Our Workers’ Comp Community: The Legal Expert Who Never Passed The Bar

Thought Leadership

Jun 15

BY JOHN MOLINAR

A few years ago, getting injured at work meant calling a doctor, a supervisor, or an attorney.

Now?

Many people open ChatGPT before they file a claim.

And honestly, that’s understandable.

Today, we live in a world where people ask AI about everything. What restaurant should I eat at? How do you fix a leaky sink? Does the ending of that Christopher Nolan movie actually make sense? Somewhere along the way, AI stopped feeling like a tool and started feeling like a confident friend who has an answer for everything.

That becomes far more complicated when the subject shifts from tacos and movie theories to legal advice. Especially in workers’ compensation. Because the modern attorney-client relationship is beginning to change in ways we don’t fully appreciate.

The First Consultation

One of the most discussed topics at workers’ compensation conferences is how, thanks to AI, injured workers are walking into legal consultations already carrying a theory of the case. Sometimes several theories.

They know what body parts “must” be included.

They know what benefits they “should” receive.

They know which doctor is “biased.”

They know the insurance carrier is “violating federal law,” even when we’re discussing a claim in a state administrative system.

And where did all this certainty come from?

A chatbot.

Now, to be fair, some of these tools can provide genuinely helpful background information. They can explain basic concepts. They can help people feel less intimidated when entering an unfamiliar system.

But there’s a difference between becoming informed and becoming anchored to information that may be incomplete, inaccurate, or entirely fabricated.

And that distinction matters more than people realize. Because once expectations arrive early, they become remarkably difficult to change later.

The Confidence Problem

The real danger with AI is not that it sounds robotic. It’s that it sounds confident.

Confident enough to feel persuasive.

Confident enough to feel authoritative.

Confident enough to make people believe they no longer need guidance from someone who has spent decades navigating the system.

That’s where things become complicated for attorneys.

The traditional attorney-client relationship has always depended heavily on trust. Not blind trust. But trust is built around the understanding that legal strategy often requires experience, context, timing, judgment, and nuance.

AI struggles with nuance. Workers’ compensation lives in nuance.

Consider a knee injury.

An injured worker might ask AI whether surgery should be approved, how long recovery typically takes, and when they can expect to return to work. The answers may sound reasonable because they are based on common treatment pathways for a straightforward knee injury.

But what if the worker never mentions diabetes, obesity, cardiovascular issues, a prior knee surgery, or a pre-existing degenerative condition?

Suddenly, the analysis changes.

The question may no longer be whether surgery is desirable. It may be whether surgery is medically appropriate at that moment, whether additional treatment or risk mitigation is necessary first, or whether recovery will follow a very different timeline than the one the chatbot confidently described.

The AI is not necessarily wrong. It is simply responding to an incomplete picture. Unfortunately, workers' compensation cases are often built around the details that never make it into the prompt.

That is where AI tends to flatten complexity into generalized certainty.

And when someone spends three nights talking to a chatbot before ever speaking to an attorney, the consultation sometimes begins less like a conversation and more like a rebuttal.

The attorney is no longer simply explaining the law. The attorney is competing with an amorphous digital presence that gives people immediate clarity and a feeling of certainty. That’s incredibly difficult when the client is experiencing the effects of an injury.

The Pro Se Problem

If this creates challenges for attorneys, it creates even greater challenges for unrepresented claimants and ombudsmen.

Because unlike attorneys, AI has no ethical obligations, no malpractice exposure, no professional accountability, and absolutely no hesitation whatsoever about confidently inventing legal authority out of thin air.

Courts across the country are already dealing with AI-generated filings citing fictional cases and hallucinated legal standards. In several instances, litigants have been sanctioned after relying on fake AI-generated citations that simply did not exist.

Think about that for a moment.

We have entered a period where people can unintentionally commit legal self-sabotage using information delivered in the calm emotional tone of a meditation app.

And the problem becomes even harder in workers’ compensation because the system already requires substantial explanation and trust-building.

Ombudsmen frequently help injured employees navigate unfamiliar procedures, medical disputes, benefit questions, and hearings.

Now imagine trying to do that while simultaneously undoing three weeks of AI-generated misconceptions, wrapped in perfect grammar and unwavering conviction.

That’s not simply an informational challenge. It’s a psychological one.

The Psychology We’re Not Talking About

Human beings do not merely seek information. We seek reassurance.

Especially when we’re afraid.

An injured worker may be anxious about finances, employment, medical recovery, or the future itself. And AI systems are increasingly designed to respond in ways that feel emotionally validating and conversational.

That creates something powerful. And potentially dangerous.

Because people can begin treating AI not simply as a search engine, but as a confidant. A companion. A source of emotional certainty. Even when the underlying information may be flawed.

Uncertainty creates discomfort in the human brain. Therefore, we rush to close gaps in understanding because uncertainty feels threatening. That instinct becomes amplified after an injury when people desperately want clarity about what comes next.

And AI provides something emotionally seductive:

Immediate answers.

No waiting.

No ambiguity.

No difficult conversations.

No attorney saying, “Well…it depends.”

Unfortunately, in workers’ compensation, “it depends” is often the most honest answer available.

The Other Side of the Desk

The concern doesn’t stop with claimants. Because adjusters, supervisors, and even attorneys are increasingly using AI tools too.

That carries tremendous potential benefits. Faster organization. Better summaries. Improved efficiency. Earlier identification of issues. But there’s also risk when AI subtly becomes the quiet authority no one questions.

A recommendation generated by software can begin to feel objective simply because it came from technology.

But technology is not discernment.

An algorithm may identify patterns.

It may estimate exposure.

It may suggest likely outcomes.

But it cannot fully appreciate credibility, empathy, fairness, human context, or the thousand intangible factors that shape real-world decisions.

In other words, AI can assist judgment. But it cannot replace wisdom.

And yes, I realize that sounds like something Morpheus might say right before offering someone a red pill. But it also happens to be true.

So Where Does This Leave Us?

Probably in a place that requires more humility than certainty.

AI is not going away. Nor should it.

Used properly, these tools can genuinely improve access to information and help people better understand complicated systems. They can reduce intimidation. They can increase efficiency. They can support professionals doing difficult work.

But they also require caution.

Because information without context can create confusion.

Confidence without expertise can create damage.

And certainty without wisdom can quietly distort relationships before meaningful conversations ever begin.

The question isn't whether AI belongs in workers' compensation. The question is whether context, perspective and patience remain stronger than the machine-generated certainty surrounding us.

Because at the end of the day, workers’ compensation is still about people.

An injured worker looking for stability.

An adjuster trying to make fair decisions.

An ombudsman trying to guide someone through uncertainty.

An attorney trying to bring clarity to a complicated situation.

And none of those conversations become better when everyone walks into the room already convinced they have all the answers.

Technology can provide information. It may even provide comfort. But workers’ compensation has always required something more: judgment.

Pull up a chair.

Let’s get to work.

AUTHOR

John Molinar is a Board Certified Workers’ Compensation attorney and industry leader, offering practical insight shaped by decades of experience across the Texas system.

→ Follow John on LinkedIn
→ Follow Hermes Law on LinkedIn