Always?

I recently read a headline from CNN Science. It noted, essentially, that the "Earth is spinning faster." That is eye-catching. The article proceeds with a discussion of "milliseconds" in each day. The concern is that some days are just over one millisecond, "less than 24 hours."

For clarity, a millisecond is one thousandth of a second. In numerical terms, it is 0.001 seconds. Most of us struggle to distinguish one second from the next, and this measure would have us divide "one Mississippi" or "one thousand one" into a thousand parts and find relevance in each. This seems much like examining a single grain of sand on a vast beach.

There are 24 hours each day, 1,440 minutes, 86,400 seconds, and 86,400,000 (86 million) milliseconds. One of those 86 million seems a curious concern. One millisecond per day does not equate to one second each year.

Nonetheless, there was a focus there on July 10. It was "the shortest day of the year so far, lasting 1.36 milliseconds less than 24 hours." If each day of the year were 1.36 milliseconds short, then the year would come out 496.4 milliseconds short, or roughly half a second. Believe me or don't we have data on this gathered by the "International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service" and "the US Naval Observatory."

The CNN author candidly concludes that this discrepancy is nothing new or unexpected. And, furthermore, that it "doesn’t have any obvious effect on everyday life." So, we might wonder why there is an "International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service" to keep careful track of these?

The author contends that these milli-fluctuations might someday have a cumulative impact on our "computers, satellites, and telecommunications." This is comparable, apparently, to the disaster in 2000 when all the world's computers stopped working because of the dreaded "Y2K problem, which threatened to bring modern civilization to a halt."

New flash for the younger generations - we were threatened, preached to, and disquieted as the millennium approached. The experts told us that in designing computers, we had shortcut our date references and that the computers would all fail us once the 19xx turned to a 20xx. Massive dollars were invested, both in computer programming and in our anxieties.

On New Year's Day 2000, the computers all remained functional. The planes continued to take off and land, the banking worked, and the world neither ended nor even changed much, despite the dire predictions. Perhaps the predictions were misguided or wrong? Possibly, the flurry of programming in the late 90s merely fixed all the potential failures?

Despite the "never mind" outcome of Y2k, there is now this concern among scientists regarding the shortened days, with a potential cumulative effect of almost one-half of a second this year. There is likely some reason this news story is not leading the headlines on social media.

The solution? Well, it is not a new problem. In reality, this planet has likely been experiencing these fluctuations since the dawn of time (Og and Grok likely simply did not notice). But, since 1972, the officials at the "International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service" have been periodically fixing the problem: "Since 1972, a total of 27 leap seconds have been added" to our days.

An extra second sprinkled in periodically keeps us all straight, much like a spoonful of sugar, perhaps. The experts may, eventually, remove a second for the first time. Despite the difficulty of making these findings either relevant or interesting, in the end, there is no real issue for concern here. Congratulations on reaching this far into a seemingly non-story.

Nonetheless, the scientific analysis in the article bears our consideration. One scientist is quoted regarding the impact of "the moon and the tides," which can cause the earth to "spin slower" at times. And these influences "compound ... the fact that during the summer Earth naturally spins faster."

Read that last scientific conclusion again, and think about it: "during the summer Earth naturally spins faster."

That pulled me back to third grade. I recall the revelation there that the world is a vast place, with some balances. The one we learned in third grade is that seasons are geography-specific. The third-grade example was that when it is winter in the U.S., it is summer in Australia. I suspect the teacher used Australia because of kangaroos, koalas, and other oddities that made the place resonate with our young minds.

Half a moment. That revelation would suggest, perhaps, that it is always summer somewhere. This is way more believable than "it is always sunny in Philadelphia," an axiom that I have personally witnessed debunked more than once. Then, if it is always summer somewhere, is the Earth rotating faster wherever it is summer at the moment?

Some are likely scratching their heads at this point. A few are hung up on the "summer somewhere" point and thinking of the old "it's five o'clock somewhere ..." Others are more openly screaming, "What does this have to do with workers' compensation?" No worries, I get that a lot.

Workers' compensation is all about science. There are instances in which no medical opinion is needed to establish the accident or injury, but it is nonetheless often required there. What are the probabilities for recovery, the extent of impairment, and the probable future care required? Science! What are the financial needs, the investment probabilities, and the loss ratios? Science!

Science is critical. I have been here before: Consensus in the Absence of Proof (January 2021); Tootsie Pops Make You Think (August 2021); Show Me The Science (September 2021); Science or Art (November 2023). Science should be replicable and predictable. The same experiment performed here in Paradise should produce the same result if it were performed instead in Australia. Not prediction, guess, or hypothesis—result, evidence, proof.

The workers' compensation system relies on medical opinions - a lot. The scientist's job is two-fold: (1) administer the science and (2) explain it to the rest of us. In that, the "summer somewhere" resonates. Perhaps my assumption is wrong—summer is not a constant. Perhaps my third-grade comprehension is too basic, and summer is actually more complex (or even a mere State of Mind, Surf School Dropouts, 2012).

But the real point is in (2) above. The scientist's job is to tell us about it. That is, explain it to us. Make your conclusion ("the planet spins faster when it is summer" somewhere) logical for us. Don't lay down broad, glossy statements and conclusions without the factual and necessary foundation. Explain not merely what you have concluded, but why and how you got there.

The scientist must remember that we did not all go to school to study their specialty (medicine, actuary, etc.). Some of us have only our third-grade exposure to seasons and our personal experiences (blueberries must be in season somewhere). The scientist must explain, educate, and guide us beyond the "faster in summer" and answer the broader questions, whether apparent or not.

1. How do you know it?
2. Why does it matter?
3. Is that opinion or fact?

We have been misled before (standing in the Philadelphia rain and pondering the word "always"). We have a breadth of knowledge and experiences, but not yours. We require your conclusions and your sound and useful explanations.

Reflecting on People in Crisis

One recent dark evening, I was helping a friend move some items and returned to their rental after dark. My friend had not been a tenant long and was reasonably unfamiliar with the neighbors.

As we pulled into the driveway, I noted a Dickensian character standing in the driveway across the street. Despite the temperate paradise weather, she was bundled in the kind of coat most Floridians don’t even own. She wore a large, brimmed hat with a band and flowers. 

She was surrounded by luggage, which had seen better days. She stared expectedly up the street, momentarily brightening at our approaching headlights, and then deflating as we pulled into the park. After unloading, my attention returned to this out-of-place observer. 

Before leaving, I approached to ask if she was OK. She explained, in a sonorous British accent, that her husband was on his way to pick her up. She gestured to the home behind her, explaining that it had been theirs, but that they had moved out some time ago.

I asked where he was coming from, and she conversantly referenced a town not too distant. She made comments about traffic and challenges, and seemed oriented to the neighborhood and the potential delays one might encounter traveling there. 

Somewhere in the course of the discussion, she began mentioning “him,” “them,“ “that man” (gesturing at the house), and representing confusion. What I believed to be logical inquiries were met with disjointed and scattered responses. I have spent much of my life focused on credibility and consistency, and this conversation was setting off alarms.

My friend denied knowing her or any of the neighbors. It was late in the evening. Windows were mostly dark. I was frankly at a loss to know what existed with this intriguing lady with a deep British accent. 

Whether from some deep default or bias, or through rational logic, I concluded that the best place to start was 911. My call was not well received, as the operator failed to perceive any urgency, let alone "emergency,” in the described circumstances. But for my complex, confused, and persistent inquiry, I suspect there would’ve been no response.

I spent another 10 minutes chatting about an amazing variety of topics with this lady until a county deputy arrived quietly. His demeanor began accusatory. His initial focus was on me and the tenant I was visiting. Despite the cell phone evidence that I was the 911 caller, the deputy was (over) diligent in reassuring himself. I posed no threat.

Over the years, I’ve heard of very few stories of inappropriate displays of the “Judge card.“ I have come to the conclusion that there is simply no appropriate moment for throwing that card, even if you think it might help. Humorously, my failure in that regard once led to criticism from a chief circuit judge, but that’s another long story. 

In short, I might likely have saved some time with that identification and this deputy, and I have reflected upon that often since. Nonetheless, no one was in acute distress, and he eventually turned his attention to the confused pedestrian. His training was apparent, as he strove to effectively establish details. Despite that, he met with as little success as I had.

As the conversation progressed, an SUV parked in a driveway several doors down. All the passengers entered the home, but the driver walked down the street inquiring about the deputy’s presence. He immediately recognized the lady and, without hesitation, began comforting and guiding her conversation.

The facts bore little resemblance to what she had related to us. With this neighbor's help, we learned that she lived in that house, that the “strange man“ was her husband of several decades, and that although she was often confused, she had never exhibited such a significant departure from reality.

The neighbor was sufficiently familiar to have contact information for a family member, and instigated a call as the ever-diligent deputy insisted on walking her into the home "for her safety." I really suspected this was as much to perform a welfare check on the Husband (who was found asleep, reclining in front of the television). 

My friend and I went back to our prior project, wrapping up, and I prepared to depart. I gleaned a great deal from the encounter, and have struggled since with how little I previously perceived.

How many in our neighborhoods are struggling with periodic confusion that may one day be such a radical break? Do all of them have even one trusted neighbor who can be counted upon as an accurate historian and reference? Do all of them have someone like that close who can call a family member? Do they have a family member who can and will be present in a 30-minute response? 

As important as these points may be, when the call comes in, will their local public officials respond patiently and carefully, or will they choose to argue about their definition of “emergency,“ as they did with me?

Despite news of decreasing life expectancy, there are many Americans living well beyond their memories. Much of that presents little real concern. The impacts manifest as lost or misplaced cell phones, keys, and the like. Inconvenient, but manageable.

Some, however, will struggle with far greater challenges. Instead of losing their keys, they will forget their purpose. In a perfect world, someone would notice the precursor and make predictions or take precautions. But in the real world, would predicting the moment of such a break be possible?

Months later, I returned to the same neighborhood. I noticed a "for sale" sign outside that home. The nice lady with the British accent and “that man“ obviously moved on to a different accommodation. 

As I write this post, I ponder whether I could respond better next time. It occurs to me that may depend on many variables: my information, the dispatcher, the responder, or even the degree of distress of the person standing in the driveway. 

There are many variables. The probability is that we will each encounter such situations. It’s worth thinking about. How do we react? Who do we contact? What information do we convey? Consider it before you find yourself there, in the dark, with someone who needs help, whether in your broad life journey, the workplace, or otherwise. 

Is this Life?

Is there a film that includes all of your favorite people? Is there a plot or script that you find intriguing and compelling? How about a soundtrack that has all the best hits? Is there some dialogue-drenched foray that draws you back repeatedly? Hollywood brings us escape, empathy, envy, and more. Nonetheless, it tends to be stylized, predictable, and even cliché. 

I write today about a movie that does not compel me for any of those reasons. Without a doubt, this film features some good sound clips—Major Tom (David Bowie, Trident Records, 1969) makes an appearance in a karaoke scene but is not even credited on the soundtrack. In truth, the Major Tom clip is a short and yet compelling element, in an odd manner.

The celebrities are frankly blasé in this film. There is no star-draw from my perspective. The writing (dialogue) is not itself persistently compelling, though one line at the end is memorable (below). To make matters worse, this film is a remake of a 1947 Danny Kaye classic movie. That gentleman was quite a movie star.

It is not per se an "ensemble cast" movie, yet somehow it is an ensemble movie. That is, without a real standout (star, song, directing, repartee), it works. I struggle to put my finger on why. The film is 2013's The Secret Life of Walter Mitty, and it is built around the demise of Life Magazine in 2000. 

The plot is simple. An American icon has reached the end of its days, after 64 colorful years. A magnificent and compelling window on the world, a portal through which generations viewed what they would never see in person, was closing. The "progress" of the internet and digital photography had drug a photographic historical icon to the mat. The movie is about change, technology, people, and more. 

Ben Stiller delivers a credible portrayal of the daydreaming Walter, pursuing a missing photograph and a larger-than-life photographer (Sean Penn) around the world. Neither performance is Academy Award material, but in the context, they are compelling; the movie is compelling. Well, to me. 

Adam Scott is the villain, as much as the internet itself is. He delivers a character just supercilious enough to be believable. He represents the new world, the next generation, a "Transition leader," charged with winding down a legendary print magazine dependent on negatives, paper, and postal delivery. His team is there to replace that time-honored, treasured legacy with a better, newer, digital substitute. The tension between history and the new is itself compelling.

Perhaps the film's draw is the photography. In the context of a dying photography magazine, there is irony even there. The cinematography has been described as "unique" and "expansive." There have been compliments regarding the lighting, composition, and scene selection. Some describe angles, and others credit visual effects. 

I know nothing of such things, but the scenery is compelling. The scenes in Iceland, though intended to portray a variety of other locales such as Greenland and the Himalayas, are most worthy of a look. Unlike so many films, the scenery has a leading role and is colorful, compelling, and memorable. The use of different angles and perspectives highlights the daydreaming. The broad message, perhaps, is that there is merit in periodically pausing to view the world around us. Or, perhaps it is that there is so much worth seeing. 

The theme is about change. An era is ending. That is reinforced with scenes, including one portraying the line to turn in employment credentials in exchange for a severance package. There is the destruction of Life's physical premises and the loading of trucks. An elevator scene between Mr. Mitty and his one subordinate reinforces the fragility and limited temporality of work relationships. The final scene at the iconic sidewalk newsstand is a barn burner of irony. 

Following my recent foray to the annual Workers' Compensation Institute, I found room to reflect on the conference through the lens provided by a happenstance review of Mitty. I have witnessed a great deal at the WCI over the decades, since my first trip in 1992. That would seem like 34 iterations, but I skipped one a few years back.

I fear that I, too, am watching the decline of a medium, similar to Life Magazine. Too many are glued to the new and shiny, the virtual, and the remote; as we adapt to that recent play-pretty, AI threatens further change as the next. The "here and now" crowd who likes to gather in person and who find it compelling is aging; we all are aging. 

We are all pressured with pure production, metrics, and efficiency. Nonetheless, we are drawn to interact. And the next generation seems less compelled to handshakes and conversation, gravitating instead to text and IM, isolation, and virtual relationships. 

I fear we are watching the demise of something noble, powerful, and important. A post-conference poll brought this to light, and I am grateful to WorkersCompensation.com for posting it on LinkedIn. The question was simple: "What did you find most useful" at WCI 2025?

I was disappointed in the 0% for information (only two of us voted). I am disappointed that only two of us voted. And, while there is much to celebrate in leadership and its development, I suggested an "other" instead. My vote is for "the community, interaction, and engagement." At the heart of it all, what matters is simply each other. If you don't buy that, you have missed the boat in my book. 

We, workers' compensation, are an ensemble. We may lack the blockbuster writing, directing, and big-name star power. We may not have the soundtrack, the cinematography, or the best CGI. And yet, we are an ensemble. The community in Florida workers' compensation is collectively nothing less than astounding, compelling, and sustaining. But only in collaboration—only as an ensemble—only in community. 

As I look back over my years and the much deeper academic dives I have taken into our workers' compensation history, I am convinced that community is the persistent critical element. There is a collegiality, commonality, and commitment in this community that bridges differences, unites spirits, and builds. That building is critical and calls us to pass this all on to the next generation.

Regardless of their affinity for the remote, the virtual, and the electronic, we must strive tirelessly to draw the next generation into the here, the now, and the interpersonal. That is our strength, the lifeblood of Florida workers' compensation, and our opportunities to attend, to interact, and to engage are priceless. 

As Walter Mitty encourages at the end of the film, "Put that on a plaque and hang it at your next job." It is worthy of our attention and recollection. It is worthy of our intense focus. 

What is a Donor?

What is a donor? What is the meaning of any word?

Is it all in the definitions? We have been there before, in the discussion of obesity in America. Some have suggested that the solution to the escalating volume of obese Americans would be to simply change the definitions. See Zen and the Art of Trial (November 2023) and What's in a Name (August 2020).

Now there may be some arguments for rethinking who is "obese." The National Institute of Health points out that there may be valid considerations of Eurocentrism regarding the body mass index (BMI) and our preconceptions regarding body habitus. That said, changing such a definition should come through introspection and science. 

These thoughts returned to me with the recent New York Times publication of a guest essay, "Donor Organs Are Too Rare. We Need a New Definition of Death." That piece, written by three physicians, is behind a pay wall.

Other publications have picked up the piece, affording access to the rest of us. The essential point is that there are two definitions of death recognized by medicine:

1. "Either the heart has stopped, or"
2. "The brain has ceased to function, even if the heart is still beating."

The author notes that "most donor organs today are obtained after brain death." This is complete cessation of function, "devastation of the whole brain." The complaint is that "brain death is rare," and there is a high demand for donor organs. The problem, from the author's perspective, is that too few are dying in a donation-friendly manner. 

The prevalence of "circulatory death" is said to be much higher, but with the cessation of circulation, "organs from people who die this way are often damaged and unsuited for transplantation." The authors therefore advocate that we "broaden the definition of death" to allow earlier harvest of donor organs.

BioEthics.com poses some intriguing questions about the use of tools to prolong circulation in an effort to preserve organs. The idea of restoring circulation to preserve organs is broadly interesting. It might also have some implications for advance directives and do-not-resuscitate (DNR) documents that are signed by many. 

Others contend that the proposal published in the N.Y. Times is advocating change "to allow patients to be killed for their organs." It is fair to say that there are some vehemently opposed to changing the definition of "dead." Who should make such a decision? Would it be subject to various state laws, and thus depend on where the patient is when a decision on death is to be made?

The questions here are difficult. There is some potential for expanding the availability of donor organs. But, there is also some potential for donors to be less-than-enamored with the effort to change the definition of "dead." Would the state law where the donor made the donor agreement matter more than the law in the state where the donor is at the time of deciding whether they are dead?

Might such a change result in fewer donor volunteers? If the definition were changed, would all those previously executed donor agreements remain effective? Are these contracts in the truest sense of the word? Likely not, as there is no quid pro quo, no "consideration" received by the "donor," a word that itself means:

one that gives, donates, or presents something

The donor agreement is far more likely a gift than a contract, and as such, one that could be validly revoked. 

Halfway

Halfway home. The WCI conference comes at us each year like a train barreling along the tracks. There is a great deal of variety, information, and opportunity. In our day-to-day, there are often various thoughts, people, and tasks competing for our attention. The trains often do not come at us in a single file or predictable line. 

This conference is no different. There are multiple tracks. A series of interests and foci proceeds on parallel tracks. Each is of varying interest and import depending on the observer. The observer can alter the outcome; see the Observer Expectancy Effect discussed in Unseen Influence: Unconscious Predisposition in Dispute Resolution (also available for download at dwlangham.com).

This conference begins with a singular focus that is philanthropic. Each year on Saturday, hundreds engage in volunteer efforts for Give Kids the World. I have written about it before: See Give Kids the World - Our Community (August 2018); Pre-Conference Thoughts at WCI (August 2019); Not the same, and yet . . . (August 2020); Our Hope for Tomorrow (August 2022); It Was Palpable (August 2023); WCI 2024 is Upon Us (August 2024). 

Sunday each year brings the launch of programming with the Professional Mediation Institute and its unparalleled programming. I am persistently amazed by the perceptions that this is a program for mediators. "Professional Mediation Conference." This track is just what it says.

Lawyers, risk managers, adjusters, and more engage in mediations daily. Each has a serious interest in mediating effectively. What better place to learn what works? How better to understand its challenges and opportunities than to listen to the mediators themselves? Missing this programming is a grave mistake for so many.

Sunday also brought the annual Kids' Chance Golf Tournament. This is a great place to meet and greet. I have enjoyed seeing people at this event since it began. There is so much community and conversation in this opportunity.

Monday brought the opening session. By the time the conference was "opened," events had been proceeding full-force for over 48 hours. That has always seemed somewhat incongruent to me, but what do I know? There were speeches and presentations. There were special guests, pictures, videos, and patriotism. But then the programming began in earnest. Throughout Monday, there were multiple tracks competing for attention.

The assortment of speakers, topics, and foci is amazing here. If the attendee cannot find something of interest, they are simply not looking, or they are in sensory overload.

I strove to identify some programs of significant import in Dave's Picks for WCI 2025 (August 2025). As usual, there were critics. It turns out that every single speaker, moderator, and organizer believes their own panel or presentation is (1) the best of them all and (2) of critical importance.

Each of them is absolutely correct—for someone. There is something here for everyone, and every presentation is ideal for someone in particular. That said, it is not possible to be in six places at once. My effort in Dave's Picks was to identify the best and most compelling in each time slot. That was not intended to hurt the feelings of those who organized other programs, but that was one effect. Hurt feelings are perhaps inevitable in a world of competing interests and competition? It has always bothered me that I was never selected for the Olympic team.

There was Monday night entertainment. In truth, I have rarely engaged in this. By the time Monday night arrives, I am reasonably exhausted. This year is no different. And then Tuesday dawns. A new day, but the sobering realization is that Tuesday morning really marks only the halfway point. Tuesday will be a full day of those various tracks, bringing you multiple trains at varying speeds and intensities. But they will not be idle.

Tomorrow brings respite. Wednesday is always the easiest because the end is in sight. We turn into the homestretch weary, but the finish line beckons. The programming tends to take a different tenor on Wednesday, but the intensity of the various tracks remains. The exhibit hall influence is gone, having closed Tuesday afternoon. The crowds begin to thin. And the end will be near. But Wednesday will include a great deal of interesting and compelling information.

Halfway. It is hard to contemplate.

I look forward to today's National Workers' Compensation Review program on predisposition. Download my Unseen Influence: Unconscious Predisposition in Dispute Resolution, and all of my free publications on dwlangham.com. I am also honored today to present on (1) artificial intelligence and (2) the AMA Guides in the NAWCJ Judiciary College. Not open to the public, but a great opportunity for adjudicators! 

"Welcome (back) to the Real World"

The title of this post is lifted from John Mayer's No Such Thing (Columbia, 2001). The lyrics proceed to conclude that there is no "real world," but perhaps it is mistaken. The workers' compensation community returns to the real world once again this week at WCI 2025. What is "real?"

In considering the potential for our brains to make assumptions and even leaps of faith, I have been fascinated by the study of predisposition or bias. It is both a threat to our intellectual engagement with challenges and problems and a great benefit to us in many ways. 

A critical point at the outset—eliminating predisposition (bias) is not possible, nor even desirable. Certainly, it is possible for us to identify and resist particular, discrete, and untoward predispositions. But eradicating predisposition per se is impossible. 

In a nutshell, it is predisposition (bias) that keeps us from eating cookies and ice cream for every meal—we know what is healthy (or think we do). There are predispositions that lead us to safer behavior. We suspect stoves are hot, knives are sharp, and more. We treat knives differently from spoons, but the fact is that many knives are not any sharper than spoons.

We may have predispositions that drive our professional engagement. One of the key interests is the "automation bias" that leads us to become infatuated with the latest technology. As noted in Unseen Influence: Unconscious Predisposition in Dispute Resolution:

"Virtually every professional maintains constant access to information on a smartphone or similar device. Information and connection have become addictive and self-perpetuating."

We certainly can be hyper-efficient in our digital world. But many question whether we would benefit more from in-person interaction and engagement. We see benefits in the in-person environment, as we will all experience this week at the WCI in Orlando. 

This is an annual opportunity to engage in an amazing assortment of interpersonal interactions. There is a face-to-face on Sunday at the OJCC Meet and Greet (5:00 p.m. in the Anaheim, Boston, and Atlanta rooms). There is an amazing raft of breakout sessions and lectures. See Dave's Picks for WCI 2025. 

There are also literally hundreds of people wandering the exhibit hall, restaurants, and hallways of the venue hotel. Stick around the workers' compensation community for a short time, and many of them will increasingly become familiar. The vast majority of them are welcoming, gracious, and inclusive. 

Don't be discouraged when one of them does not recall your momentary interaction a year ago. This is a large community, with many faces, names, and companies to remember. Be gracious, reintroduce, and keep engaging. 

I was particularly struck in a recent unCompLex podcast when a guest noted that there is some reluctance among the "newer" community members to engage. This may be their generational preference for tech or the diffidence or shyness experienced by most people in new settings and groups. 

This may also be influenced by some unfamiliarity with the "old folks club." Regardless, the next generations need to understand that most of us "old folks" would be flattered and pleased to meet you. We see you as the future. We welcome you to this space. We would enjoy meeting and learning more about you. 

In other words, (re)engage and renew with those you know, but do not hesitate for a moment to approach and engage anyone in this community. Do so repeatedly, and be patient in growing familiarity. 

Look for friendly faces. You can always get a picture (called a "Ralphie") with Mr. Gonzalez. He has a million or more, including some with imaginary characters. That epitomizes the eagerness for community engagement. Not everyone will ask you to join for a selfie, but they are welcoming and engaging nonetheless. Give them a chance. 

My thoughts above regarding the "automation bias" might seem to be a criticism of tech. Make no mistake, I am not deriding technology. The implementation and leveraging of these tools, including video interaction, have altered our world and community amazingly. They offer benefits, efficiencies, and suitable applications. 

But what do we gain by being in person?

Foremost, there is growing evidence that we enjoy and respond to "face-to-face communication." It is a benefit to our mental health, engagement, and emotional well-being. An interesting study supporting that was published in the wake of the pandemic lockdowns; see Face-to-face more important than digital communication for mental health during the pandemic. There are many similar references to the benefits of being with and engaging with people in person. 

Second, there is likely a positive reaction for many of us because we are familiar with the in-person. We grew up in a world that necessarily included face-to-face. That may have been planned, like a conference, or spontaneous. We predate the advent of modern tech and all that it implies and imposes. 

We "old folks" did not grow up shopping online and thus often saw people we knew at the store. We learned in classrooms, worked in offices, and went to parties. We walked to the courthouse and saw people on the street. We visited theaters instead of streaming in our living rooms. We could not "IM," or email," those did not exist. 

The simple truth is that tech has come with convenience and efficiency, and an erosion of some interactions and engagement. This is not to say either is inherently better, but I conclude each has its proper place. 

Connectivity is beguiling, convenient, and empowering. The virtual world enhances efficiency and, in some ways, efficacy. But it is, in the end, virtual. It is a reflection of, not a substitute for, what is real.

There are feelings, emotions, and reactions we get from in-person interactions and experiences that are simply not present to the same degree on a video screen or phone call. 

An irony you may notice at the WCI is that despite coming from great distances, expending time and resources, some will nonetheless remain focused primarily on their devices. In breakouts, receptions, and hallways, they will remain tethered to some virtual alternative despite being in the midst of a sea of people gathered in pursuit of a singular focus—our workers' compensation community. 

Resist the "automation bias" at WCI this week. Join me in the Tuesday morning National Workers' Compensation Review program on predisposition (Grand 8A, 09:55 Tuesday, August 19). Stop me in the hall, whether I know you or not. Come to the OJCC Meet and Greet (5:00 Sunday, Anaheim, etc.). Be forgiving if you introduce yourself for the third time and I don't recognize you (I would like to blame this one on old age, but I simply struggle with names. Faces, not so much). 

There is a great opportunity this week to build and renew real human relationships and have substantive interactions. It helps you, helps me, and builds a better community. Let's take advantage of that and get back to the tech and devices next week?

Remember my recommendations for the Comp-savvy in Dave's Picks for WCI 2025. See you soon. 

Context?

There are choices to make in this life. To some extent, we hear criticisms of choices and lamentations of behavior. Social media recently erupted with a video of a violent interaction in an American city. The local news has described it as a "violent brawl" resulting in "pretty serious injuries."

The local police chief took to the press to explain the absence of authorities on the scene. She lamented that of all the observers of this 03:00 event, only one called 911 to report the melee. The chief was critical of that minimal engagement and seemingly of those who both recorded and posted the interaction.

The news reports also include allegations that the officials who answered the 911 call were less than receptive. One claimed, “The dispatcher was rude and dismissive.”

The video went "viral," and comments and commentary on social media were less than complimentary of the assailants and the city of Cincinnati. The mayor noted that the "attack (was) horrific and violent" and was unacceptable. Seemingly responding to social media, the chief was nonetheless adamant that she would not be discouraged from visiting downtown.

                             Courtesy CNN.

Arrests were reportedly made. Then more. The Cincinnati Inquirer most recently said seven were arrested on a variety of charges. 

One aspect of the chief's conference was intriguing. She explained that "social media and media posts in general 'do not depict the entire incident.'" That is likely a universal truth, as any recording is only inclusive of that moment, any moment. She continued, describing the viral video, "'That is one version of what occurred,' she said. She said posts show 'one side without context.'"

Context? The video shows a brutal assault. Graphic violence. One might wonder what context the chief of police would argue excuses or explains such violence. What could have happened before the video began that could justify the brutality of this attack? 

Some suggest that one of the victims was the first to assault or batter one or more of the eventual assailants. There is reportedly a video depicting some altercation, and that victim may have struck or insulted someone before the brutal attack. Who knows the full story until the investigation concludes?

In any event, is there justification for the beating? A woman who was beaten, and who has not been accused of striking anyone, recalled wondering if she had died. News Nation reports on her allegations of physical and emotional injury from the attack, and her feelings regarding reactions from both the public and city officials. 

Can the same event produce different conclusions? Will society deem it acceptable that someone is beaten mercilessly because he slapped someone, and unacceptable that the Samaritan woman was beaten similarly? Will there be an absolute outcome that beating is not an appropriate response in any of the recorded or proven context?

The stories reminded me of conversations I have had in recent years regarding the implications of workplace violence. Some in the world of workplace safety and workers' compensation believe that violence in the workplace is increasingly prevalent. That topic raises issues of work-relatedness in the context of whether resulting injuries are or are not compensable.

Some contend that violence at work, that is, on premises, should be presumptively work-related. They advocate for inclusion in workers' compensation, whether related to the work (a disagreement over production or other activity) or not (an argument about last weekend's football game). These proponents' arguments perhaps reflect differing perspectives on workers' compensation scope, or maybe only differences regarding burdens of proof. 

The news soon provided another apt example to illustrate the issue, also involving violence. ABC11 in Danville, Virginia, reported that a part-time elected official was at his full-time workplace, a media company. He was attacked, covered with gasoline, and set on fire as he attempted to flee. People reports his recovery will involve about 6 months in the hospital and then years of ongoing care. 

The alleged attacker was arrested, and the victim "was airlifted to a regional medical facility for treatment." The news confidently reported that "it appeared the attack stemmed from a personal matter and was not politically motivated." 

Then, if unrelated to the media company's business, would the attack be covered by workers' compensation since it was on the employer's premises? When a dispute unrelated to the workplace happens to occur in the workplace, should there be coverage?

There are interesting arguments in both directions. Those who argue for the inclusion of such violent acts focus on two points. First, they note Someone has to Pay (May 2016). That is a valid point, but perhaps oversimplified?

Then, they rely on an old tort law concept that the employer takes an employee as they find them. This argument is, essentially, that every employee comes with issues, whether a preexisting orthopedic condition, a predisposition to infection, or otherwise, as does every customer who walks through the business's door.

Either of those is a foundation for argument and discussion. The opposing view is that unless the violence is demonstrated to relate to the work, then mere presence is not a reason for the cost to be passed to the business, and thus to its customers. 

As all that filtered through my brain, a contemporaneous Fortune headline caught my eye: "A 29-year-old Google engineer was killed by a falling tree branch." Their "generous employee death polic(y) will provide death benefits regardless of work-relatedness." The story says "Google will pay half of an employee’s salary to their spouse for 10 years—a benefit that has no tenure requirement." Thus, the debate of inclusion or exclusion has multiple potential facets. 

That employer will pay benefits, incur costs, and pass that to its customers regardless of relatedness. It has chosen to do so in its own "death policy," not through some statutory construct or burden of proof. In that, there is an illustration of the potential for diverse approaches and disparate benefits. 

In a world that includes senseless violence, there will be ongoing discussion of the potential for workplace violence. There will be litigation in various jurisdictions with a focus on their definitions of "arising out of." And, in some states, there may be legislative focus on whether workers' compensation will include violence and whether the frequency of such violence is increasing or merely increasingly noticed. 

In the broadest context, there may be discussion of plans like Google's. That may include the implications of costs associated with investigation, proof, and litigation. Some might contend that the simpler outcome—pay everyone, is more streamlined than burdens, trials, and investigations. 

Or, will context be the critical point? If it is, then how will that be sorted in events, unlike Cincinnati or Virginia? Those that are unwitnessed or unrecorded? Will the decisions be left to implication, inference, and suggestion? Will there be presumptions or other legal constructs to guide the analysis and aid in the conclusions?

In other words, how will context be established, distinguished, and weighed? 

Dave's Picks for WCI 2025

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

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

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

Sunday, August 17, 2025 9:00-5:00 

        9:00-5:00, Grand Ballroom 8B

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

Sunday, August 17, 2025 5:00-6:00 

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

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

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

Separate registration and fee required 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 Tuesday, August 19, 2025 10:00-11:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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