Jesse Scheckner – February 28, 2022

Rep. Mike Beltran lowered the caps in his bill to appease groups like the Florida League of Cities, which still opposes his bill.

A House measure raising payout caps in claims against state, county and municipal governments has cleared all assigned committees ahead of a full floor vote by the chamber.

Members of the House Judiciary Committee voted 19-0 Monday for a bill (HB 985) by Lithia Republican Rep. Mike Beltran revising Florida’s sovereign immunity law, which prevents the government from having to settle pricy lawsuits without its consent. The Senate counterpart is also ready for the floor.

Currently, the Legislature must approve paying claimants — who often sue the government for loss or injury — settlements higher than $200,000 per person and $300,000 per incident. The Legislature can then approve payments in excess of existing caps through measures called “claims bills” or “relief acts.”

Beltran’s bill, as changed through a committee substitute, would double pre-claims-bills settlement caps to $400,000 per person and $600,000 per incident. The bill originally proposed raising the payout cap to $1 million per person with no per-incident limit — “a massive step in the right direction,” according to Todd Michaels of the Florida Justice Association.

Local governments would be able to waive their sovereign immunity protections and enter settlements over the state-set limits.

Both the Senate and House bill would remove the statute of limitations on claims related to sexual battery of victims younger than 16 at the time of the incident on or after July 1, 2010.

But unlike its Senate analogue SB 974 by Sarasota Republican Sen. Joe Gruters — which cleared its final committee last week — the version of Beltran’s bill that advanced Monday does not have a requirement that the payout caps be adjusted to reflect the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the Southeast United States “or a successor index” as calculated by the U.S. Department of Labor.

Beltran argued the cap increases contemplated in his amended bill would still be too low, noting they are “less than any rational inflation adjustment that you could come up with from 2010 forward.”

“We’ve done these calculations, and everyone (I spoke with) said that it should be more of an increase,” he said. “If we were doing anything less than this bill, we would be doing nothing.”

The Florida League of Cities, Florida Justice Reform Institute, Panhandle Area Educational Consortium, Safety Hospital Alliance of Florida and Fort Walton Beach opposed Beltran’s bill even in its amended form.

David Cruz of the Florida League of Cities said the $400,000 and $600,000 caps “is a number that is too high for our cities,” particularly for ones with smaller, less well-to-do populations.

When the Florida Legislature adopted the Florida Waiver for Sovereign Immunities Act in 1973, it capped payouts without legislative action at $50,000 per person and $100,000 per incident. Those limits last rose in 2010.

Beltran expressed frustration that several groups with which he had spoken have continued to deride his bill despite the lowered values. Some of them, he said, had confided to him that an increase is overdue.

“The same stakeholders who have come and asked me to bring the limits down again and again and again are still opposing this bill,” he said. “And some of you … have acknowledged to me privately that the limits need to go up.”

Even if the Legislature approves the increases in his bill or in Gruters’ bill, which would hike them to $320,000 and $640,000 with CPI adjustments every decade, the raises wouldn’t be enough on day one when compared with the rate at which medical costs have gone up, among other metrics.

“It’s going to be inadequate the first year out after we do this,” he said. “Because there’s going to be inflation, and inflation is going up. It’s not going down.”

https://floridapolitics.com/archives/501952-bill-hiking-payout-caps-for-lawsuits-against-government-clears-final-house-committee/ 

 

Jesse Scheckner – February 23, 2022

‘At the end of the day, mistakes happen. Governments make mistakes.’

A contentious bill raising the cap for claims against the government is on its way to a full Senate vote after debate over proposed payout tiers prompted a last-minute change in its final committee stop.

The measure (SB 974) by Sarasota Republican Sen. Joe Gruters would change the maximum payout for claimants — who often sue the government for loss or injury — before they must go to the Legislature to overcome sovereign immunity, which prevents the government from settling pricey claims without its consent.

The Legislature can approve payments in excess of existing caps through measures called “claims bills” or “relief acts.”

Gruters’ bill and its analogue in the House (HB 985) by Lithia Republican Rep. Mike Beltran have undergone several changes since their initial filing last year. The most recent change to Gruters’ bill, which the Senate Rules Committee OK’d Wednesday, significantly lowers previously contemplated caps.

Earlier this month, a Senate panel increased the existing caps from $200,000 to $1 million per individual claimant and $300,000 to $3 million per incident. Those marks have now been reduced to $320,000 per individual and $640,000 per incident, pending additional changes and approval on the Senate floor.

The amended bill retained an earlier change removing the statute of limitations on sexual battery cases against victims younger than 16 at the time of the incident.

It also includes a provision allowing local governments, public educational institutions and other entities to waive sovereign immunity protections and pay claims in full without requiring action by the Legislature.

The new payout levels are meant to reflect the Consumer Price Index (CPI). It’s unclear whether lawmakers will bring back a stipulation in a prior version of the bill requiring the payout rates to be updated every decade based on the CPI. Language reflecting Gruters’ in-committee audible is still pending publication.

“At the end of the day, mistakes happen. Governments make mistakes, and most stakeholders I’ve talked to agree that some type of adjustment to the amount should happen. The question is, what should that amount be? We’ll continue to have discussions,” Gruters said. “The main point is the process and making sure we give the flexibility to communities so we don’t have to have these claims bills and all the (related) lobbying that takes place up here.”

Gruters proffered the last-minute change after hearing arguments from the public and his Senate colleagues against three amendments Palm Coast Republican Sen. Travis Hutson filed the day before.

Hutson’s proposed changes, which Gruters said he helped to draft over the weekend, would have also lowered previously contemplated caps. It also would have established a tiered system limiting claim values by population size.

Pre-legislative payout caps would remain at $200,000 and $300,000 for local governments with populations of 50,000 or less. Those caps would also remain for state universities, public colleges and other subdivisions of the state with sovereign immunity that are not direct extensions of the state, including public schools.

For counties and municipalities with populations of between 50,001 and 250,000, the limits would be $300,000 and $400,000. The state itself, its agencies and local governments with populations larger than 250,000 would have caps of $400,000 and $600,000.

Several members of the panel questioned why Gruters and Hutson opted for separate payout tiers rather than a one-size-fits-all approach.

Republican Sen. Jeff Brandes of St. Petersburg argued such a ranked system would defy equal protection rights under the Florida Constitution and operate at the expense of those seeking recompense.

He suggested implementing a flat rate based on the CPI.

“If you get into a car accident on one side of the street (instead of) the other side of the street, how are we going to argue that you should somehow be compensated less because that side of the street is in a community with … less than 50,000 people?” he said. “We cannot make a good-faith argument that equal protection does not apply here, and the courts are going to do it for us unless the Legislature can figure it out and do it ourselves.”

Ed Labrador, senior legislative counsel to the Florida Association of Counties, said the tiered approach sets a bad precedent that could disproportionately hurt localities in the future.

“While it looks good today, I could foresee a tiering of the state having its own limit and then the rest of our subdivisions having different limits,” he said. “That’s not what’s there today, but I can see it for the future because that’s how we do things around here. We don’t respect local government that much, and that’s what we’re afraid of.”

William Large, president of the Florida Justice Performance Institute, advocated against raising the current caps. He also concurred with Brandes’ assertion that dividing payout levels into different lanes would create an equal protection problem.

“There’s no rational basis for what you’ve done here today,” he said. “The lower caps will be declared unconstitutional, and all you all are going to be left with the higher caps of $400,000 and $600,000.”

“We’d like to see the caps remain the same,” he said.

Democratic Sen. Gary Farmer of Lighthouse Point asked why Hutson’s amendments used population to separate payout tiers rather than a local government’s fiscal strength. Many towns with miniscule populations in South Florida are among the wealthiest in the state.

Regardless of that, he said, sovereign immunity is an antiquated policy and raising the cap across the board is the correct move.

“The notion that the government should be specially protected from its own negligence is outdated, outmoded,” he said. “I’m sure Sen. Hutson will have more grenades — I mean amendments — to offer Sen. Gruters as this goes forward, but raising the cap is the right (and) equitable thing to do.”

Hutson, who voted against the bill in its prior committee stop, explained that he’d devised the tiered system using population as a benchmark to attract broader support for the measure.

“It’s hard to pass this on to your taxing population, to the people that are in your area,” he said. “Sen. Gruters, in the next step if you want to do that one-size-fits-all approach, by all means go ahead. I’m just going to warn you, those that supported that amendment will be opposed to the bill.”

Beltran’s version of the bill was slated for a Wednesday afternoon hearing before the House Judiciary Committee, its final committee stop in the chamber. At the onset of the meeting, Rep. Erin Grall, the committee chair, announced the proposal would not be heard.

Just before 6 p.m. Tuesday, Beltran filed four amendments with substantial bearings on his bill. One would have reduced a uniform payout cap of $1 million to $500,000 per person and $1 million per incident.

Two others would clarify that the removal of a statute of limitations on sexual battery cases against victims younger than 16 at the time of the incident would only apply to claims not time-barred in 2010.

The last amendment would provide that the policies set forth in the bill would only apply to claims arising on or after Oct. 1, 2023.

Florida Politics has contacted Beltran’s office for comment and will update this story if he replies.

https://floridapolitics.com/archives/500012-measure-raising-payout-caps-in-claims-against-governments-heads-to-senate-floor-with-last-minute-change/ 

 

Christine Jordan Sexton – February 10, 2022

‘This bill protects those who have tried to do the right thing and have put themselves in harm’s way to provide care.’

Health care providers could continue to enjoy protections from COVID-19 liability lawsuits until June 1, 2023, after the House passed SB 7014 by an 87-31 vote Thursday.

The bill will head to Gov. Ron DeSantis, who is expected to sign it into law.

Extending the lawsuit protections was one of the top priorities for health care organizations and business groups that favor restrictions on litigation.

The Florida Health Care Association (FHCA), which represents the state’s for-profit nursing home industry, and other health care providers worried that the current protections in law expire March 29.

“We appreciate that our lawmakers recognize the importance of being protected while working during this difficult time. COVID-19 continues to wreak havoc on nursing centers and our heroic caregivers, as pandemic burnout has worsened an already-challenged workforce,” FHCA CEO Emmett Reed said in a prepared statement. “These liability protections reinforce support from our Legislature and ensure that Florida’s long-term care centers have the resources needed to continue providing high-quality care to Florida’s most vulnerable population.”

Jacksonville lawyer and health care lobbyist Christopher Nuland said the protections continue to be necessary.

“This bill protects those who have tried to do the right thing and have put themselves in harm’s way to provide care,” said Nuland, who represents the Florida Chapter of the American College of Surgeons and other physician specialty groups.

Florida Chamber of Commerce Senior Policy Director Carolyn Johnson told Florida Politics the bill was a “huge priority” for the association.

“Doctors, nurses and medical providers have been working around the clock and this extension is necessary as the pandemic has not yet ended,” Johnson said.

The extended lawsuit protections are one of the few tort-related bills filed in the 2022 Session that lawmakers appear willing to embrace.

At a press conference last week, Tom Gaitens, executive director of the Florida chapter of Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse, said his association was “hitting singles right now. The reality is we need home runs; they may not come this Session.”

The Legislature in 2021 passed lawsuit protections from COVID-19 related lawsuits for general businesses as well as health care providers. The protections for nonhealth care providers do not expire. The law requires COVID-19 lawsuits to be filed within one year after the cause of action accrues or by March 29, 2021.

House Speaker Chris Sprowls insisted that the protections for health care providers be time limited, though.

Sprowls, who is term-limited out of office, said he is not sure whether the protections will need to be extended beyond 2023.

“Part of the idea of setting it a year out was because we acknowledged this shouldn’t be the state of the law forever,” Sprowls told reporters Thursday. “When we set that date a year ago, we didn’t know the answer. Which is why we set it there, so we could still be here and have an opportunity to evaluate it. … What the Legislature will do a year from now will depend probably on the facts at the time.”

Meanwhile, Florida Justice Reform Institute President William Large said lawmakers should be “commended” for quickly passing SB 7014.

“The Legislature realized there was a need to extend last year’s protections, and their quick work will continue to provide relief for our heroes in the health care industry,” said Large, whose association supports lawsuit limitations.

https://floridapolitics.com/archives/495570-lawmakers-extend-covid-19-protections-for-health-care-providers-nursing-homes/