Top: Reps. Danny Nix (left) and Kim Berfield (right). Bottom: Reps. Michele Rayner (left) and Dean Black (right) (Photos via Florida House of Representatives)

The amount in damages injured parties can recover in personal injury or wrongful death lawsuits could grow under a bill moving its way through the Florida House of Representatives.

The Civil Justice & Claims Subcommittee voted 13-4 Thursday to pass HB 1553 onto its next — and only other — remaining scheduled stop, the Judiciary Committee. The four “no” votes were cast by Reps. Kim Berfield, R- Clearwater; Dean Black, R- Jacksonville; Danny Nix, R-Port Charlotte; and Michele Rayner, D-Tampa Bay.

There are 56 lobbyist registrations for the bill, which would crack open a hard-fought, sweeping 2023 tort law (HB 837).

According to a legislative staff analysis at the time, the 2023 law “defined and limited the types of evidence the judge or jury could hear” when it comes to a plaintiff’s medical bills, a driving factor in settlements and jury awards.

But to whom does it apply, and when?

Some trial court judges applying the law have held that the burden to produce evidence — including what a plaintiff’s health insurance would reimburse for the care — falls only on the plaintiff. Other judges have ruled that the burden also falls on the defendant.

Vero Beach Republican Rep. Robert “Robbie” Brackett (Photo courtesy Florida House)

Sponsored by Vero Beach Republican Rep. Robbie Brackett, HB 1553 would make clear that “any party” can produce information to establish or rebut future medical costs.

HB 1553 supporters, including the statewide association that represents trial attorneys, insist the existing law is flawed and needs to be fixed legislatively.

The Florida Justice Reform Institute, insurance, and business lobbyists who oppose HB 1553 argue the conflicting trial court decisions need to wind their way through the legal process and be decided by state appellate courts and potentially the Florida Supreme Court. They also argue the bill would roll back changes that encouraged plaintiffs to use their health insurance to get the care they need.

A look behind medical expenses

The medical expense section in the omnibus 2023 tort bill was driven in large part by the idea that plaintiffs should recover what they themselves have actually paid and not the prices that physicians can “charge.”  Those charges, business and insurance interests successfully argued, are exponentially higher when provided under agreements known as letters of protection.

LOPs are contracts between injured parties, their attorneys, and medical providers wherein the care is rendered for free up front. Providers agree to defer payment until after the litigation is settled.

What physicians charge under LOP agreements for providing the health isn’t set by the government, like Medicare or Medicaid, or negotiated, like the reimbursements they agree to accept from the insurance companies that write health care, auto, and workers comp policies and whose members they agree to treat.

Physicians are free to charge what they want, and —the insurance and business interests successfully argued — do. Those allegedly inflated charges balloon plaintiffs’ medical bills, which are the driving force behind settlement amounts and jury awards.

To address those concerns, the Legislature agreed in 2023 to pass a law that spells out what juries could see in regards to medical bills.

For incurred but outstanding bills, a jury can see:

• The amount a plaintiff’s commercial health insurance would reimburse for care if they are commercially insured, regardless of whether they used their policy;
• An adjusted amount that Medicare or Medicaid would reimburse for the care if the plaintiffs are uninsured or covered by government programs; and
• The financial agreements in a LOP and the amounts paid to the contracted health care providers if a LOP was involved.

The Legislature agreed the jury could see similar information about estimated future medical bills as well as “any evidence of reasonable future amounts to be billed to the claimant for medically necessary treatment or services.”

Small changes not so small

Brackett’s four-page bill would make what appear to be small changes. It amends the 2023 statute so the evidence requirements for both incurred but outstanding and future medical bills apply to “any party” and not just the plaintiff. It also changes the law so the evidence requirements apply when determining or rebutting those medical costs.

Proponents and opponents testified in committee Thursday, with the latter arguing Brackett’s bill would undo the 2023 law and the degree to which it has helped lower costs.

Appearing on behalf of  Associated Industries of Florida, certified medical auditor and coder Elin Kunz said that before the 2023 law, there were no standards for the health care bills that were shown to juries.

“Health care is unique in that amounts billed is far higher than the amount actually paid. Even hospital websites today acknowledge this reality, stating that charges are rarely the price that patients pay,” she testified. “Without context, bill charges can be misleading and do not reflect the market value.”

She said the law doesn’t “set health care prices,” but provides benchmarks for the costs of care. Medicare, she said, is a widely used for that purpose in the industry and can be easily obtained to determine bills for uninsured plaintiffs.

But health insurance reimbursement rates aren’t widely available, available only to the policyholder.

“Shifting to a rebuttable standard would make that information harder, if not impossible, for defendants to access,” she told the committee.

Cypress Truck Lines safety director and Jacksonville resident Matthew Penland told lawmakers that the 2023 law had an immediate effect for the better on how the company paid settlements.

“We’ve invested 100% of this money into safety programs, technology. Our trucks have cameras all the way around. We want to know what our drivers are doing so we can make the roads safer,” he said.

“I would ask each of you today to not move backwards and not support the passage of HB 1553,” he testified.

‘It’s your duty to clarify it’

Panama City trial attorney R. Waylon Thompson. (Photo courtesy of Manuel & Thompson P.A.)

In his testimony, Panama City trial attorney R. Waylon Thompson, a bill supporter, quoted the 2023 bill sponsor, former state Rep. Tommy Gregory, to the effect that the medical expense provisions applied to both the plaintiff and the defendant, a position he claims is supported by 60% of circuit judges who have ruled on the point (The Florida Justice Reform Institute contests that number.)

And if the intent of the 2023 law was to clarify the determination of medical expenses, he said, “it has failed its basic fundamental principle.”

“It’s your duty to clarify it,” said Thompson, a board-certified trial attorney.

While the legislation has pitted insurance and business interests against the trial attorneys, with the latter in support of the changes, Brackett said it’s not what it seems.

He twice told the committee that he wasn’t sponsoring the bill for Florida trial attorneys.

“We have people who have damages not getting paid to them,” Brackett said.

“I’m not here to fight for the attorneys,” he said. “I’m here to do what’s right for the people of Florida.”

This story has been corrected to reflect Rep. Michele Rayner voted against the bill, not Rep. Paula Stark.

https://floridaphoenix.com/2026/01/30/another-tort-tussle-in-the-state-house/

Legislation to expand Florida’s wrongful death laws is progressing in the state House. (iStock /Getty Images Plus)

By: Christine Sexton – January 15, 2026

The Florida House once again this year is charging ahead with sweeping changes to laws governing lawsuits, notwithstanding in some cases pressure from business groups, and now will send the bills to the Senate to face uncertain futures.

The legislation covers a range of subjects, from limits on money recoveries from lawsuits against government, medical malpractice, and the death of fetuses.

“It seems like the House leadership is hellbent on bringing more lawsuits in Florida, which will only serve to drive up costs for ordinary Floridians,” Florida Justice Reform Institute President William Large told the Florida Phoenix Thursday.

The institute focuses on lawsuit-related legislation. “Gov. DeSantis’s reforms from 2023 show tort reform is working. There is no reason to bring all this litigation-fueled legislation,” Large said.

Fetal personhood

Florida law allows would-be parents to recover for “negligent stillbirth” under common law. Those damages are limited to mental pain and anguish plus medical expenses incurred incidental to the pregnancy.

In a partisan vote Thursday, members of the House voted, 76-34, to pass CS/HB 289, a bill that would allow would-be parents to pursue wrongful death claims for the loss of developing fetuses. Wrongful death suits allow plaintiffs to seek damages for mental pain and loss of support, meaning jurors could calculate the salary the fetus might have earned over its life, as part of the monetary damages. Common law refers to a body of law developed through judicial decisions and precedents, not by statute.

Democrats offered nine amendments meant to blunt the reach of the measure, including one by Orlando Democrat Rep. Ana Eskamani that would have given a carve-out for abortion providers. (The Republican-dominated House voted down each attempt.)

“It’s really important to remember that this legislation is expanding Florida’s Wrongful Death Act to apply to fertilized eggs. There’s no way that does not impact abortion access,” Eskamani said. State law protects abortion access through six weeks’ gestation, although not after that.

Eskamani offered a second amendment that would have exempted mothers from wrongful death lawsuits involving the fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus; or against a health care provider who has not been  convicted of a crime in connection with the health care — including a provider of assisted reproductive  technologies — without the consent of the mother.

Jacksonville Democrat Rep. Angie Nixon offered an amendment that would have prevented lawsuits from being filed against gestational surrogates. Nixon said that, as written the bill would allow a surrogate to be sued by intended parents if she were to miscarry.

“What type of message are we sending to people who are really looking out for other folks? That’s just wrong. Y’all for real? No family looks the same. And as legislators, we should not be getting in the way of people making physical and financial sacrifices in order to have children. If y’all really are pro life, you definitely vote up on this bill,” she said.

Another amendment, offered by Rep. Robin Bartleman, a Democrat from Weston, would have barred wrongful death lawsuits by a person whose involvement with the pregnancy was by means of rape, incest, or human trafficking.

“Where would be the harm in putting this amendment in?” Bartleman asked, noting that every abortion-related bill the Legislature has passed recognizes pregnancies stemming from those crimes and treats those pregnancies differently.

Rep. Marie Paule Woodson, a Democrat from Hollywood, beseeched members to put their feelings about abortion access aside and to pass Bartleman’s amendment.

“Let’s do what’s right, because I don’t want to have to come back in this chamber and have to go back on this bill for us to realize the pain that we will be causing to those impacted,” Woodson said. “If we don’t pass this amendment, we are giving control to those abusers. That’s exactly what we will be doing.”

Former Democrat turned Republican Rep. Hillary Cassel blasted the notion that CS/HB 289 was abortion-related and instead said it was about justice for mothers.

“This is not about abortion. And too often, when we talk about a pregnant woman, it always goes to the side of the mother that didn’t want the child. But what about the mother who wants one? What about the mother and the family who wanted that baby? That’s what this bill does. Don’t make it anything more,” said Cassel, of Hollywood.

Sen. Erin Grall, a Republican from Fort Pierce, has filed similar legislation (SB 164) in the Senate. That bill cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee by a one-vote margin and has been referred to two other committees.

“Free kill”

CS/HB 289 wasn’t the only bill related to wrongful death that the House passed Thursday, with the chamber voting, 88-17, to pass HB 6003

Although damantly opposed by organized medicine, insurance, and business lobbyists, the chamber passed the bill with little-to-no debate.

The bill revamps Florida’s wrongful death laws in two ways: Parents of single, childless, adult children 25 and older could file wrongful death lawsuits arising from alleged medical malpractice; and adult children could pursue claims for single parents who die from medical malpractice. Such cases are not allowed under existing law.

Proponents of HB 6003 say it fixes Florida’s “free kill” law, a name coined to describe the different legal protections in Florida statute based on someone’s age, family, and marital status.

Opponents argue the bill would increase the number of lawsuits and result in higher medical malpractice premiums. They have coined their own name for the proposal: “jackpot justice.”

Those opponents, including Large, say they would support the measure if it were amended to limit damages that can be recovered for all medical malpractice cases, not just the newly expanded class of litigants in HB 6003.

During debate on a similar bill last year, an amendment to cap medical malpractice settlements failed in the Senate by a one-vote margin.

DeSantis ultimately vetoed the 2025 version of the bill because it didn’t contain the caps.

During a press conference Thursday, DeSantis defended his veto.

“I will say, you know, that particular legislation I vetoed, if you talk to people in healthcare, it would have caused us to lose doctors. Like, there’s no question, uh, to root, because basically, those were reforms that had been enacted in response to medical malpractice insurance crisis many years ago, well long before I was governor. And so, you would see an impact on that, no question,” DeSantis said.

Sen. Darryl Rouson, a Democrat from St. Petersburg, filed the Senate companion bill (SB 1700) last week

Sovereign immunity

A bill that would increase the state’s sovereign immunity limits, taking them from $200,000 per person to $1 million and from $300,000 per occurrence to $3 million, passed the House by a 104-7 vote.

The bill would make clear that political subdivisions could settle cases beyond those limits without having to obtain advance approval in the form of a special legislative act. And it specifically would prohibit insurance policies from conditioning payment of settlements upon the enactment of a claims bill.

In legal terms, sovereign immunity refers to the state’s authority to exempt itself as a legal sovereign from civil lawsuits, although the state does allow negligence claims against itself and its subdivisions — agencies, cities, counties, and public hospitals — within limits. Injured parties can sue for damages and collect within the liability thresholds established by law but, if they win awards in excess of the limits, they must go to the Legislature in the form of what’s called a claims bill to collect the payment.

The claims bill process is lengthy and allows the defendant to challenge a jury verdict. Once a claims bill is filed, each chamber’s presiding officer refers it to a special master, who essentially reconsiders the jury’s recommendation. Claims bills also go before House and Senate committees that consider special masters’ recommendations. Ultimately, the bills must pass in both chambers.

It’s not unusual for claims bills to take years to pass, if ever.

Sen. Jason Brodeur, a Republican from Lake Mary, filed the Senate companion bill, SB 1366. That bill takes the existing sovereign immunity limita in law and increases them to $300,000 per person and $450,000 per incident. The bill directs the Department of Financial Services to adjust the caps five years from now and every five years thereafter, to reflect the Consumer Price Index. However, the bill limits those increases to no more than 3%.

In addition to the difference in the caps, the Senate bill lacks the language in the House bill that allows political subdivisions to settle cases beyond those limits without legislative intervention.

The Senate bill was filed last week and has not yet been referred to any committees.

Phosphates

The House also passed HB 167, a priority bill for Senate President Ben Albritton and the one tort-related bill that offers increased protections to businesses that the House passed Thursday.

Offered by Rep. Lawrence McClure, R-Dover, and Rep. Richard Gentry, R-Astor, the bill would establish a defense from strict liability if the lawsuit is related to pollution caused by a former phosphate mine and certain requirements are met.

Phosphate companies have faced lawsuits filed by people who bought homes built on radioactive spoils left by mining.

This strict liability defense applies to lawsuits brought by the Department of Environmental Protection as well as lawsuits brought by any other person.

https://floridaphoenix.com/2026/01/15/fetal-personhood-free-kill-sovereign-immunity-and-phosphates-its-tort-day-in-the-house/

ACLU: Bill ‘will be devastating to any health care practitioner or hospital that treats pregnant patients.’
By: Christine Sexton – December 2, 2025

 

 

A House comittee on Tuesday voted 14-6 to pass a bill that allows wrongful death lawsuits for the loss of developing fetuses, with a leading proponent claiming the legislation should be a harbinger of things to come for the anti-abortion movement in Florida.

“I want to emphasize to this committee that this bill should be the beginning of a broader expansion of civil remedies afforded under Florida law to hold accountable those who continue to take the lives of unborn children illegally in our state,” founder and executive director of Florida Voice for the Unborn Andrew Shirvell told members of the House Judiciary Committee.

Shirvell claimed there would be upward of 55,000 abortions provided in Florida by the end of the year. “And I guarantee, I guarantee those official numbers contain many, many, abortions, possibly thousands, being performed illegally without justification past the six-week limitation that went into effect on May 1, 2024,” he said.

Shirvell didn’t say where his data came from. The Agency for Health Care Administration’s abortion data for calendar year 2025 show that, as of Oct. 31, 36,857 terminations had been reported by Florida physicians and hospitals.

The House Judiciary Committee was the last stop for HB 289, which already been approved by the House Civil Justice and Claims Subcommittee last month over the objections of Equality Florida, the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, and Florida Now, which are known to closely track reproductive rights issues.

“We’ve said this before and we’ll say it again: By moving this bill forward, politicians are inviting irreparable harm to pregnant patients and deepening Florida’s maternal healthcare system crisis,” ACLU interim political director Kara Gross said in a statement.

“HB 289 is so far-reaching and overly broad that it allows any person who impregnates someone else — including an abusive ex-partner or rapist — to bring harassing litigation against individuals, doctors, hospitals, private businesses, and governmental entities for a loss of pregnancy from the moment of fertilization, by simply alleging that they were at fault,” she continued.

“This increased liability exposure will be devastating to any health care practitioner or hospital that treats pregnant patients, and is especially dangerous to OB/GYNs who specialize in high-risk pregnancies.”

But other groups that steer clear from abortion debates, such as the Florida Justice Reform Institute, which promotes legislation to reduce civil lawsuits against businesses, and the Doctor’s Co., the nation’s largest physician-owned medical malpractice carrier, also opposed the legislation.

Companion SB 164, by Fort Pierce Republican Sen. Erin Grall, faces an uphill battle in the Florida Senate, where the bill cleared its first committee by a 5-4 vote.

Damages for the death of an unborn child are not recoverable under the state’s wrongful death laws, which allow for recovery of medical or funeral bills and past and future pain and suffering. Damages may be recoverable for “negligent stillbirth” in a common-law proceeding. Those damages are limited to mental pain and anguish and medical expenses incurred incident to the pregnancy.

The House and Senate bills would allow parents to file wrongful death suits for unborn children, defined as a member of “the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.” Wrongful death suits allow damages for mental pain and loss of support, meaning jurors could determine the salary the fetus could have earned over its life as part of the damages to which parents could be entitled.

https://floridaphoenix.com/2025/12/02/fetal-wrongful-death-bill-ready-for-house-floor-vote/

Says he’ll OK non-economic damages only with monetary limits.
By: Christine Sexton – May 29, 2025 2:39 pm

Sabrina Davis holds a picture of her father, Navy Veteran Keith Davis, who died because of medical malpractice. (Photo courtesy Sabrina Davis)

The “free kill” repeal bill has been killed.

Gov. Ron DeSantis stuck to his promise and on Thursday vetoed legislation that would have eliminated a bar against parents of adult children and the adult children of single parents suing hospitals and physicians for non-economic damages for the deaths of loved ones.

“Whether the physician was perfect or whether the physicians was not, if somebody doesn’t make it through that, you know, that is a tragedy in one form or another, and the loss for a family member, even in someone that’s an adult, an independent, at that point, is real. And I think everyone appreciates that,” the governor said during a news conference outside Lee Health in Fort Myers.

“I think the question, though, is what would this legislation do for costs of health care in Florida, access to care in Florida, and our ability to recruit and keep physicians,” DeSantis said.

Joining him were Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo, Lee Health President Dr. Lawrence Antonucci, and a spate of others who supported the veto. Non-economic damages include pain-and-suffering. Plaintiffs can still recover economic damages, such as lost wages, medical bills, and funeral costs.

DeSantis said it was their collective opinion that “if this legislation would be enacted, it would lead to higher costs for Floridians, it would lead to less care for Floridians, and it would make it harder for us to keep, recruit, and maintain physicians in the state of Florida.”

While the veto drew support from a line of Tallahassee special-interest groups, it drew criticism from those who’ve been unable to fully win compensation for potential acts of medical malpractice.

The bill itself (HB 6017) passed overwhelmingly on bipartisans vote in the Republican-controlled Legislature — more than enough of a margin to sustain a veto override, which takes two-thirds majority, should it come to that.

DeSantis said the Legislature could win his support by including limits on non-economic damages in all medical malpractice lawsuits, plus caps on plaintiff attorney fees.

The Florida Senate previously voted by a razor thin, one-vote margin to reject limits on non-economic damages.

State Rep. Dana Trabulsy, via Florida House

“That really hurts”

“I am aware that he’s probably spoken to the lobbyists, but I haven’t found a single family yet that he spoke to who this is actually affected. That really hurts, because those are the people that he should be speaking to,” Sabrina Davis told the Florida Phoenix.

Davis has dedicated considerable time and attention to trying to remove Florida’s non-economic damages ban after her father, Navy veteran Keith Davis, died from a blood clot after being admitted to a hospital for knee pain.

Davis successfully filed a complaint against the doctor with the Department of Health. The board found the doctor violated the standards of care and committed medical malpractice, hit him with a $7,500 fine, and made him take a continuing education course on blood clots.

Even if he had not vetoed the legislation, Davis would not be able to recover non-economic damages because the law wouldn’t have applied retroactively. But she went to every legislative committee meeting, every local delegation meeting, and scheduled as many one-on-one meetings with legislators as she could since her dad died in 2020.

When asked why, Davis reflected:

“Well, it gives me peace, because I know my dad took an oath to fight for our country’s freedom, no matter what it meant. And although he didn’t die on the battlefield, he did die by the very people that were supposed to protect him.

“And so, when I think about it, I’m reminded that my freedom was taken away after my dad died, and there’s a small part of me that thinks, when this law ends, I can say that I helped and I contributed it to it ending. Then that freedom my dad fought for in the Navy would not be in vain, and that I, through him, or him through I, helped restore the freedom that he once fought for. “

The governor said earlier this month that he planned to veto the bill. So while Davis is upset, she isn’t surprised.

Or alone.

Bill sponsor Rep. Dana Trabulsy wrote the governor Wednesday asking him not to veto the legislation.

“This entire conversation ultimately comes down to one word: justice. When a loved one dies due to admitted malpractice, and the law says their life has no legal value because they were an adult with no dependents —that’s not just a legal loophole, that’s a moral failing.

“It’s shameful. It should break the heart of every Floridian, including yours. Florida remains the only state in the nation where some lives are legally worthless. We are the only state that shields bad actors from accountability in such a sweeping way. Governor, this bill is about doing what’s right, not what’s easy,” Trabulsy, a Republican from Fort Pierce, wrote.

‘I expect you bring facts and data and not scare tactics and opinions.’

By: Christine Sexton – March 20, 2025

Rep. Hillary Cassel on Thursday blasted a lobbyist for his testimony on a bill that would increase the potential for wrongful death lawsuits to be filed against Florida doctors and hospitals, accusing him of using scare tactics to try to sink the bill.

During public testimony on HB 6017 before the House Judiciary Committee, attorney Mark Berlick said allowing adult children of single parents to sue physicians and hospitals for noneconomic damages, such as pain and suffering, would open the door to estranged children suing Florida’s hospitals and physicians.

Berlick, an attorney with the Bolin Law Group, said he represented the Florida Justice Reform Institute, which champions lawsuit limitations.

He testified that the “bulk” of people who would be filing medical malpractice lawsuits are going to be nonstate residents who are estranged from family members who live in Florida.

“So, though you’ll end up with the individuals that will end up with a check being sent to them for an individual that never sets foot in the state of Florida, they won’t receive any medical care here. They won’t have any taxes paid here. They’ll just simply receive a settlement check from the death of their relatives,” he said.

The comments didn’t sit well with Cassel, a Republican who noted that the majority of the people in the committee hearing who testified on behalf of the bill were Florida residents.

“We as members expect that the people that come before us to provide information are going to do so truthfully and with facts, and for the gentleman from the Florida Justice Reform Institute to come before us and assert that the people that are going to benefit from this don’t live in this state and must be estranged from their families, and we’re going to just be writing checks to estranged members, doesn’t have an ounce of data to support that,” Cassel said.

“And that was nothing more than a scare tactic to this committee, and it’s an insult on our intelligence, and it’s an insult to the people who are here today, who are clearly not estranged from the loved ones that they have lost. And of the ones that have testified, all but two are Floridians. So, 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 bring facts and data and not scare tactics and opinions.”

Quid pro quo

The insurance industry, Florida hospitals associations, and organized medicine such as the Florida Medical and Florida Osteopathic associations, oppose the bill in its current form. But they are willing to support eliminating the ban if the Legislature agrees to limit damages for pain and suffering.

Otherwise, increasing civil liability will further increase medical malpractice insurance rates and drive physicians away from practicing, the opponents say.

To date, neither the House nor Senate have included the industry-coveted caps in the bill. The Senate passed its version, SB 734, earlier this week.

Rudman returns

There are some individual physicians, though, who support the proposal, including former state Rep. Joel Rudman.

Rudman resigned from the House to launch an unsuccessful congressional bid but returned Thursday to testify in support of the bill.

A Navarre physician, Rudman said he came to Florida from Alabama during the 1990s and the high medical malpractice rates didn’t drive him away. The premiums he pays today, he said, haven’t changed in a decade. And the costs of the insurance protection from lawsuits isn’t among his top three overhead costs.

“I’ve had a license since 1997, and I’ve never been sued. I’m very proud of that,” Rudman said. “It’s not because of some bogus protections carve-out in the current statute. It’s because I’m damn good at my job. And this bill will not change that, either. The only doctors that want to see this statute remain in place are bad doctors and, unfortunately, we have a few of those in the state of Florida.”

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