In a situation in which a paucity of data are available, I commend Renshaw and Gould1 for their recent study of how workload in surgical pathology may relate to rates of disagreements when cases are reviewed, and I believe that their data demonstrate that significant disagreements are not related to case load, at least within the limited range of work rates for their group. Nevertheless, in their accompanying editorial, Raab and Grzybicki2 opine that pathology workload and error frequency are probably linked but that examination of the issues requires a more rigorous examination of multiple variables. In this regard, I offer the opinion that the numbers of disagreements and amendments are likely to be Poisson type of variables, ie, low-frequency events that depend on the number of cases or slides that have been reviewed. If one reviews no cases, then one finds no disagreements. If one reviews many cases, then one will find disagreements. The more cases reviewed, the more disagreements will appear. This is the nature of a Poisson variable, and the phenomenon is illustrated nicely by Renshaw and Gould’s data. ❚Figure 1❚ shows a plot of their number of observed disagreements vs the number of slides reviewed, and the plot demonstrates a clear trend toward increased disagreements with increased reviewed slides. Consequently, to test for a relationship between workload and disagreements, one needs to control for the number of reviewed slides, and the general linear model with the Poisson link and offset function for the logarithm of the number of reviewed slides can be used for this purpose.3,4 I reanalyzed Renshaw and Gould’s data using this model and found a significant but weak positive association between workload and disagreements (P = .03) but no association between workload and number of amendments (P ~ 1.0). Over a wider range of workload, I agree with Raab and Grzybicki2 that workload and error rates are likely to be linked, but the relationship could be bimodal. At low workloads, pathologists may make more errors simply because their daily experience is too limited to accurately evaluate all types of tissue. By contrast, at high workloads, pathologists may make more errors because they feel they cannot take the time to examine cases thoroughly or to consult the literature or colleagues. Thus, I intuit that error rate could be highest at both ends of the workload spectrum and lowest in the middle. In other words, I suspect that for each pathologist, there is an intermediate, ideal workload that gives the lowest error rate.