Fla. Misses Opportunity To Rectify Wrongful Death Damages

By Chuck Farah, Laurence Huttman and Tiffany Faddis (August 26, 2025, 4:38 PM EDT)

Editor’s note: Law360 welcomes opinionated commentary and debate in our Expert Analysis section. To submit op-eds or rebuttals, or to speak to an editor about submissions, please email expertanalysis@law360.com.

Despite the approval of the overwhelming majority of Florida lawmakers, H.B. 6017, a bill concerning recovery of damages for medical negligence resulting in death, never had a chance.[1]

It was a perfect example of bipartisan workmanship — a rare feat in Florida politics. After soaring through the Civil Justice and Claims Subcommittee and the House Judiciary Committee, the bill passed both the House, with 104 yeas and just 6 nays, and the Senate, with 33 yeas and 4 nays.

But notwithstanding these overwhelming majorities — demonstrating bipartisan support for Florida victims of medical negligence, who have long been shackled by esoteric age restrictions under Florida Statute 768.21, referred to as the “Free Kill Law” — Gov. Ron DeSantis doggedly kept to his promise to veto the bill, doing so on May 29.

The Florida Legislature decided not to override the veto, effectively killing the bill.

The recent legislative effort to pass H.B. 6017, which would have granted adult children and parents of adult children the same rights as victims of all other types of wrongful death, correctly identified the need to rectify this injustice. We encourage lawmakers to continue this fight to bring justice to all Floridians affected by medical malpractice.

What H.B. 6017 Would Have Accomplished

H.B. 6017 primarily sought to expand the scope of damages that are available to victims under Florida’s Wrongful Death Act.[2] This change would have been brought about by removing the medical negligence exception from the act for two specific classes of people.

The bill would have removed the current prohibition on noneconomic wrongful death damages in medical negligence cases for decedents’ adult children — 25 years old and older. It would also have removed the prohibition for the parents of a deceased child who was 25 or older at the time of their death.

The bill would have made the following types of recovery available for these two classes of victims in wrongful death cases resulting from medical negligence:

• Children 25 years old and older who lost their parent could have sought noneconomic damages for loss of parental companionship, instruction, and mental pain and suffering.
• Parents who lost a child 25 years old or older could also have sought damages for pain and suffering when the deceased child had no other survivors.

Specifically, the bill sought to provide the same recoveries for medical negligence victims as for any other victim of wrongful death, as already provided under Florida law.

So why was 25 set as the pivotal age? Was that an arbitrary and capricious choice? And why did DeSantis so vehemently fight this bill?

A Closer Look at Florida’s Wrongful Death Act

As the Florida Supreme Court said in its 2002 decision in Toombs v. Alamo Rent-A-Car Inc., an “action for wrongful death is a purely statutory right” that was not available at common law.

Under the Florida Wrongful Death Act, a person’s death caused by a wrongful act, negligence or other specified circumstances leaves the responsible party liable for specified damages. A wrongful death action brought by the decedent’s personal representatives may recover specific damages on behalf of the estate or survivors.

Survivors are defined by the Wrongful Death Act to include:

• The individual legally married to the deceased at the time of death;
• Minor children and adult children of the deceased;
• Parents of the deceased, if there are no surviving spouse or children;
• Other blood relatives or adoptive siblings who were at least partially dependent on the deceased for support or services.

Spouses are typically given priority among survivors, and in cases where a spouse and children both qualify, the damages may be divided based on individual loss.

Thus, under Florida’s Wrongful Death Act, a broad range of a decedent’s relatives, including their spouse, parents, children and other family members, may seek recoveries for both economic and noneconomic damages.

The Current Medical Negligence Exception

Enter the medical negligence exception. Suddenly, the two classes outlined above — who are included in the vast majority of wrongful death actions — are excluded from pursuing noneconomic damages in cases involving medical negligence.

For context, under Florida Statutes Section 766.102, any claimant pursuing an action for recovery of damages for death or injury resulting from the negligence of a healthcare provider has the burden of proof to show that the “alleged actions of the health care provider represented a breach of the prevailing professional standard of care for that health care provider.”[3]

Before 1990, Florida law prohibited a decedent’s children aged 25 years or older at the time of their parent’s death, as well as parents of deceased children aged 25 years or older at the time of their death, from recovering noneconomic damages in a wrongful death action, even if it was due to medical negligence.

In 1990, S.B. 324 amended the Florida Statutes to include nonminor children in the definition of survivors and provide for recovery of damages.[4]

However, while the bill expanded the class of survivors eligible to seek noneconomic recoveries in wrongful death actions, it also created a medical negligence exception: “The damages specified in subsection (3) shall not be recoverable by adult children and the damages specified in subsection (4) shall not be recoverable by parents of an adult child with respect to claims for medical malpractice as defined by s. 766.106(1).”

In 2000, in Mizrahi v. North Miami Medical Center Ltd. and Garber v. Snetman, the Supreme Court of Florida looked to answer the question, certified to be of great public importance:

Does Section 768.21(8), Florida Statutes (1995), which is part of Florida’s Wrongful Death Act, violate the equal protection clause of the Florida and federal constitutions, in that it precludes recovery of nonpecuniary damages by a decedent’s adult children where the cause of death was medical malpractice while allowing such children to recover where the death was caused by other forms of negligence?[5]

In Mizrahi and Garber, the trial court granted summary judgment for the hospital and physicians, based on Section 768.21.

Another case cited in the Florida Supreme Court’s decision was Stewart v. Price, where the First District Court of Appeal had concluded in 1998 that the “legislature’s choice to exclude from such right adult children of persons who wrongfully died as a result of medical malpractice bears a rational relationship to the legitimate state interests of limiting increases in medical insurance costs.”

Thus, the Supreme Court concluded that:

[T]he instant statute which created a right of action for many while excluding a specific class from such action, and which exclusion is rationally related to controlling healthcare costs and accessibility, does not violate the equal protection guarantees of either the United States or Florida Constitutions. We therefore answer the certified question in the negative and approve the district court’s decisions below.

But Justice Barbara Pariente, in her dissenting opinion, did not mince her words, asserting:

There is no indication that the past medical malpractice crisis continues into the present. If the medical malpractice crisis does not continue into the present, I fail to see how a past crisis can justify the permanent exclusion of an entire class of victims from seeking compensation for pain and suffering damages due to the wrongful death of their parents as a result of medical malpractice.

Justice Pariente went on to praise the reasoning of Judge Alan Schwartz of Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal, who had stated in his concurring 1998 opinion in Garber v. Snetman:

I believe that it is contrary to the requirements of substantive due process and equal protection to discriminate between survivors of the victim of a wrongful death on the basis of their age only to accomplish the stated purpose of making medical malpractice insurance somewhat less expensive. To my mind, it is no less “unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory [and] oppressive”, 10 Fla.Jur.2d Constitutional Law § 427, at 740 (1997), and cases cited, to restrict the right to recover on this basis than it would be for the legislature to do so as to survivors with blue eyes or — heaven forfend! — of less than a certain height.

DeSantis’ Explanation for Vetoing the Bill

The Florida House of Representatives’ analysis of H.B. 6017 cites an “indeterminate negative fiscal or economic impact on state and local governments and private entities as the expansion of Florida’s Wrongful Death Act may result in an increased number of medical malpractice lawsuits and increased liability in medical malpractice lawsuits.”[7]

Rep. Hillary Cassel, R-Fort Lauderdale, criticized a lobbyist representing the Florida Justice Reform Institute, which opposes the bill, for testifying that it would lead to an increase in wrongful death lawsuits against doctors and hospitals: “If you’re going to come before this committee and make assertions about what’s going to happen if we pass legislation, I expect you to bring facts and data and not scare tactics and opinions.”[8]

The Florida House of Representatives’ published bill analysis also noted the bill’s positive economic impact on victims’ families, who would be able to increase their monetary damage recoveries from medical malpractice lawsuits.

But echoing the Florida Justice Reform Institute and the Florida Supreme Court’s conclusions from some 25 years before, DeSantis said that the bill would likely drive up insurance costs and result in physicians leaving the state.

In his letter vetoing H.B. 6017, DeSantis wrote:

This legislation would increase costs to provide healthcare services to Floridians, especially in our rural and aging communities, expose Florida’s physicians and healthcare providers to unpredictable liability, drive physicians to leave the state, and incentivize lawyers to bring unmeritorious claims. None of this improves quality, access, or outcomes for Florida families.[9]

DeSantis vetoed the bill on May 29, and the message was received by the House during its regular session on June 2. Thus far, there has been no further action listed in the bill history by the Florida Legislature.

What Comes Next

House Speaker Danny Perez, R-Miami, shared with reporters that he disagreed with the veto and will make sure the bill is brought back during the upcoming legislative session beginning in April 2026. He further stated that the Legislature will try again to pass a repeal of the “Free Kill Law.”

In his veto letter, DeSantis noted that H.B. 6017 “does not include safeguards like caps on damages and attorney’s fees.” However, he did not completely close the door on the potential for legislative change.

DeSantis encouraged “any future legislative action to include regulatory reforms and these safeguards, striking a balance between providing relief and accountability, while preserving quality access and care for Floridians.”[10]

We join Justice Pariente in noting that the law that prevents adult children from suing for their parents’ death due to medical malpractice has no good reason behind it. The so-called medical malpractice crisis that lawmakers used to justify the “Free Kill Law” is decades behind us.

In the meantime, the cases that have challenged the law have shown that it is simply unfair and arbitrary. The Legislature has likewise spoken that it is time to redress this wrong.

As Florida lawmakers resolutely concluded by passing H.B. 6017 and delivering it to the governor’s desk, adult children of medical malpractice victims, and parents of adult medical malpractice victims, should be afforded the same rights as victims of every other type of wrongful death.

Far too many Floridians who die as a result of medical malpractice do not possess qualifying survivors under the existing law. We encourage lawmakers to continue the fight to finally bring justice to Floridians.

Chuck Farah is a senior managing partner, Laurence Huttman is a catastrophic injury litigation attorney and Tiffany Faddis is a personal injury litigation attorney at Farah & Farah.

Chuck Farah    Laurence Huttman    Tiffany Faddis

The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of their employer, its clients, or Portfolio Media Inc., or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.

[1] https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2025/6017.

[2] http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm? mode=View%20Statutes&SubMenu=1&App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=768.21&URL=0700- 0799/0768/Sections/0768.21.html.

[3] http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700- 0799/0766/Sections/0766.102.html.

[4] https://sb.flleg.gov/nxt/gateway.dll/Laws/lf1990/chapters%2090-1%20-%2090-25/ch_90-014.htm.

[5] https://law.justia.com/cases/florida/supreme-court/2000/sc93649-0.html.

[6] https://law.justia.com/cases/florida/supreme-court/2000/sc93804.html.

[7] https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2025/6017/Analyses/h6017z1.CIV.PDF.

[8] https://floridaphoenix.com/2025/03/20/lobbyist-scolded-for-scare-tactics-in-committee-debate-on- wrongful-death-bill/.

[9] https://www.flgov.com/eog/news/press/2025/governor-ron-desantis-issues-veto-safeguard-florida- against-misuse-medical.

[10] Id.

https://www.law360.com/articles/2380844/fla-misses-opportunity-to-rectify-wrongful-death-damages