warner Brothers, 2018), because it is comforting to know that "I got that goin' for me, which is nice" (Caddy Shack).

And "Gunga galunga ... gunga, gunga-lagunga" to you too. 

Is Privacy Gone?

Scott McNealy, an info tech founder and former tech CEO, long ago noted on privacy:

"You already have zero privacy - get over it."

I would like to think he is wrong, but I suspect he nailed it. The little bots in the World Wide Web have been tracking us and storing data for decades now. They know our proclivities, predilections, and preferences. You can tell by the way ads quietly appear for stuff you have been glancing at or searching for, sometimes things you've only mentioned out loud.

The idea of privacy is not new to these pages. I find the ubiquity of cameras a constant reminder that someone is watching me. See Assume Everyone is Watching (September 2015), Judicial Bullying in the News (April 2018), Pay Attention (July 2023)(and the posts linked there), and Optics and Options (September 2025). We are all under surveillance nearly constantly. We are watched, captured, and categorized. It is only dehumanizing if you think about it. Stop thinking about it?

This all came back to me when a New York Post story crossed my feed in March 2025. The story begins with a Brazilian plane passenger who boards a flight only to find her seat occupied. She asked them, including a small child, to move so she could occupy the window seat that she had reserved and paid for. The child began to cry and pined for that window seat, but the paying passenger did not yield.

A fellow passenger filmed her, without her consent, and posted the video online. She alleges she was "shamed" online, in the midst of an "internet firestorm." Despite this interaction and video leading to "social media fame" and "multiple brand deals as an influencer," she is now seeking "compensation for distress and damages caused by the ordeal" from the airline and "the fellow passenger who fil(m)ed her."

Note, she is not apparently proceeding against the passengers who wanted her seat in the first instance. Despite her own distress and the associated fame and perhaps monetary benefits, she asserts she is striving to "prevent similar public shaming and what she called unauthorized exposure" for others in the future. If you know someone who has never had a bad experience flying, have them contact me. I would like to meet them.

More recently, a lady on the New York subway observed a man wearing Meta Glasses. According to Futurism, she "called him a dork" and then allegedly "broke (the) Meta glasses." Like much of modern life, this camera brouhaha was captured by another observer with a camera and uploaded to Tick Tock. The result has "since garnered millions of views." Futurism calls her a hero.

The victim (man with glasses, though either party might be labeled the victim here) shouted at the woman, "You're going to be famous on the internet!" And that she is. Nonetheless, the result has not been her humiliation but a broader celebration. Beyond the "hero" label, "the internet wholeheartedly rallied behind the alleged" glasses breaker. 

Some will remember the great hunt for a ball-grabbing Phillies fan that was captured on video. See Triggered (September 2025). That was one of those instances that was all over the news and then quietly faded to nothing. I am not sure the world of cyber sleuths ever found the ball snatcher, but I periodically see other exuberant doxing in various contexts. 

As a general rule, people are allowed to video you in a public place (subway), according to Consumer Shield, though state laws may differ. Nonetheless, the internet is replete with examples of some self-assured person threatening someone for taking photos or videos. 

According to Law Info, it is also generally illegal to "deface, damage, or destroy someone else's property without their consent." 

The law seemingly lands on the side of the privacy invader, not the video victim. The outcome seems to be that we forego our privacy when we step into the public realm, and we may be recorded or photographed there as any of our fellow travelers sees fit.

Many of those photos and videos will make their way to public displays like social media, websites, and more. The government is said to have more than 600 million photographs of us in its databases. Artificial intelligence is rapidly evolving capabilities and tools to search for and identify people in those photos.

In the example of social media, it may be practical to scrape the vast volume of photos in people's feeds and create reference points. No, your name is not in the account-holder's post, but your face is in the background. If the AI can find a variety of locations, events, or people associated with that face, then perhaps the authorities start to piece together who that face likely belongs to? In this regard, it may come to be like "familial DNA," see Its Always been a Matter of Trust (April 2025).

There are reports that claim your vehicle is persistently spying on you as you drive. U.S. News notes that your vehicle or phone GPS, your vehicle cameras, and more are documenting and measuring you. The implementation of impaired driving detectors may expand and accentuate that process. See Safety is Coming (March 2022).

There is currently a debate in Great Britain regarding police using facial recognition. The authorities want to use it more often, and the public is perhaps not so keen on the idea. There is an apparent, public, ongoing effort to "strike a balance with protecting people's privacy." There is a discussion of a regulatory process to "oversee police use of biometrics and facial recognition."

In that regard, perhaps there will be an attempt to stuff some of the "privacy" genie back into the bottle. Nonetheless, Scott McNealy may well be correct, and there is no privacy left to save. And, if you jerk someone's camera or glasses away to protect yours, the police may come for you instead of them.

Disqualification

There are undoubtedly those who understand the process of changing the judge on a case. Unfortunately, the evidence supports that those attorneys are both few and far between. Through a parade of pleadings over the years, I have witnessed a variety of shortcomings that are worthy of discussion. 

First, as is usually the case, there is guidance for what is called "disqualification." In Florida, that comes in the Florida Rules of General Practice and Judicial Administration (Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin.) Those rules, by their very terms, do not apply generally in Florida workers' compensation. 

First, those are rules of the Court, for the courts. The Florida OJCC is not a court and never was. See Amends. to the Fla. Rules of Workers' Comp. Proc., 891 So. 2d 474, 477 (Fla. 2004)("The Office of the Judges of Compensation Claims (OJCC) is not a court of this State.")

Nonetheless, the OJCC has its own rules. Chapter 60Q-6 Rules of Procedure for Workers' Compensation Adjudications (Fla.R.Pro.Work.Comp.) Those rules do apply to practice here. Those rules address "disqualification." They do so in Rule 60Q6.126:

(1) Any motion for disqualification of a judge shall be made and determined pursuant to Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.330.

The Fla.R.Pro.Work.Comp. "incorporate" the Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin., specifically rule 2.330. That has the effect of making that one rule applicable in workers' compensation proceedings.

The lesson is too easily lost on lawyers, who have studied the concepts of statutes, rules, and court decisions. Lawyers struggle to read and comprehend this particular rule and apply it with persistent success. Unfortunately, there are judges who struggle with the interactions of this rule and the Code of Judicial Conduct. 

The first distinction that is worthy of note is that the word is "disqualification." That is in Rule 60Q6.126 and Rule 2.330. This is not "recusal," but disqualification. Using "recuse" in the context of a motion is as sensical as referring to "Taylor Swift": "comes now the ______ and moves to Taylor Swift the judge." Patently inappropriate and nonsensical, but no more so than "comes now the ______ and moves to recuse the judge."

For this, the party seeking to change the judge needs only read Rule 2.330(b):

Any party, including the state, may move to disqualify the judge assigned to the case on grounds provided by rule, statute, Code of Judicial Conduct, or general law, and in accordance with the procedural provisions of this rule

This is permissive ("may") and allows the party to seek to "disqualify" the judge. The attentive reader may note the absence of "recuse" in that portion of the rule. They might focus attention in that regard on Rule 2.330(k):

(k) Recusal Upon Judge’s Initiative. Nothing in this rule limits the judge’s authority to enter an order of recusal.

Note the absence there of any "may move." The "recusal" is not upon a motion. It is "upon (the) judge's initiative." This is not a judge reacting (to a motion), but a judge taking a volitional action.  

Requirements of the motion in Rule 2.330(c)(“shall”) and Rule 2.330(e)(“shall”) are mandatory. When a rule or statute uses the term "shall," that is suggestive that it must be complied with. 

There is a litany of appellate law that decries this simple conclusion but that defies any semblance of consistency or logic. Many uses of "shall" have been judicially converted to "may" and some "may" have been interpreted as "shall." The foundations for those interpretations are often questionable or outright troubling. But I digress. 

Rule 2.330(c)(“shall”) says that there "shall" be a motion, and what it "shall" contain. Thus, when disqualification is sought, some party must make a motion. That is a critical term in workers' compensation. Rule 60Q6.115 applies to all motions in workers' compensation. 

That rule has requirements for motions. Most critically, it requires consultation with all opposing parties. This is the "good faith" requirement. It applies to "any motion," "except for motions to dismiss for lack of prosecution." Motions filed without that consultation and representation of that "good faith" "shall be summarily denied." Despite that, most motions for disqualification do not include the "good faith" representation or recitations. 

Rule 2.330(e)(“shall”) describes the grounds for disqualification. This provision is simply worded and foundational. The party seeking relief—disqualification—should consider listing one of those grounds as their reason for the relief. The rule says these are the reasons for a judge to be disqualified. That said, they are not the only reasons. Nonetheless, the competent motion will state the reason(s). 

In the law of torts, there is an oft-ignored concept called "coming to the nuisance." You cannot move into a neighborhood underneath the flight path for the airport and then sue to stop the takeoffs and landings. You knew that noise was there when you came to the noise. 

Similarly, Rule 2.330(f) says that the party or lawyer cannot "create" a ground for disqualification by substitution or addition of counsel. If some basis exists for disqualification because of relationship or circumstance between some judge and counsel, the judge should not be removed because that lawyer voluntarily comes to a case where the presence of that judge is already known. 

Rule 2.330(f) is titled simply "prohibition against creation." The "coming to the case" is not a valid basis of disqualification. That causes some confusion. The prohibition is clearly about the "party represented by such newly appearing counsel." That party may not seek disqualification. That does not mean another party may not. BUT, the other party would have to file a motion ("shall"), see above. 

Rule 2.330(g) provides timing. As if these motions were not already complicated enough ("shall," "motion," "grounds"), the party seeking disqualification must do so in "a reasonable time." That may not "exceed 20 days after discovery" of the "grounds." That is discovery by the party or the attorney. The timeliness of such motions is a frequent failure. It does not matter, independently, when the party learns, or when the counsel learns, the earliest to learn is when the clock starts.  

Rule 2.330(j) addresses the procedural effect of a change. Following a disqualification, the case will be assigned to a different judge. That judge may "reconsider and vacate or amend" any "prior factual or legal rulings by (the) disqualified judge." That is specific. By the "recused judge?" No, the rule does not say that. The rule is specific to the "disqualified judge." 

That said, any party may always seek "relief." Rule 60Q6.115. The party will not know if the different judge may consider past rulings unless they ask. Though the rule says the parties "may" in one instance ("disqualification") it has no prohibition on the other ("recusal"). However, the motion for that relief must be filed within 30 days. 

Thus, the process is specific. The requirements are perhaps exacting. The path and map are nonetheless clear. The key is found in reading two rules: Rule 2.330 and Rule 60Q6.115. With that foundation, anyone could prepare a competent motion. Despite that, complete and competent motions are too rare. 

J. David Parrish

Perspective today on J. David Parrish. Some today will remember him only as a passing name. They will have matriculated and participated here in a more modern age, after some legends slowed and even faded. But there was a time when Mr. Parrish was well known in this corner of the law, and a great many litigated with him over the years. More on him shortly, but some thoughts first.

One of the troubling challenges of aging is that a great many people in your orbit will reach their end. That is hard to imagine when you are young because those who die are primarily "those" old people. When you are distracted by the day-to-day, little things begin to sneak by. All too soon, you realize that you are one of "those," and you struggle to recall how that happened. Was there some fork in the road, some opportunity, some exit?

This blog is about the world of workers' compensation. A fair few of you out there remind me periodically that I have wandered afield at times. Nonetheless, most of you get the point. One element that is always on point is the people. 

There have been some intriguing people in the world of Florida workers' compensation over the years. I documented the adjudicators in Floridiana and the Workers' Compensation Adjudicators and the state mediators in Unseen Influence: Unconscious Predisposition in Dispute Resolution. Both are also available on my website.

Those histories are focused: judges and mediators. However, a great many others have been in this space: doctors, adjusters, risk managers, vocational experts, nurses, and so many others. The Florida workers' compensation pond is both broad and deep. Creston Nelson-Morrill tried to address some of the pond in 1995 in the FWCI-sponsored Workers' Compensation in Florida 1935-1995 (recognizing a 60th year is uncommon in a round-number world that seemingly prefers examples like 25, 50, 100, etc.)

Nelson-Morrill focused on names like McConnaughhay, Fontaine, Frierson, and wrote about more, such as Adams, Dockery, Holliman, Lewis, Malca, Rissman, Roberts, Rosenthal, Sessums, Shebal, Sicking, Slepin, Stiles, Vocelle, and Waters. And, of course, J. David Parrish. For a period, he was a fixture, one of the founders of what became WCI (McConnaughhay, Rissman, Parrish, and Rosenthal).

Mr. Parrish earned his JD from Mercer University Law School, 1971. He literally thought the sun rose and set over that stately hall of learning. 

He was involved early and persistently in representing Claimants. He practiced with Edward Hurt, who had served as a Deputy Commissioner in the late 1950s. The firm evolved from Hurt & Parrish to Parrish & Smejkal, and finally Parrish Law Group, which included his daughter, Deanna Parrish.

There is, of course, a long list of memberships, accolades, awards, and plaques. He was Board Certified, chair of this, and a member of that. He touched many lives in his communities, including central Florida and the workers' compensation practice. He was also a fellow of the College of Workers' Compensation Lawyers and an inductee of the Florida Workers' Compensation Institute Hall of Fame.

Take my word for it, he would likely have preferred that I leave all that out. My conversations with Mr. Parrish centered on his more recent work mentoring and teaching. He was striving to prepare the next generations for what they faced. He would want that mentioned. He was unabashedly proud of his family, and he would want that to be our focus. I commiserate with them, and am sorry for their loss. But I focus here on broader remembrance. 

I have written a few memorials. See Legend Jack Langdon Passes (June 2019); Two Emails and Two Stories (September 2021), Judge Robert Dietz (January 2022); and Jon Wheeler (May 2023). I said in some of those, and repeat for clarity: I hate writing these memorial posts. They are difficult, they feel somewhat trite, and perhaps do not resonate with today's reader.

But back to my focus. I have often stressed reputation: Your Name is your Greatest Asset (February 2013), How Will You be Known (December 2015); Do you Care About Reputation (June 2023), Making History (January 2026). How will Mr. Parrish be remembered? I was privy to some reactions to his passing, and without attribution, I share them below. A life well lived, a profession well practiced—these recollections say more than I could:

"Someone to be admired and emulated. Confident, knowledgeable- fun."

"A Southern Gentleman. And a damn good lawyer."

"the consummate gentleman lawyer."

"A gentle giant, courtly gentleman, and cunning lawyer."

"A pillar in the workers’ compensation community and a great person to be around."

"A great man and practitioner!"

"Good lawyer. Good man."

Can one aspire to higher accolades than family, community, contribution, leadership, and these remembrances? I think not. I did not know him as well as those commenting above, but I am glad I knew him at all. Farewell, Mr. Parrish, and Godspeed.  

Making Legacy

John Archibald Wheeler (physicist) postulated that

"We live on an island surrounded by a sea of ignorance. As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance."

This is a reminder that with each advance, the circumference of what we know expands, and thus we experience an ever-increasing breadth of challenges. Some may be perceived from our present shore, looking toward the horizon. Others, we may have no clue of yet. See Dunning Kruger (January 2026). The acretion behind us deserves attention, but the fresh experiences before us are so enticing.

A similar sentiment is expressed by Confucius, more focused on plenary progress and persistence:

“The man who moves a mountain begins by carrying away small stones.”

I spent several hours over the 2025 year-end holidays working on a couple of manuscripts. I hope to push two books to print in 2026, and perhaps I near the end of my exposition phase. In any case, those two projects are behind, a bit more shore exposed, a bit more mountain moved.

For only the second time in my career, I set out in 2026 to teach a class on workers' compensation. My first opportunity was at the University of North Florida, in its paralegal program. That was more years (decades) ago than I like to admit. Over the intervening years, I have been privileged to observe the microchasm that is workers' compensation, nationally and here in our little corner. I am better prepared today than I was then. 

Progress? Certainly. The world of Florida workers' compensation is better today than it was in the 20th century. Unfortunately, however, the practice has undoubtedly declined. As I write this, I am drawn to the thoughts of physicist Carl Sagan and his tome The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark (1995). 

In my twilight, I struggle with what tomorrow may hold, what sea may be exposed by our expanding shore. I see the shore being exposed ever faster as technology both drives and drags us. I also lament that those coming challenges and discoveries will be for others.

Despite our contrary desires, many of us will not be here forever. See Death and Taxes (December 2025). We may leave something behind, whether our consciousness or something less. And thus, I turn to the University of West Florida (UWF) and its election to include workers' compensation in the Spring 2026 curriculum choices for its Legal Studies and Prelaw program. This portends promise and potential.

I lament that workers' compensation is not a staple of each Florida law school curriculum. There have been sporadic successes with that. FAMU, Florida Coastal, Florida State, and others have gone there over the years. I suspect more than a few of today's persistent practitioners are in this fold because of such exposure.

There will be room for new leaders in the near future (there is now). See Bring Value (February 2020), The Time is Now (April 2022), Work Comp Academy 2023 (February 2023), Positioning Comp (April 2023),  It's a Mystery (March 2024), Tweens? (June 2024), and Gonna be alright (August 2025). The next generation indeed holds great hope. Some will merely live up to our example, and others will simply leave us in their dust. 

But they will do it their own way. In Let's Make a Change (April 2023), I made some critical points:

"The generational opportunity to parent these people is passed."

"we will have to come to the next generation. They have aptly demonstrated that they are not coming to us."

Critical. Whatever, whoever they are, we made them; they are made, and we won't change them. Nonetheless, we may mentor, envelop, and encourage. I am hopeful that is what this Spring 2026 opportunity at UWF will be. I hope to illuminate the challenges, risks, and benefits of this social welfare program for a new generation of aspiring lawyers.

To this end, I have prepared and published an overview of workers' compensation that is suitable for addressing any college class. There is a PowerPoint, a proposed syllabus, and more resources on my website, and more are under development. My free books are there also. 

In furtherance of our collective future, I am striving to speak to the next generation about workers' compensation and why it is interesting and compelling. The material on my website is yours for the taking if you have such an opportunity and find it useful in that or any regard. 

Let's take our message to them. Let's make that our legacy.