Is Privacy Gone?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disqualification

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

J. David Parrish

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"the consummate gentleman lawyer."

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

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

"A great man and practitioner!"

"Good lawyer. Good man."

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

Making Legacy

John Archibald Wheeler (physicist) postulated that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Mail Changes Again

There has been an important change at the Post Office. The law has come to rely on the Post Office and its processes. There is one critical legality, known as "the Mail Box rule" that is of particular import, as described by the Legal Information Institute:

"the default rule in contracts law for determining when an offer was accepted. Under the mailbox rule, an offer is considered accepted the moment the offeree mails their letter, rather than when the offeror receives the letter in the mail."

But how would we ever know when a letter was mailed? That might be of interest in other settings. See Rule 60Q6.108 regarding "service" of pleadings. Because the workers' compensation discovery rules reference them specifically, it may also be beneficial to review the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure regarding discovery. 

The Postal Service is changing (changed last December). Its old rule had it "cancel" your postage stamp with a "postmark" that had a date included. That date reflected the day you mailed the letter. A "postmark" had a somewhat venerated standing in the law and litigation. But, that day is ending. The rules are changing. 

The United States has long had a storied mail system. Over time, it has had its doubters, see Neither Rain (September 2025). One of my first blog posts was Will the Postal Service be our Model for Reform? (August 2014)(it is humbling to think I have been rambling here for over a decade). 

There have been various criticisms over the years, with delivery delays, price increases, and other complications. That said, for less than a dollar, they will pick up paper from wherever you are and deliver it to wherever you want, thousands of miles distant, or next door. It is somewhat amazing. Despite this, there can be delays. USA Today reported in 2024 on a letter that took over 80 years to be delivered. Interesting? Yes. Uncommon? Yes. 

The so-called "Mailbox Rule" has spread into more than contracts. It may be of import in Florida Appellate proceedings. In re Amends. to Fla. Rules of App. Proc., 183 So. 3d 245, 266 (Fla. 2014). And a variety of other instances may require mail. See e.g., sections 440.15(4)(b), 440.185(3). 440.185(7)("if it is postmarked and mailed"), 440.192(1) and (8), 440.25(1) and (4). And, the Florida Supreme Court has concluded that delivery to others may satisfy it, in limited circumstances. See Griffin v. Sistuenck, 816 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 2002). 

A quick search of Florida law found references to postmarks in dozens of appellate decisions on topics from elections to unemployment compensation to auto insurance. There is mention of the word "postmark" in various rules and statutes. 

The new rule, reported by only a few news providers as yet, will refine the meaning of "postmark." From now on, that date it prints on your mail will "mean the date that the USPS processes the item." What if there is delay in processing? What if there is a dispute about when something was mailed, or received, or opened, or ignored? CNN published about stored mail during the pandemic. 

There will be some who see a falling sky in this new regulation and definition. But, there is some practical advice available. The critical point is that proof of mailing remains available, but the cost (in time or dollars) has increased. 

Some thoughts:

1. You can take your mail to the U.S. Post Office (time). There are clerks there who can manually acknowledge your mail. People have done this for years with particular mail. But just because they can does not mean they will. Postal clerks have much to do and long lines can be troublesome. (CBIZ suggests if they are unwilling because they say they are too busy, "present ... at a post office retail counter and pay for the postage at the retail counter."
2. You can send your mail with a certificate of mailing (fees apply). This will likewise involve going to the U.S. Post Office (time) and standing in line. "Proof of mail confirms only that a piece of mail was accepted by the post office on a certain date."
3. You can send your mail with a request for proof of delivery (fees apply), called Return Receipt. Again, this will require time. 
4. You may choose to rely on your own postmark, using your own postage meter. Noting the Postal Service mark is more accurate, there is authority for the effect of your meter mark. JPMorgan Chase Bank, Nat. Ass'n v. Bigley, 120 So. 3d 1265 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2013)(some may see similarity with Griffin). Note that having a private meter also involves expense. 
5. In some instances, you might rely instead on a package service that provides tracking and proof of delivery services. 

In terms of legal proceedings, care and attention to rules and statutes may be critical in any decision regarding options. The care and attention advice is commended. Furthermore, change is not new. See Evolution and Recognition (January 2019) and Nero May be Fiddling (April 2017). There is no singular "answer" regarding reaction to the new Postal Service rule and definition. 

In large part, the age of e-service will mean that few pages are transmitted with envelopes, stamps, and trucks anyway. But, particularly with the unrepresented, see Pro Se (January 2026). Lawyers, litigants, and businesses are going to have to think about the delivery of mail, their need for proof of mailing, and adjust and adapt to the new rule accordingly.

Pro Se

A recent social media post provided an intriguing insight into the struggle of a pro se litigant. It was titled How I Outmaneuvered Two Legal Teams With Ivy League Degrees. The tone is upbeat and energetic, but it is not a step-by-step "how-to" of the litigation process. That said, the author concedes, "There aren’t many guides for pro se defendants, especially in complex cases."

That resonates. I am also not aware of resources that are concise, complete, and comprehensible. The law can be very complex and nuanced. It is often in those nuances and periphery that the challenges become difficult obstacles.

The OJCC publishes some helpful information. On the front of the website (www.fljcc.org), there is a link to "represent yourself" (https://www.fljcc.org/JCC/RepresentYourself.asp), which leads to some general information that may be helpful. It is also not a step-by-step "how-to," but it provides some access to authority and information. There are also a variety of links on the OJCC "Resources" page for education and reading. 

The author of How I Outmaneuvered concluded as a premise that she was "statistically" prone to failure. That statement was not supported by facts or figures, but it rings true. Cornell University published a study of 20 years of federal court data, concluding:

"around 12% of pro se defendants received final judgments in their favor while pro se plaintiffs won only 3% of final judgments."

The Cornell article suggests that this might implicate the pro-se litigant, but may also be a reflection on the cases that they litigate. The authors note:

"One explanation for this imbalanced outcome is the attorney contingency fee system. Many times, lawyers work on contingency fee bases where they receive fees only when their clients win. Due to this system, lawyers favor representing clients with stronger cases while parties with weaker cases remain unrepresented."

This explanation perhaps provides some insight into litigation generally. It may also reinforce some level of pessimism regarding the challenge of self-representation; it may support the How I Outmaneuvered author's conclusion of being "statistically" prone to failure and her conclusion that "being pro se wasn’t a choice." It is likely that there are some who choose to self-represent and others who simply cannot locate a lawyer willing to take their case.

The How I Outmaneuvered author makes several interesting suggestions for pursuing success. First, that procedure matters. She notes that there are tribunal rules and processes that matter. She concludes that "Most people lose not because they’re wrong, but because they miss a procedural step." This is an important point.

In Florida workers' compensation, there is merit in knowing the Chapter 60Q Procedural Rules, which may be self-evident. However, there is also merit in the discovery portions of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure that are specifically incorporated ("as provided in the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 60Q6.114). There are other incorporations worth review. 

The entire Florida workers' compensation system is statutorily created. This includes definitions, benefits, defenses, processes, and procedures. I am persistently amazed when lawyers who practice this law admit that they have never read this statute cover to cover. That exercise would be a wise investment by someone representing clients or themself. 

Litigation often requires timely and complete filings (documents). The path from dispute to determination may involve various instances of judicial decisions. Those decisions will likely be prompted by a motion, which results in a response, and then a decision. Too often, there is a misunderstanding of that interaction. Many find it difficult to understand this progression: motion, response, order. Adapting to its cadence may be helpful. 

The How I Outmaneuvered author suggests that there is value in recognizing the importance of rules. She notes that

"Every jurisdiction has its own expectations. Every case type has its own process. And every judge has their way of doing things"

The rules may be critical in any case or any situation within a case. The OJCC rules are published on the website (https://www.fljcc.org/JCC/rules/). Judges in the administrative process of workers' compensation are not supposed to have "local" rules. Judges should follow the published rules. Those who self-represent should be curious about the judge assigned to their case, ask questions when possible, and study prior decisions when possible. 

In this vein, the How I Outmaneuvered author's advice includes studying "the judge's previous orders." There is merit in that. The OJCC publishes all trial orders in a searchable database (https://www.fljcc.org/JCC/searchJCC/searchOrders.asp). This empowers anyone to review the orders of a specific judge (use the judge's name as a search term) and can be narrowed by topic (add the title of a specific benefit as a search term).

Thus, if someone wanted to view all of my orders that mention permanent total disability, the terms would be "Langham" and "permanent total disability." The quote marks being included in the query would be helpful in narrowing results. This kind of search and reading may be time-consuming, but may also provide great insight. 

Those are only final or "trial" orders. However, all of the orders issued by workers' compensation judges are public records. The litigant can visit the public dockets of cases and access the various orders entered, including procedural orders. These are not categorized by topic, and so finding specifics may be difficult. But, reading such procedural orders may help the pro se party understand the process and outcomes generally. 

While those cases may be accessed by searching for a case number, it is also possible to simply use "case attributes" to search for cases assigned to a particular judge. Visit https://www.fljcc.org/JCC/searchJCC/searchCases.asp. The How I Outmaneuvered author says that with such study, "Patterns emerge quickly. Strategy becomes less emotional and more mechanical."

She also seemingly cautions against emotion. Through her study and engagement, she managed to "treat() the litigation like a structured chess match, (and) the other side lost their advantage." That is an interesting point. 

It is likely that lawyers involved in litigation are emotionally removed from the dispute. The case is a job, which will be followed by another, then another, and so on. The pro se litigant is likely to have one case, and it will likely be more personal, emotional, and therefore difficult. The study and chess match advice may therefore have merit, despite the challenges of trying to avoid emotion.

The How I Outmaneuvered author perhaps provides some promise or at least premises for the self-represented. There may be merit in studying her perceptions or in diving deeper with research on the reality of being pro se (such as the Cornell article above) or internet queries as to why pro se litigants have not prevailed. 

That said, pro se litigants must remain wary of Artificial Intelligence (AI). There are many platforms that provide insight and even drafting assistance. The pro se litigant has to know that those tools often produce hallucinations (case and statute citations that are not real). The litigant must remember that such programs may produce valid authority that is nonetheless not applicable in their state, their case, or a particular dispute or situation. Be very wary of what an AI tells you. Lawyers and judges have been in trouble using AI. A list of my AI posts is here. 

People should understand that what they put into such programs, in their "prompts," may become public information. It is possible that your private details may be shared by the AI with others. Critical points not to share are the same as you would not share generally: name, date of birth, social security number, contents of medical records, financial information, and more. In short, these AI tools can be very dangerous and should be used very cautiously, if at all. 

Knowing the mistakes or shortcomings of others may educate and empower those who are striving to prevail today. My advice to those who would represent themselves includes:

1. Strive to understand what laws and rules apply to your dispute.
2. Read the applicable statutes.
3. Read the applicable procedural rules—more than once. 
4. Listen carefully to opposing parties, counsel, and the judge.
5. Take notes during hearings, depositions, and mediations.
6. Ask questions.
7. Google search things like "help for pro se litigants" and "tips for pro se litigants." 
8. Read much, think about advice critically, and consider seeking help from Legal Aid. lawyer referral services, or similar community services.

All that overviewed, free of charge, remember that nothing in this blog is legal advice. No relationship of attorney and client is created by your reading here, nor even suggested. If you need help, you may want to consult an attorney. For help with that, consider The Florida Bar Lawyer Referral Service, or similar services in your own state or community. 

Not Always an Accident

Workers' compensation is a system designed to protect employers and employees from "unexpected events happening suddenly." That phrase, or one like it, is featured in various statutes across the country. The Florida version is

“'Accident' means only an unexpected or unusual event or result that happens suddenly. Disability or death," section 440.02(1)."

But what if the event is neither unexpected nor particularly unusual? What if the event is even intentional?

I had thoughts on this recently as a news story evolved around workplace "hazing." The event resulted in criminal charges of "kidnapping, robbery, and battery" against multiple workers. The victim is reportedly back at work, and the alleged perpetrators are seeking opportunities for remuneration elsewhere ("fired").

As with too much today, the alleged incident is said to have started with social media. The victim apparently had a dance video on his phone, and his coworkers "began taunting ... about the video." As a rhythm-challenged person, I can identify with this. This taunting allegedly led to violence perpetrated against the victim. This, according to WFTV. Further details are in an earlier WFTV report.

I spare the details, but if the allegations are true, the "battery" portion may be readily perceived. Hitting people is not a great idea in any circumstances. My students often struggle with "battery" and accepting that merely touching someone could lead to arrest. A recent People story about a flight attendant supports that. 

Admittedly, there is nothing in the reporting on the recent hazing that suggests this is an instance of work injury or even that medical care was required. Some batteries are worse than others.  Nonetheless, the situation described reminded me of several cases I litigated eons ago in a galaxy far, far, away (Jacksonville). One of those was a severe enough beating to require significant medical care. See The Cement Fight and the Handmaiden Mischief (March 2016).

Does the workers' compensation law consider the potential that a coworker might be responsible for, or contribute to, an injury? The right place to begin such an analysis is section 440.11, the "exclusivity" provision. This exclusivity is seen by many as the main benefit that employers enjoy from workers' compensation.

What is less discussed is that this section provides "the same immunities from liability (for injury) enjoyed by an employer" to "each employee of the employer" in many or even most instances. Thus, coworkers who contribute to an "accident" enjoy some protection from civil (tort) liability, just as the employer itself does.  

But, there is an important exception that follows in that same statute section:

"Such fellow-employee immunities shall not be applicable to an employee who acts, with respect to a fellow employee, with willful and wanton disregard or unprovoked physical aggression or with gross negligence when such acts result in injury or death or such acts proximately cause such injury or death"

So, if an employee beats a coworker, there is at least some chance that the workers' compensation law will not protect the beater from a lawsuit by the beatee. 

Finally, there is also a broad provision that might preclude the payment of workers' compensation in such a beating. Section 440.09(3) might preclude the beatee from receiving compensation if the injury arose in an instance where the beatee began as the beater (the "aggressor"). 

Thus, the analysis can be complex at times. Nonetheless, there is the potential for violence in the workplace to create workers' compensation liability for the employer and potentially tort liability for coworkers. It is all worthy of review and consideration.

Making History

Forrest Gump paraded a variety of "Mama always said" quotes past us. Two stick in my head:

"Stupid is as stupid does."

"life is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get."

I progress back and forth between these two recently, as I read the 1984 decision of the Florida Supreme Court in The Florida Bar v. Lancaster, 440 So. 2d 1019 (Fla. 1984). It reminds me of both. And, it makes me reflect on How Will You Be Known (December 2015) and Do You Care about Reputation? (June 2023). Is there something more valuable for an attorney than reputation?

The concept of reputation also made me think of a recent Associated Press (AP) story about a judge robbed in her home. Her husband is described as "a former attorney," "disbarred," and "taking" money. There are more flattering accolades provided, but these adjectives overshadow any description.

Back to 1984. In Lancaster, the Court was provided a referee report that recommended disbarment. The lawyer instead received a two-year suspension. It all seems to have started with a boat, some attempt at concealment, and influencing witnesses. There was apparently some debate about who owned the boat.

Attorney Lancaster admitted the boat was in his backyard, and that he was suspicious that his roommate's ownership or possession might raise questions. When the state attorney made inquiries about the boat, Lancaster later admitted that "he lied about his knowledge" of some alterations to the "number on the boat."

There was a surreptitious recording introduced as evidence. It was obtained by the roommate (who allegedly altered the number), wearing a "body bug" microphone in the home shared with Lancaster. That issue, in the style of lawyers, became more about the admissibility of the evidence than the substance of the recording. Lancaster asserted it was inadmissible, and the referee disagreed.

The Supreme Court agreed with the referee, describing that bar proceedings were not the same as criminal proceedings. The transcript of that conversation included details regarding "stick(ing) together" and investigating "whether ... the boat was stolen" and how to engage with the seller of the boat, who might be a witness in the Florida case.

There was some allegation that attorney Lancaster might have sought to have a witness "alter his story to assist Lancaster," and to encourage another witness "not to testify." Neither of those seems very flattering. 

Against this backdrop, Lancaster presented witnesses who said various "workers' compensation ... claimants ... would be without assistance (of counsel) if Lancaster were suspended." Furthermore, there was evidence that Lancaster belonged to a local community service organization. These mitigations of community engagement and involvement were perhaps critical. 

The Florida Bar recommended a suspension, the referee recommended disbarment, and the Court imposed a suspension. It concluded "that Lancaster had conspired to influence a potential witness not to testify at his trial." It concluded that evidence supported "Lancaster ... (lied) to a law enforcement official."

What a lawyer, or anyone, might consider is that there is the potential for dishonesty to become a reputation. The odds of this are perhaps increased when your example is brought before the state's highest court and published for all to read in the Southern Reporter. The case of The Florida Bar v. Lancaster will be available on the internet for generations to come. 

A lawyer might similarly be cautious about counseling witnesses or encouraging them not to appear. There may be relevance in the juxtaposed potentials of Forrest Gump: "You never know what you're gonna get," and Lancaster might have gotten no punishment or publicity. There is always that potential when electing to proceed to trial. However, you may have the opportunity to have your name published forever in the state's case law. "You never know." 

In deciding to mislead or misdirect, any witness must know the potential. Obfuscation, misdirection, or falsity may steer a decision in an unexpected or unwanted direction. "You never know." 

And, in that event, you may simply leave posterity with the decision of whether the action, the response to being caught, or the outcome was smart or not. Reputation is built one single act at a time, but can be destroyed in a moment. 

In the end, it is your reputation and your history. How will you be known? Do you care? Should you? Over what, a boat? A boat that may be your roommate's? A boat that is at least not yours and not your concern? Is it different if there is a shot at lots of money, as in the AP story? At what value is your integrity at risk or for sale?

The entire situation is curious, and its machinations and outcome merit consideration. How many instances of poor judgment or mistakes are worth the risk? 

Dunning Kruger

We close a year of change and challenge. We face a future of uncertainty and change. We are fools if we do not periodically consider and contemplate our past, present, and future.  

My grandfather was born in 1903 on a farm in rural Indiana. That state, and much of the rest of North America, had been divided with imaginary lines. That all began just over 240 years ago with the Land Ordinance of 1785, which standardized the measure and description of geography. This process established "a cadastral grid."

Yes, America is divided into a great many little square boxes. Land is categorized into states, counties, and townships. The townships are 6 miles on each side, so 36 square miles. Each of those square miles is a "section," which is 640 acres. 

With an amazing lack of creativity, those are divided into "quarter sections," which are 160 acres each. And, to be consistent in the blaise, those are divided into "quarter quarter" sections that are 40 acres each. That is where the old adage of "40 acres and a mule" comes from. 

If you want to experience this property survey first-hand, travel to rural Indiana (and a great many other agricultural meccas), and you can actually drive the squares. Roads have been laid out in these places, and they are literally a mile apart (sections), with one of them often named "Base Line," which delineates the centrality of that road.

In 1930, there were family farms of 40 acres, but 80 acres was likely more prevalent. In 1930, "more than 11 million Americans worked on farms," about 21% of the working population. The first tractors had come to agriculture in 1868, but the first gasoline-powered tool came in 1887, with a production run of "six of the machines." 

There were other innovators. Case entered the market in 1894, followed by Hart-Parr, Ford, and more. "After 1910, gasoline-powered tractors were used extensively in farming." Extensive, but also expensive. 

For many, their access to mechanization came later. In 1923, the venerable Farmall entered the market, a "revolutionary design that will change farming forever" that actually "can replace horses." The International Harvester company was producing 200 McCormick-Deering Farmall tractors daily by 1930. And yet, not every farmer could afford one. 

Pause there to consider the timing. 1868 to 1887 (19 years), to 1894 (7 years), to 1910 (16 years), to 1923 (13 years), to 1930 (7 years). Not exactly an overnight cataclysm. Gasoline tractors did not change the world in a day, a year, or even a decade. They did, however, change the world. 

The tractor brought leverage. One person with a tractor could do much more than with a horse. And the tractor never got tired (though maintenance was required) and did not need to be fed, watered, and rested. And soon, the age of the tenant farmer and the 40-acre farm was quickly over. By 1950, the average farm was 205 acres, and by 1969 it was 400 acres (over half a section).

The result? First, there were many unemployed "farm hands," physical laborers transitioning from working in agriculture. They sought other work. See Yesterday (November 2025). Next, there were fewer farmers as the mechanization increased, technology was further leveraged, and the farms grew.

There was a draw to other work, manufacturing, information, and more. Thus, there is history of vocational disruption on large scale (21% of American workers were farming). We all tend to underestimate our personal ignorance. This is the Dunning-Kruger Effect, see Langham, Unseen Influence: Unconscious Predisposition in Dispute Resolution (2025). To paraphrase, this "cognitive bias of illusory superiority" holds that "we don't know what we don't know."

Looking at opportunities with manufacturers in a vast spectrum, including tools, beverages, vehicles, petroleum, steel, and more, how many of those farmhands and farmers perceived doom and gloom in 1930, 1950, and after?

https://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/Farm_Labor/fl_frmwk.php

But the key is Dunning-Kruger. Those farm-worker doomers and gloomers likely believed that they knew the expanse and breadth of occupation and vocation. They knew their world, in that era, but had no inkling of where their world was headed. Occupations have traditionally diminished and even disappeared. New vocations have similarly appeared and flourished. Economic evolution is not new.

How many of those farmhands in 1930 imagined they might be employed making cellular telephones, programming computers, running nuclear reactors, or even flying people around in an airplane? In short, those people knew their time, they knew what they knew, but they cannot be blamed for not knowing what they did not (yet) know.

That said, neither can you be blamed. You may see artificial intelligence and robotics, and experience fear. You perceive that tomorrow will be like today, that you possess all the knowledge of the future. You are staring into the abyss of what technology will do to the "normal" of today, without considering your own knowledge deficit about what the "normal" of tomorrow might include.

Can 2030, 2040, 2050, and beyond bring tools and processes that are, as yet, unknown and unimagined? The answer is clearly yes. It is the ultimate hubris to allow Dunning-Kruger to lure, dull, or scare you. The fact is that every generation has faced changes and challenges. Every generation always will. That AI and robotics will change the present and future is no different than the mechanization, technology, and other benefits of tractors (or even the wheel) to your forefathers.

So, get on with it. Weather the immediate challenge. AMD CEO Lisa Su recently told Fortune that young people should embrace the challenge. She offered this advice:

“Run towards the hardest problems—not walk, run—and that’s where you find the biggest opportunities, where you learn the most, where you set yourself apart, and most importantly, where you grow.”

That is great advice. Various leaders have exhorted action. General Gerard is credited with "march to the sound of the guns." Since then, U.S. Grant, William Sherman, George Custer, and George Patton have been credited with similar encouragements. You might argue that theme did not work so well for Custer, but it is often the exception that proves the rule. 

These commanders essentially decried waiting for direction and advice and instead encouraged charging into the challenge. Not so different from Ms. Su's recent exhortation. Accept the fear, know there is much we do not and cannot know, and go chase your future anyway!

Or, you could crawl back into bed and put the covers over your head. See Buzzwords 2025 (December 2025). That won't solve or accomplish much, except perhaps you will remain fearful but be better rested?