Stewardship of Truth

NWCR 2026!

The final program of the first day of the 2026 National Workers' Compensation Review (NWCR) at WCI 2026 is Stewardship of Truth. A series of posts is listed at the conclusion of this one, providing a roadmap to the entire NWCR 2026 agenda.

Stewardship of Truth in a World of Intelligent Machines – How Faith-Based Principles Guide the Implementation of AI into the Work Comp System

Monday, August 24, 2026; 2:10 – 3:10 p.m.

Stewardship is a difficult term for some.  Stated simply, it is careful and conscious management. In the end analysis, striving for considered decisions is an admirable goal in any environment that touches human well-being, and there are few environments that are any more intensely human than workers' compensation. 

The Stewardship panel that closes day one of the 2026 NWCR program this August will address the "challenges and perils" of artificial intelligence (AI). The panel will strive to acknowledge the many potentials that AI could include, such as errors, misinterpretations, and simple mistakes. 

These are inevitable. AI is not perfect. It is a platform of imperfect tools designed and built by imperfect people. It is a literalist with a focus on efficiency, predictability, and replicability. And yet, it is a very powerful tool in the hands of a competent, conscious, and careful human, a "steward." 

This panel will stress that AI is not evil, but that it can effectuate inappropriate outcomes as easily and faster than any human can. The discussion will center on retaining the human as an engaged and effective user of these tools in an effort to retain human "judgement, responsibility, and conscience." 

The critical point is for the steward to remain focused on the "human dignity, livelihoods, health, and family wellbeing" of those touched by the workers' compensation systems. The course of progress will be for that steward to actively and intelligently engage innovations and tools like AI in order to deliver these human traits and foci in an efficient and effective way. 

There will be ample time for discussion of the "challenges and perils." The pitfalls faced by the new AI user are many, and unfortunately, the user warnings are few. The uninitiated may be led into incorrect or even fake legal interpretations, misapplication of legal principles or requirements, inappropriate expectations, or ineffectual suggestions and recommendations. 

Everyone in the workers' compensation process will eventually use tools that involve AI. Each will be presented with the output that others in the process have generated with AI. The entire community will be challenged to adjust to the new world that is touched, enhanced, or polluted by output that was poorly curated, misstated, or misconstrued. 

None of that will necessarily equate to evil or even bad intent, though that potential also exists. Nonetheless, most of the challenges and tribulations will come from unskilled application, inexperienced engagement, and naive, unconscious trust. 

The contention of this panel is that workers' compensation professionals will be confronted with the output and effects of these tools. They will be challenged by the patient who has striven to research, the pro-se litigant who is mis-relying, or the occasional professional who has forgotten their human role, the steward role, in maintaining the presence and prominence of human responsibility, compassion, and humanity in this difficult process. 

Stewardship of Truth in a World of Intelligent Machines – How Faith-Based Principles Guide the Implementation of AI into the Work Comp System
Monday, August 24, 2026; 2:10 – 3:10 p.m.
Grand Ballroom 8B (Entrance through corridor Grand Ballrooms 7 & 8)

 

Moderator: Bill Pipkin, NWCR Co-Chair; Partner, Austill, Lewis, Pipkin & Maddox, Mobile, AL 

Panelists:
Connor Atchison, WiseDocs, Toronto, Ont.

Dr. Chris Brigham, Brigham and Associates, Hilton Head Island, SC 
Desiree Tolbert Render, Sedgwick, Orlando, FL

NWCR 2026 program overview:

Monday, August 24, 2026
     1:00-2:00 NWCR 2026 and Litigation Management
     2:10-3:10 Causation Analysis
     3:15-4:15 Stewardship of Truth

Tuesday, August 25, 2026
     8:45-9:45 State of the States
     9:55-10:55 Actuarial Insight and Mysterious Underwriting
     11:00-12:00 Empathy
     1:00-2:00 Rapid Fire Hot Topics
     2:10-3:10 Beyond Exclusive Remedy
     3:15-4:15 Strategies to Thrive in Times of Change

Evidence, Perspectives, and More

Another federal judge in the news, this time for an alleged altercation. The America Online (AOL) reports that surveillance video is involved. The story was later picked up by other media, including the New York Times and the San Francisco Chronicle.

I have been persistent in warning about the ubiquity of video cameras in modern America. See Optics and Options (September 30, 2025) and all the posts noted there. With the emphasis on security and the minimal chances of real investigation of property crimes. See Drive Carefully (May 2026); cameras will continue to proliferate.

Even when there is a video, there is perhaps room for different perceptions. That might mean that someone disagrees with what the video depicts, the authenticity vel non of the video ("it's a deepfake"), what it depicts ("that is not me"), or what may have occurred other than what was captured. This is the realm of evidence, argument, interpretation, and credibility. These are the crux of litigated disputes.

In this story, there are allegations of battery, and a disagreement over parking appears to have played a role. A Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals judge in Idaho was parked "askew" when another man parked and "allegedly verbally criticized the judge's parking twice." The criticizing driver allegedly suggested the judge "learn how to park," and then there was a conversation.

To be fair, we have all parked askew at some point. And America's parking lots have long been a potentially unruly place. Recent examples include Indianapolis, Memphis, and Florida. In fairness, there are likely multiple such events daily in every state, but they do not make the news. Parking and driving somehow seem to bring out conflict.

The Idaho judge then allegedly "grabbed the man's glasses off his head and threw them across the parking lot." According to the video, the judge then referred to the man as "crazy" and as a more derogatory adjective. The video then "appears" to show the judge running to "stomp on (the) glasses."

Apparently, the judge admitted to "knocking" the man's glasses but "stated he did not touch him." The judge's attorney commented that the "judge will address the charges through (the) judicial system." And it is imperative that we remain ever-conscious that everyone in America is innocent until proven guilty. Allegations are simply that, allegations. And the presence of video evidence or clamor does not change that, for anyone.

Nonetheless, an organization called "Fix the Court" has announced that it filed a complaint regarding the Idaho Judge. It cites Canon 1 of the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges, and notes a desire for more "expeditious disclosure of incidents involving the federal judiciary."

National Public Radio (NPR) reported the incident as part of a broader discussion. It noted the recent filing of two impeachment articles regarding an Atlanta judge whose behavior was widely reported. See Lessons from Poor Behavior (May 2026). It also noted a Michigan judge accused of violating probation related to a DUI case (alleged; remember the innocent until proven guilty mentioned above). See Super Drunk (June 2026). 

NPR cited a former judge who noted that "When judges act badly, even in their private lives, it reflects badly on everyone else." That is likely a fair statement. The news is the news. The news notes that the Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit only recently learned of the sunglass-throwing allegations and has instigated an investigation.

As is our habit, there will be due process. The accused will have the opportunity to confront the accuser. Evidence will be evaluated by a finder of fact (judge, jury, or Congress). Decisions will be made. The processes, outcomes, and perceptions will be imperfect. We are all imperfect humans, and all that we create will likewise be imperfect. But we will strive for objectivity, fair process, and transparent outcomes. 

The overarching sentiment of all this news coverage and commentary is critical. Notably, some criticism is focused on transparency. In an ideal world, those who make missteps would self-evaluate and even self-report. I have praised those who do so. See Yes, Virginia, Mitch was Right (June 2026), and I have been less complimentary of those who shirk responsibility or try to hide errors. See Just Delete It? (October 2025).

In an increasingly cynical and suspicious world stoked with clickbait headlines and social media virality, there are challenges aplenty. No unnecessary fuel should be shoveled to the flames, nor should fanning (unforced errors) be engaged by those who make errors and mistakes. 

Causation Analysis

NWCR 2026!

The 2026 National Workers' Compensation Review (NWCR) will be presented at WCI 2026. The second program will be Causation Analysis. A series of posts is listed at the conclusion of this one, providing a roadmap to the entire NWCR 2026 agenda.

Causation Analysis: AI as a Tool for Structured, Defensive Medical Reasoning
Monday, August 24, 2026; 2:10 – 3:10 p.m.
Grand Ballroom 8B (Entrance through corridor Grand Ballrooms 7 & 8)

The core of workers' compensation is medical. Medicine, it is often said, drives the analysis in these challenging personal injury situations. It is the physician who must answer so many of the difficult questions that the legal world has foisted upon them. While these include sticky subjects like maximum medical improvement, work restrictions, and impairment, the first task is often determining whether some outcome or complaint is or is not related to the insult or injury that has been alleged. Stated more simply, did that accident cause this malady?

Any casual observer of workers' compensation would be quick to realize that many documents are generated. These include the state-required reporting forms, financial records, and more. But we have also evolved to producing a vast amount of documentation regarding medicine. This includes patient-generated questionnaire answers, nurse or other paraprofessional interaction records, physician office notes, radiology and other diagnostic results, consulting physician reports, hospital status notes, and ultimately physician reports.

In the typical analysis process, this volume challenge is exacerbated by the inclusion of too many duplicates and repetitions. That is driven by the litigation process, the desire for completeness, and the fear of missing something important. Accuracy matters. Completeness matters. And time is most often at a premium.

In the 21st century, we have been presented with an opportunity to engage artificial intelligence (AI) in the collation, organization, and summary of these various documents. AI large language models (LLMs) are proficient at identifying duplications, ordering documents chronologically, and summarizing content competently. To be sure, these LLMs are not perfect and are as capable of making mistakes as any human is. But, they are powerful tools that may take the edge of that time premium mentioned above.

The 2026 NWCR will address frameworks, including the Bradford Hill criteria, for analyzing causation. The "Causation Analysis" panel will be

Causation Analysis: AI as a Tool for Structured, Defensive Medical Reasoning

Monday, August 24, 2026; 2:10 – 3:10 p.m. (Room TBA)

The panel will discuss tools available for synthesizing the causation analysis, the application of frameworks for decision-making, and reaching causation conclusions that are based on the presented evidence. The goal is a process that leads to the appropriate conclusion as opposed to beginning with some conclusion that requires some justification or support.

There will be a discussion of how experts can appropriately delegate tasks in the causation analysis process, applying constraints and processes so that the outcome is produced efficiently and effectively without losing the primacy of the physician expert's scientific knowledge, analysis, and experience.

The ultimate goal remains the same today as it has always been. The parties all want the correct answer to difficult questions, such as causation. They need principled and replicable processes for analysis, synthesis, and rendition of expert opinions that are ethical, unbiased, and defensible.

In pursuit of those goals, balancing the capabilities and efficiencies of AI, the confluence of these tools and the causation analysis process is inevitable. The Causation Analysis panel will address the engagement of these tools in making a challenging process more efficient and effective.

Causation Analysis: AI as a Tool for Structured, Defensive Medical Reasoning
Monday, August 24, 2026; 2:10 – 3:10 p.m.
Grand Ballroom 8B (Entrance through corridor Grand Ballrooms 7 & 8)

Moderator:

Christopher Brigham, MD, NWCR Advisory Board; President, Brigham and Associates, Inc., Hilton Head Island, SC 

Panelists:
Alex Alamazon, Esq., Almazan Law, Miami, FL

Mark Melhorn, MD, Mid-America Orthopedics, Wichita, KS
Heidi Sellers, Acrisure, Bradenton, FL

NWCR 2026 program overview:

Monday, August 24, 2026
     1:00-2:00 Litigation Strategy
     2:10-3:10 Causation Analysis
     3:15-4:15 Stewardship of Truth

Tuesday, August 25, 2026
     8:45-9:45 State of the States
     9:55-10:55 Actuarial Insight and Mysterious Underwriting
     11:00-12:00 Empathy
     1:00-2:00 Rapid Fire Hot Topics
     2:10-3:10 Beyond Exclusive Remedy
     3:15-4:15 Strategies to Thrive in Times of Change

Aligning Litigation Strategy

NWCR 2026!

The National Workers' Compensation Review (NWCR) presents a two-day program each August at the WCI. The NWCR program will be informative this year, and the breadth of topics is notable. It begins Monday afternoon and extends throughout the day Tuesday. 

The premier, "session ONE," will be a Litigation Management Panel featuring claims, legal, and medical perspectives. The moderator is Nicole DuShane of Summit Insurance. This will be:

Aligning Litigation Strategy, Defense Counsel, and Employer Outcomes
Monday August 24, 2026; 9:55 – 10:55 a.m.
Grand Ballroom 8B (Entrance through corridor Grand Ballrooms 7 & 8).

The world is awash in financial incentives. These can be obvious and rudimentary, such as comparing the price of gasoline among various stations. But incentives can be less apparent when they are intertwined in large, integrated systems. Workers' compensation obviously fits that bill. There have been various efforts over decades to either incentivize or disincentivize actions or reactions in the delivery of these benefits. Each of them had an intended consequence but too often precipitated other unintended behaviors. 

The panel will also discuss the challenges of confidentiality of client information. While this is not an artificial intelligence or cybersecurity panel, the implications of each are readily apparent and may perhaps be the 800-pound gorilla in the room. The claims process will always involve sensitive, private, and even confidential information. How, when, and why it is disseminated is a critical part of the litigation practice, from the perspective of those who seek recovery and those who defend it. 

One of the great challenges of the workers' compensation system is the intimate relationship that exists long before an injury occurs. The employer and employee are well acquainted. They have past experiences of trust, performance, and reliability. They come to any dispute with pre-existing perceptions that may be fact, opinion, or a combination. These may be recognized or lurking in the shadows of inherent predisposition that the NWCR exposed in 2025. How the expectations of employers, employees, and the workplace figure into the management of litigation is complex and worthy of discussion. 

Part of that complexity is the relationship between defense counsel and their two clients. Too often, it is forgotten that the one attorney represents both the employer and the carrier or servicing agent. These two clients may sing in harmony, but there are ample opportunities for their interests to diverge. Who selects defense counsel? Who directs their actions and makes the ultimate decisions? What is the process for reaching the conclusion points to afford counsel their marching orders? It is a myriad of potentials and challenges. 

Counsel's relationships with the management, claims, risk, and financial professionals may be complex and may differ from claim to claim. Expectations are a given. Recognizing them, defining them, and addressing them will lead to greater harmony, predictability, and concert.  

Aligning Litigation Strategy, Defense Counsel, and Employer Outcomes
Monday August 24, 2026; 9:55 – 10:55 a.m.

Moderator: Nichole DuShane – Summit Ins., Lakeland, FL

Panelists:
Becky Hillhouse, Sr. VP & Head of WC Claims, Ascot Ins. Group, Madison, MS
Alan Pierce, Esq., Pierce, Pierce, and Napolitano, Salem, MA
Melissa Spurlock, Select Medical, Mechanicsburg, PA


 NWCR 2026 program overview:

Monday, August 24, 2026
     1:00-2:00 Litigation Strategy
     2:10-3:10 Causation Analysis
     3:15-4:15 Stewardship of Truth

Tuesday, August 25, 2026
     8:45-9:45 State of the States
     9:55-10:55 Actuarial Insight and Mysterious Underwriting
     11:00-12:00 Empathy
     1:00-2:00 Rapid Fire Hot Topics
     2:10-3:10 Beyond Exclusive Remedy
     3:15-4:15 Strategies to Thrive in Times of Change

Mental/Mental at Home?

CBS News reported recently that remote work may pose risks for some workers: "Research shows it hurts their mental health." Remote work is wildly popular with some. Employers have reported struggles with finding and retaining in-office workers in a workforce acquainted with the slippers and sweats world of virtuality.

The mental health concerns are centered on "alone time" and the absence or minimization of human contact. This is characterized as the absence of "idle chitchat," speaking to a coworker, or even a "smile from a passerby." The quoted study noted that most workers have not "compensate(d) by socializing more outside of work hours."

The study also raises some questions. The conclusions are based, in part, on frequency of mental health provider visits and prevalence of psychiatric prescriptions. Some will argue that the data and premise are arguably not scientific proof of causation but of coincidence. See Consensus in the Absence of Proof (January 2021); Tootsie Pops Make you Think (August 2021);

There is a stark difference between coincidence or correlation (the presence of two findings) and causation (the conclusion that one resulted in the other). See Work Hours are Deadly? (June 2021); Disparity and Evolution (August 2024).

Nonetheless, some may conclude that there are mental health risks to isolation. During SARS-CoV-2, I once instructed a remote worker, simply, "go outside." Asked what they should do, I replied that it did not matter, but their persistent isolation indoors needed to end. I still think that was good advice. But I have never heard of an AI suggesting it. See Ya Jonesing Man? (March 2025). To be clear, I have no mental health counselor training, but everyone benefits from a break and some fresh air. 

Workers' compensation systems across America take very different approaches to emotional complaints and allegations of injury. Some states, like Florida, require most employees to suffer a physical injury as a predicate for compensability of emotional injury. This is commonly referred to as a "physical mental" state. We had a great discussion of these intricacies at the SAWCA annual convention last week, comparing and contrasting four state perspectives. 

There are states in which an emotional injury alone can be compensable, commonly labeled "mental/mental" states. These distinctions are discussed in The Debate of Mental Mental and PTSD (January 2017); More Rust (October 2022), and other posts noted there.

I have also noted the challenges of emotional health periodically and have made some suggestions that there are particular challenges to mental health in the modern world. See Mental Health News (September 2020); Emotional Health (October 2022); and AI and Mental Health (October 2023).

The overarching point is that there can be stress in the workplace. In physical/mental states, that stress will not generally be sufficient alone as a workers' compensation injury. Nonetheless, in states in which "mental/mental" injuries are compensable, the emotions of an employee may be a sufficient foundation for a workers' compensation claim.

How prevalent is this mental/mental? Researchers have struggled with quantifying because the various state requirements, definitions, presumptions, and burdens are quite different. Nonetheless, some research concludes that "mental-to-mental injury, an injury involving purely mental stimuli, may be eligible for compensation in 40 states." 

That is not to say to all employees in those states. Several laws treat various occupations with different and disparate laws. Occupations with proficient lobbies and through extensive efforts have carved out special treatment for themselves. Those are policy decisions that intentionally treat workers differently. 

So, we conclude with the risk of isolation. Being alone persistently may present significant risk of mental health effects. One might begin having conversations with inanimate objects like volleyballs, see Tom Hanks in Castaway (20th Century Fox, 2000). In fairness, many of us mutter to ourselves in the office. 

Nonetheless, the work-at-home paradigm may increase that risk, particularly if the worker does not consciously strive for human contact elsewhere in their non-work time. And, as to the point in workers' compensation, the resulting emotional condition(s) may be compensable under some workers' compensation laws.

This could be an important point, the "some." It is practical for a worker to have potential entitlement in the state where a work accident happened (the home), where hired (might have made an acceptance by telephone from almost anywhere), where the employee lives, or even where the employer is located. An employer might face multiple potential exposures in one employee. 

Might an employer find themself on the hook for compensating the employee for that non-work time spent socializing? If the mental health provider prescribes an evening out to socialize, a bowling league, or walks in the park, will the mental/mental states treat that differently than an orthopedic ordering physical therapy? Maybe the work-at-homer can get a script for a night or two on the town as "treatment?" Or maybe a trip to Aruba?

A final note is that workers' compensation laws tend to embrace events within a particular state, noted above. So do many workers' compensation insurance policies. Is that New Jersey employer covered for a mental health claim from its Illinois remote worker? Might the potential exist for a coverage dispute by a carrier purportedly unaware of what company payroll represents work in remote states?

It is a fair question to consider when explaining to the broker or issuer that you need coverage in the state where the employee is located. A company in Iowa with a work-at-homer in California may well face liability under the California workers' compensation law. 

How Could You Not Know Now

Early in my legal career, there was excitement when the Florida Legislature changed the law slightly, and the result was the potential for cigarette companies to be successfully sued. The legislation was not the end by any means; there have since followed a whole raft of lawsuits. Some say there have been thousands; others say that it is many more. 

I remember many conversations about the litigation. The plaintiffs, thereafter, in the 1990s, often alleged that they did not know of the dangers of smoking. Had they known, they posited, they would never have taken up such a dangerous distraction, habit, or addiction. Or, at least, they would have striven harder to quit. If only someone had told them. 

There was much discussion among lawyers about the federally-mandated warning on cigarettes that was established in 1966 (for those struggling with math, that was 28 years before the start of Florida lawsuits following the 1994 statutory enabling change. 

Certainly, some folks may have started smoking before 1966, but even so, there had been a great deal of time in which to quit. As certainly, the initial warning was somewhat milktoast: ""CAUTION: Cigarette Smoking May Be Hazardous to Your Health." It was later enhanced with the requirements of graphics, but not until 2009. 

Was there bad action by "big tobacco?" I doubt there is anyone who would argue that there was not any. It is generally accepted that the cigarette companies hid internal research data about dangers and diseases. 

There is little doubt that nicotine addiction was manipulated, children were targeted, misdirected research was allegedly bought and paid for, and the whole "low-tar" campaign could be a lesson all its own. There is some seeming consensus that various companies acted inappropriately from time to time. Google "Gladys Kessler Philip Morris RJ Reynolds, corrective statements." 

I personally harbored some skepticism about the "I didn't know" arguments in the 1990s as I watched Florida tobacco litigation expand and accelerate. How was it possible for smokers to not know of the dangers? I got the warnings as a youth, echoed by every adult smoker I knew (many), repeated later in high school, they were printed on the packages, and also on stickers on the vending machines where many bought cigarettes (machines did not discriminate on age).

Nonetheless, I had some serious discussions in the 1990s about starting a cigarette company. We were going to call our product "Death" and the proposed logo prominently featured a skull and crossbones. We planned to eschew the federally mandated:

"Caution: Cigarette smoking may be hazardous to your health."

We planned, instead, to have a warning on one side panel that said simply:

"Strictly a novelty, do not open, consume, or light under any circumstance."

On the other side panel, we planned a more stern and direct warning:

"These cigarettes will undoubtedly destroy your mouth, esophagus, lungs and will kill you. Do not smoke."

Our critics said we would not sell any. But we had a feeling that those who wanted to smoke would light up no matter what the package said. We also suspected that the "real" tough person crowd would smoke them simply because they were "Death." The "manly" man in that era was associated with one particular brand; some even quibbled over which package of that brand was the most manly.

Imagine an ad that opens with a group shooting pool and sipping suds. A buff gentleman unrolls his sleeve (yes, this was a real thing, people kept cigarette boxes in their shirt sleeve) to reveal a pack of "Death," which he gallantly offers a vivacious young lady who intones, "Death for us all!" and the commercial fades to black with the skull and crossbones logo and our "these will kill you" warning. The voiceover is "some fear death, others flee it, but some even smoke it!"

Unfortunately or not, we got distracted by some other opportunities and never got "Death" launched. Any time I would lament the foregone opportunity, I was readily assured that "Death" would never have succeeded. Too much was known about the dangers. Smoking was "over." I rarely met anyone who thought such a venture could succeed. 

The premises-banning began in the 1990s, also. The Centers for Disease Control credit California with leading the way. There were prohibitions on smoking in various venues like bars, restaurants, and more. I will never forget the incredulous look I got from a California restaurant hostess when I asked for a "non-smoking" section in the 1990s. Time reported that trend continued through the beginning of the 21st century.

That followed the ban on domestic airline flights that started in 1988 and which soon cascaded into a near-universal ban on aircraft. Some foreign-flagged carriers continued through the 1990s with "smoking sections." I once flew on one where the smoking section was the seats on one side of the aisle, and the non-smoking were inches away on the other side.  

George Carlin questioned in that era 

“Isn’t making a smoking section in a restaurant like making a peeing section in a swimming pool?”

Crass, but memorable. By the second decade of the 21st century, those indoor smoking bans had spread to even the area around entrances to certain buildings. 

It has now been 60 years since the mandatory warning became the norm. Gallup reports that smoking is at an "80-year low," but 11% of American adults smoke. The Census Bureau says there are 258.3 million American adults, so that is 28 million customers still in the market for "Death." Some contend that the biggest winner is, in fact, the taxman. Some argue that government makes more from each sale than the producer does. 

That is intriguing. It is more intriguing that smoking is more prevalent in Europe ("Roughly 1 in 4 Europeans smoke compared to about 1 in 7 Americans"). And you can buy from machines there without identification, though there are warning stickers. This is despite a Harvard analysis that the cost and taxation in Europe are more pervasive, as are smoking regulations.

By this point, the reader probably has questions. Primarily, likely, what does this have to do with anything? Fair criticism. Well, the New York Post recently reported that cigarettes are cool again!

There were trays of them, "at the Vanity Fair Oscar's Party." And, as important, a random cool woman recently appeared on the cover of that magazine puffing away. There are, again, cameos in films and television. The paper concludes, "Smoking is well and truly back," despite those pesky government warnings.

Those who enjoy some nicotine include some otherwise health-conscious folks. They are nonetheless interested in "an occasional indulgence." Cigarettes are said to be "a great way to network" and a "good way to meet people." They are a "rejection of wellness culture."

Reason argued in 2026 that the American indoor smoking bans are too restrictive, arguing for the inconsistency that Japan has adopted. In their flexibility, one might see freedom of choice or chaos. The answer in Japan to whether smoking is acceptable is likely always "it depends." Whether right or wrong, the point is that advocates are seeking to re-establish smoking in public places. 

I said it in the 90s, and sadly, I was right. People will smoke regardless of the science, the warnings, and the dangers. There is a draw, social and societal, and all the cool kids seem to be doing it. Some of the cool kids are advocating for its return to acceptance or at least some nightclub deregulation. It is possible that some of them are even being paid for their advocacy or public use. 

I am not a fan. Nonetheless, how someone chooses to use the life they have been given is for them to decide. Nonetheless, I don't buy the "second-hand smoke can't hurt you" routine. I prefer that you keep your death to yourself. But it is also somewhat up to me to be willing to avoid the spaces in which people do smoke or vape. 

In the coming years, will those who have used these products in the 21st century be compensated for their conditions or diseases? Will there come a point where the world is comfortable concluding that everyone who consumed these products knew and accepted the risks? Despite all that is now known, will young people keep adopting this habit?

The Pretty Good Imposter

In 1960, Tony Curtis starred in The Great Imposter (Universal 1960). It chronicled the life of Ferdinand Waldo Demara, a native of Massachusetts who lived a life of adventure and lies. He was apparently incredibly bright and managed to undertake several surprising roles without formal training.

The National Catholic Reporter wrote about him on his passing in 2015. He served in several Catholic orders, was a teacher, joined the Army, and deserted. He later joined the Navy, faked his suicide, and began impersonating a psychologist. 

Somehow, he became the "dean of the School of Philosophy" at a small college and published some of his academic work. His story involves forged checks, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, surgeries he performed, desertion from the Canadian Navy, and prison time. According to UPI, he was also

"a law student, a zoology graduate, a career researcher and teacher at a junior college in Maine, a surgeon in the Royal Canadian Navy, an assistant warden of a Texas prison and a teacher on a Maine island village."

Despite his ventures and adventures and being repeatedly charged with criminal allegations, he reportedly "never served jail time on any of the charges, either receiving probation or being acquitted."

A similar story is related in Catch Me if You Can (Dreamworks 2002) detailing the legend of Frank Abagnale, Jr. According to Britannica, Mr. Abanale claims to have cashed thousands of false checks, impersonated an airline pilot, and engaged in other chicanery. Some doubt the breadth of his claims and exploits.

So, it may be Hollywood fiction, or these two may each present some grain(s) of truth in their exploits. Tall tales can get that way. I once outran, on foot, a university police car and two very frustrated officers. That is a great story, but for another day, perhaps.

No, today is for Autumn Bardisa, a "Florida woman who posed as a nurse and treated more than 4,400 patients." According to Fox News, the 29-year-old "never held a valid nursing license." She used another nurse's name and license. 

When someone noticed her last name did not match, she claimed to have changed her name when she got married. She not only survived but also progressed in the nursing business, earning a promotion in January 2025. 

Despite providing care to many patients, the news reports no instances in which her care was alleged to be substandard or resulted in injury. Nonetheless, she was unlicensed and was eventually caught and arrested in August 2025.

Somewhat like Ferdinand Demara, at least on this outing, she will not serve any jail time. She pleaded guilty to "unlicensed practice of healthcare and fraudulent use of identification." The Circuit Court, in April 2026, "sentenced Bardisa to five years of probation and 50 hours of community service."

That is about one week of community service. So, several few days of building Habitat homes or organizing canned goods at a food bank. 

And, Bardisa "must also write a letter of apology to the nurse whose license number she used." Before sentencing, she also "forfeited a nursing license she obtained after her arrest." The plea specifies she will not work in "the medical field during her probation."

While that ends the current inquiry, the Fox News story ends with an encouragement for "anyone" who "may have been treated by Bardisa" to contact the local sheriff's office.

The parallels between Bardisa, Demara, and Abanale are intriguing. It seems incredible that people can be so successful as impostors. They present a public face, demonstrate knowledge or skill, and they fool us all. Well, at least for a bit. 

Perhaps Ms. Bardisa is not up to the Hollywood hype of the others. Nonetheless, she appears to have been a "Pretty Good Imposter." 

I have lamented our challenges with staffing our national medical needs. See Emergency, Acute, Urgent, and Routine (March 2026) and the posts cited there. To be clear, impostors seem like a poor approach to the problem. 

Probate Judge Suspended

Yahoo recently reported that an Alabama judge has been suspended. She is accused of postponing hearings and making a racist comment about an employee; well, those are the headline allegations, but see below. Some will question how such behavior merits suspension when other salacious behavior and lying to the chief judge resulted in only a private reprimand. See Lessons from Poor Behavior (May 2026). 

The postponed hearing, "without promptly arranging another," resulted in a patient remaining "hospitalized for another two weeks" and prevented the patient "from being home with her family for Thanksgiving." Many will see that as a poor outcome, both financially and personally. 

The judge is also accused of denying a court clerk's requested transfer to be closer to family; the employee was seeking this to be by "her sister’s deathbed." In the end, the sister passed, and the clerk was not able to reach her in time due to the traffic and congestion she had to fight from work to that location. 

The complaint also says the judge used racially insensitive language in referring to a court clerk. This was a reference to the clerk's race and was apparently made in at least somewhat of a public setting. There is no room for racism in judicial proceedings. 

Despite some contentions that context and intent matter, the fact is that the listener will decide, and the speaker cannot control any element of their perceptions. See also When is Profanity Appropriate? (April 2017); Honest Critics - Invaluable (November 2018); What was Said and Heard (August 2019); Subtle Sabotage? (February 2025); Extraneous and Inappropriate (May 2026).

The American Bar Association Journal (ABA) reports that the recent Alabama complaint alleges that

"she ran the probate court in an incompetent and unprofessional manner, routinely targeted attorneys and staff, and manufactured a backlog that created havoc in involuntary commitments"

She is also charged with

"a pattern of failing to follow the law by exhibiting bias against attorneys in her court; failure to disqualify from a case in which Blanchard was an attorney; and harassment, intimidation and retaliation against probate court staff."

1819News characterized the allegations as "horrifying." It quotes a "scathing" complaint that alleges

"Judge Blanchard's conduct has degraded the public's confidence in the integrity of the judiciary and brought the judicial office into disrepute."

1819News details seven charges:

1. Pattern and practice of failing to diligently discharge judicial duties
2. Pattern and practice of failing to follow the law
3. Pattern and practice of exhibiting bias against attorneys appearing in Judge Blanchard's court
4. Failure to disqualify from a case in which Judge Blanchard served as an attorney
5. Harassment, intimidation, and retaliation against probate court staff
6. Allowing other court officials, subject to Judge Blanchard's direction and control, to engage in harassment and intimidation of probate court staff
7. Failure to maintain professional competence in judicial administration

Any one of these, if proven true, would justify at least some intensive retraining and refocusing. Better diligence might be taught and learned. 

But there are some on the list that, if true, are likely beyond retraining. Following the law is not that difficult. Certainly, there are some tough cases, conflicting statutes, and shifting appellate authority. Nonetheless, consistently failing to follow the law is a troubling allegation. And competence in administration is also in this category. Nonetheless, all 7 are troublesome and disturbing.

Failure to disqualify or recuse in a case in which the judge previously provided representation is a no-brainer. Certainly, such a case might slip through the cracks (after 25 years on the bench, I do not begin to remember my cases as a lawyer; nonetheless, if someone pointed out such a conflict, I would be quick to jump ship). 

But, much worse, are the simple "do unto others" challenges that are more patent. The judge engaging in "Harassment, intimidation, and retaliation" or allowing others under their management "to engage in harassment and intimidation" is simply not acceptable. The same is true of having, much less exhibiting, bias. 

If demonstrated, these three strike at the very heart of the credibility and competency of the judge, judicial system, and judiciary. Critically, they are allegations, not convictions. Nonetheless, these are foundationally serious. 

In fairness, there will perhaps be observers who view lying to the chief judge, attending a political event, and engaging in an open and loud office love affair to be as problematic or poor behavior. They may point to the federal judge and say the state judge here is being treated unfairly. Lessons from Poor Behavior (May 2026). 

Nonetheless, each investigation must be independent, and the conclusions that are reached must be viewed primarily through the lens of that investigation, those facts, and those conclusions. Judges should strive to garner feedback in regard to perceptions of bias or worse (e.g., "harassment and intimidation"). 

They must put their best self forward each day. They cannot demean, fail to consider feelings or perceptions, or fail to be diligent and proactive. These pages keep finding their way back to judges who are alleged to have behaved poorly or less than competently. The news is persistent, relentless, and often critical.

Nonetheless, these are allegations, and not to be taken as any more than that. But the judge has to be concerned about the impact and effect of their performance and words. 

A Judge Too Busy

The Oregonian reported in April on a judge who expressed that she was too busy to do her job. Judge Adrian Brown was first elected to the circuit bench in 2020 and was running for re-election. She is a 2000 graduate of Lewis and Clark Law School. She complained she was "too busy on the campaign trail" to "oversee any trials."

The judge has reached out to the other judges, asking them to "take on her long-planned rotation staffing misdemeanor domestic violence trials this month." She explains that she did not plan on being so busy with her re-election and "would not wish this on any of us."

The Willamette Week ran the story, adding Judge Brown's observation that handling the trials and campaigning would be impossible. The "presiding judge" responded to her group message, reminding her that judges are obligated to do their jobs. She wrote:

“I would like to remind everyone that we, as public officials, must be ready and willing to do our jobs every day unless on vacation or out on sick leave.”

She added that campaigning is for "outside of work hours."

Judge Brown's perceived predicament stems from her anticipation of running unopposed. As a result, seemingly, she did not plan in advance to have leave time available for campaigning. In her initial plea for relief, she noted that an opposition candidate had filed a mere "30 minutes before the deadline," upending her perceptions and plans.

The Willamette Week report concludes that Judge Brown is "a particularly vulnerable incumbent" due to perceptions about her impartiality and the reactions of the District Attorney to her rulings. The District Attorney decided in 2025 to move "serious criminal cases" from her docket to other judges.

The story is illustrative of the potential challenges between fulfilling the judicial role and the demands of personal life. This is the work-life balance of which we hear so much.

Oregon, like other states, has a Code of Judicial Conduct. It includes various familiar provisions, though the organization is in "Rule" rather than "Canon" form.

Judges are to "act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the judiciary and the judicial system." Rule 2.1. Some might see a challenge in that, regarding the District Attorney's decision to publicly question impartiality. Impartiality is the Oregon Code at Rule 3.3.

The primacy rule is expressed similarly to other states, Rule 3.1:

"The duties of judicial office, as prescribed by law, shall take precedence over a judge's other professional activities."

That encapsulates the primacy of judicial responsibility. Judges are responsible for handling proceedings, writing orders, and managing dockets. The job requires being present each day for the expected an unexpected. Judges who are not in the office are not fulfilling that duty.

The Oregon Code directs "perform(ing) judicial and administrative duties competently and diligently." Rule 3.5. It also compels "cooperat(ing) with other judges and court officials in the administration of court business." But most compelling is the "Duty to Decide," which is paramount to the public responsibility of a judge:

"A judge shall hear and decide matters assigned to the judge, except when the judge permissibly disqualifies himself or herself or disqualification is required by Rule 3.10 or other law. " Rule 3.6.

It is amazing how many judges I have encountered over the years who ignore this duty to preside. They are quick to recuse or disqualify and to disregard their duty to "hear and decide matters assigned." Their focus and analysis may be difficult to comprehend.  

The assigned docket is that judge's responsibility. Nonetheless, as the Presiding Judge noted here, there will be impracticality of that when on "vacation or out on sick leave." Vacations can be planned, but sick leave is usually unexpected unless for some scheduled medical procedure. There is a distinction between the unpredictability of illness and the surprise of an election opponent. 

Finally, Oregon Rule 4, like other codes, requires a judge to "not participate in activities when the judge's conduct would: (A) interfere with the performance of judicial duties." That is, essentially, judicial duties come first for judges. The duties of being a judge take primacy over the privilege of running to be reelected as a judge.

In all, the outcome in this instance is not inconsistent with the provisions of many judicial conduct codes. The primacy of judicial responsibility, the duty to preside as assigned, diligence, and avoiding conflict are all common components of the various codes of judicial conduct.

Nonetheless, the focus in such a situation might be as simple as "public confidence in the judiciary and the judicial system." Does the judge's entreaty regarding reelection belong in an email to the other judges? Do the outside demands of campaigning, expected or not, rise to the emergent relief level that an illness or surgery would?

Ultimately, in this instance, the voters made their own decision about Judge Brown's service. The Oregonian reported later in May that she "lost her seat to (a) challenger" in the election, in an apparent landslide.  

Willamette Week reported that the outcome was unusual. It noted that judicial elections rarely draw any challengers. The defeated judge alleged the challenger "lied his way into office," and suggested she would "set the record straight." Asked to comment, the successful challenger declined. At least as yet, no further news story has been located regarding the judge or her defeat. 

Thus, there will not likely be any judicial qualification action regarding the email seeking support from peers to allow time for campaigning. That said, the request was curious at best. 

The Workforce Pipeline

I have written often about the next generation. They are as unique as any generation before them.  That sounds cliche, but each generation has been different from the last. Shaped differently by technology, economy, and more. We expect so much of them and always lament they are not like us. 

Fortune reported in March 2026 on a bipartisan group seeking to awaken America from the doldrums of complacency. They are ringing the clarion about students, education, and the future of our very economy. They are trying, but the message must be heard by so many and appreciated among a cacophony of other concerns and distractions.

The conclusion of this Bipartisan Policy Center is simple - the education system is broken. The "workforce pipeline" is compromised and that has implications for the workers, employers, and the rest of us who consume the various goods and services.

They are proposing a "national talent strategy," and I am doubtful they mean a new "Star Search" or "Someone has Talent" franchise. They have concluded that without such a strategy, in a rapidly evolving economic vortex, we are "headed towards severe economic instability."

That is both vexing and concerning.

This is not about artificial intelligence (AI), but that is one of the threats they cite. There will be the elimination of various jobs, and yet the advent of others. Are we focused on training people to make buggy whips?

For whatever reason, there is no mention of the isolation of youth, and demise of physical activity. The Fortune article makes no mention of social media and its impact on both soft skills and attention span. The pipeline is an analytical analogy, but what goes into the pipe bears greatly on what comes out the other end. 

As the value of college education is questioned in many quarters, and the workplace of tomorrow evolves, are we recruiting, channelling, and facilitating the needs of tomorrow's workforce?

The Policy Center group is focused on AI, remote work, the "gig" economy, education, and more. There are various challenbes, concerns, and perspectives. Some will jump to the solitary focus of how to raise taxes and spend the money.

Having recognized the problems, it will be a shame if the only solution is to shovel more money at the "lost Einsteins" that so many believe are being deprived of their shot at Harvard. While some see providing opportunity to all, "to discover and develop their talents," that battle cry has dumped billions into un marketable college degrees to our collective dismay and harm.

Almost certainly, education processes and foci must change. But that does not necessarily mean more resources or expense as much as it means reallocation. There may be less need for some facilities, institutions, and programs, but more demand for others.

In the end, there is little room for a "traditional college-only pathway," according to the Center. That ignores that there is little history for that pathway, and referring to it as "traditional" is both disingenuous and misleading.

The Center's focus on "options such as apprenticeships, technical credentials, short-term training programs, and opportunities for lifelong learning" is much more deeply rooted in "tradition" and human history that college has ever been.

If the challenges are to be met, that will be through frank and careful consideration of the realities of both the work at hand and the workforce required to address it.

The Center report notes that we "currently spend over $230 billion annually across 150+ programs with no cohesive strategy." If there is a better indictment of the U.S. Department of Education (DOE), with its $268 billion annual budget, that is hard to imagine.

Of the various authorities that might have invested in a "cohesive strategy," some might think DOE could have provided that introspection, analysis, and leadership. Imagine that we spend 4% of our national budget on the DOE, and another 4% on programs, and there is no "cohesive plan."

Sorry, that was sarcastic. There is no need to imagine. Apologies.

In the face of reducing the commitment to that money pit, the Center leaders believe it is time to raise public awareness and mobilize Americans to demand reform. Some in that effort believe that there can be consensus in the workforce pipeline challenge, and that the debate will not be polarizing.

Time will tell.