There are many opportunities for us to learn from famous people. Their high profiles draw attention and make them examples in the news. Today, with the vast array of social media, it is more apparent than ever. I am not one to pick on celebrities, and there is way too much willingness to punch folks when they are down.
This brings me to Tiger Woods, a Floridian of some fame. In March 2026, Golf Digest made a blunt assessment: "Something is wrong with Tiger Woods." It concluded that this was neither subtle nor novel, but concluded, instead, that it was "sad and disconcerting."
That coverage followed a "two-vehicle crash" after which Mr. Woods was arrested for driving while impaired. Golf Digest noted his history of injuries, chronic pain, and "the pharmaceutical architecture required just to get through a day." As I read that, it occurred to me that Tiger is not all that different from a notable population of people who have been injured at work and who lead their lives in a labyrinth of symptoms, treatment, and challenges.
Or is he distinct? Golf Digest proceeds to stress Mr. Wood's strength, resolve, and discipline. It characterizes him as "careful, disciplined, (and) strong-willed." It then notes that he has nonetheless exhibited a pattern of problems, including a 2017 arrest, diversion from prosecution, and prescription medication.
The coverage concludes with suggestions of prior pharmaceutical challenges, physical impairments, and Mr. Woods' very life. There is every potential to see parallels to others who have suffered the occurrence and aftermath of serious injury.
Then comes the litigation. While that is not always the outcome with injuries, it is not uncommon either. And frequently, there are questions of past medical history, whether in the sense of injury or disability causation, or in broader contexts. Here, Mr. Woods' experience provides another reminder.
In May 2026, Golf Digest reported that a subpoena had been issued for Mr. Woods' "prescription drug records." Prosecutors sought those records and appeared interested in whatever remedies he has sought. His attorneys resisted that subpoena, arguing that Mr. Woods "had the right to his privacy."
Over the years, I have heard that argument many times in injury litigation. It is often accompanied by arguments of relevance and prejudice. For whatever reason, the arguments are frequently raised by those who represent themselves, referred to as "pro se" or "pro per."
The discussion is important. There is the potential that any litigation will result in opening one's life to scrutiny. This has been seen in various examples in which Mr. Woods is either the most recent, most famous, or both. While this potential may disillusion or disappoint, it is important to recognize that the right to privacy may not be absolute. Anyone filing a personal injury claim should be cognizant of the potential that their history may be examined.
The second implication worth noting is the broad perspective of impairment. Too often, thoughts on impairment focus on illicit drugs or alcohol. There is every potential for prescription medication to cause side effects or impairment(s). This is of critical importance in the workplace.
Safety managers and human resource professionals are, of course, aware and concerned about any impairment. But the concern should be as clear for anyone using prescription medication in work settings. Conversation with supervisors or managers is imperative for the safety of the worker and coworkers.
The spirit of the initial Golf Digest article stresses the importance of looking out for each other. The author questions whether others should have done more to help Mr. Woods. The same questions might be asked of any co-employee who might notice challenges or concerns regarding any co-worker.
