Florida Politics – Florida Justice Reform Institute

Another tort tussle in the Florida House_Fla Politics

February 2, 2026/in Florida Politics

Florida Phoenix – February 2, 2026

How to measure damages in liability claims?

The amount in damages that 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 on Thursday to pass HB 1553 to its next— and only other — remaining scheduled stop, the Judiciary Committee. The four “no” votes were cast by Reps. Kim Berfield, Dean Black, Danny Nix and Michele Rayner.

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 care — falls solely on the plaintiff. Other judges have ruled that the burden also falls on the defendant.

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.

Supporters of HB 1553, including the statewide association representing trial attorneys, insist that 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 that 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.

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 under which care is provided free of charge up front. Providers agree to defer payment until after the litigation is settled.

What physicians charge under LOP agreements for providing health care 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 inflate plaintiffs’ medical bills, which drive 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 regarding 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 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.”

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 on Thursday, with the latter arguing that 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 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 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; they are 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 positive effect on how the company handled 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.

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 trial attorneys, with the latter supporting 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.”

___

Christine Sexton reports via Florida Phoenix, part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501 (c) (3) public charity. Florida Phoenix maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Michael Moline for questions: info@floridaphoenix.com.

Governor picks Adam Tanenbaum to fill Supreme Court opening

January 14, 2026/in Florida Politics

A.G. Gancarski – January 14, 2026

An appellate Judge gets elevated to the highest court in the state.

Gov. Ron DeSantis continues to put his stamp on the Florida Supreme Court, appointing Adam Tanenbaum to fill the opening left last year by recently retired Justice Charles Canady.

DeSantis made the announcement at Seminole High School, Tanenbaum’s alma mater, where the jurist was student body president and graduated as valedictorian.

DeSantis appointed Tanenbaum to the 1st District Court of Appeal in October 2019 and clearly liked what he has seen since, elevating the jurist from a crowded field of qualified applicants.

DeSantis said he was particularly impressed with Tanenbaum’s knowledge of state government and “strong background,” saying the newest Supreme Court Justice understands the executive branch better than the Governor himself.

“I was talking to some of my guys after I interviewed the Judge. It’s like, we’ve got 23-plus million people, you know, in the state of Florida. And I would guarantee you, you will not find 10 people out of that 23 million who know more about Florida government — not just law, and the Supreme Court and courts, but the agencies, the legislative branch, all that — than Judge Tanenbaum. He knows this stuff very, very well,” DeSantis said.

Prior to becoming a Judge, Tanenbaum worked in commercial litigation and served as a state and federal public defender, General Counsel for the Florida Department of State, and chief deputy solicitor general at the Florida Department of Legal Affairs.

“He’s had a really distinguished legal career,” DeSantis said.

Tanenbaum graduated from the University of Florida as a co-valedictorian, was a member of Florida Blue Key, and later earned his law degree from Georgetown.

He is DeSantis’ sixth pick for the high court and will ensure the Governor’s conservative judicial philosophy prevails long after he leaves office in November.

“Someone could be on the court for 20, 30 years,” DeSantis said, going on to express confidence that Tanenbaum had the “courage” and “warrior spirit” to make tough rulings “when it may not be as popular to do so.”

“I wholeheartedly embrace your vision, Governor, and I am honored and humbled that you would entrust me with what likely is your capstone appointment to our state’s high court,” Tanenbaum said, before offering some autobiographical context as to why the setting of the announcement was so important to him.

“I graduated in 1989. The same year the ‘Stranger Things’ kids did, as a matter of fact. And the same year that Taylor Swift was born. I gave a valedictorian speech and crossed the stage on a football field, not far away from this room, about 37 years ago. Never did I expect that I would be back here, in this building, with the Governor of the state of Florida, doing this.”

Tanenbaum discussed how his parents fostered his independent spirit, then fought back tears as he paid tribute to his deceased grandparents. He also offered an emotional testimonial to his wife on the day before their wedding anniversary.

He also grounded his judicial philosophy in that of DeSantis’ favorite living judge, Clarence Thomas, saying he’d be an originalist and wouldn’t be afraid to overrule erroneous precedent when necessary.

“Sometimes, the circumstances require boldness to restore our jurisprudence to its historical roots. Choosing not to do this is not judicial restraint. Judicial restraint describes how the court should approach the work of the other two branches. With respect for separation of powers, and for the limited scope of the judicial power, basically to conclusively adjudicate one dispute at a time by ascertaining and correctly applying the originally fixed meaning of the law. Restraint does not, and should not, describe the court’s approach to correcting demonstrably erroneous lines of decision that only it has the power to correct,” Tanenbaum said.

He also pledged to look at “wrong and inefficient” practices in administrative law.

“The court should continue to exercise its constitutional authority, to look at the different administrative components that the court supervises and make any necessary changes to ensure. those components are efficiently pursuing the court’s established values and vision. Steps already have been taken on this front by my soon to be colleagues, and I look forward to joining them in the ongoing endeavor.”

After the appointment was announced, Florida Justice Reform Institute President William Large said Tanenbaum “is an exceptional choice for the Florida Supreme Court.”

“His extensive legal experience, combined with his dedication to public service, demonstrates he is deeply committed to the State of Florida and upholding the rule of law,” Large added.

Governor picks Adam Tanenbaum to fill Supreme Court opening

‘Free kill’ repeal again heads to House floor, but a Senate companion bill still hasn’t been filed

November 19, 2025/in Florida Politics

Jesse Scheckner – November 19, 2025

Supporters argued the current law leaves some lives without legal value, while industry groups cautioned lawmakers about destabilizing insurance markets and care access.

Before the 2026 Regular Session has even begun, a proposed repeal of a unique Florida law that denies families legal recourse in medical malpractice cases is already heading to the House floor again.

This time, however, the proposal doesn’t have a companion bill in the Senate, a complication that may potentially imperil its future if it passes in the House and is sent to the upper chamber.

Members of the House Judiciary Committee voted 15-1 to advance HB 6003, which would delete a restriction in Florida Statutes blocking the award of noneconomic damages — grief, loss of companionship and the like — in cases of lethal medical negligence if the victim is 25 or older, unmarried and without children under 25.

Critics of the 35-year-old restriction have dubbed it “free kill,” as it shields careless providers while leaving surviving loved ones without the same court-based remedies available to others.

In recent years, support in Tallahassee for keeping it on the books has waned. Lawmakers overwhelmingly approved a repeal bill in May, only for Gov. Ron DeSantis to veto it later that month. He cited the bill’s lack of caps on damages, warning that it would cause malpractice insurance premiums to skyrocket.

But that argument doesn’t make much sense, considering keeping insurance premiums down was a key reason why the carve-out to Florida’s Wrongful Death Act was added in 1990, said Fort Pierce Republican Rep. Dana Trabulsy, the bill’s sponsor, who noted Wednesday that premiums here still rose to rates among the highest nationwide.

“This exception was created to bring down insurance rates related to medical malpractice, and that did not happen,” she said.

“We are very lucky to live in a state that offers such wonderful health care. However, this bill does not affect that. This bill affects a very small group of people whose families have no access to the courts.”

This marks the sixth time Trabulsy has carried the bill. Rep. Johanna López is a co-prime sponsor of the measure, which has co-sponsorship support from fellow Orlando Democratic Rep. Anna Eksamani.

Rep. Dana Trabulsy offers closing remarks on HB 6017, the 2025 version of her and Rep. Johanna López’s ‘free kill’ repeal, ahead of its overwhelming passage on the House floor March 26, 2025. Gov. Ron DeSantis vetoed the measure about two months later. Image via Sarah Gray/Florida House.

More than half a dozen Floridians who lost adult family members to medical malpractice, both parents and children, appeared before the Committee to advocate for the bill’s passage. All had done so before, traveling to the Capitol on their own dime to face lawmakers and demand what they believe is right.

Among them: Travis Chreighton, Alyssa Crocker, Sabrina Davis, Cindy Jenkins, Lauren Korniyenko, Darcy McGill and Daryl Perritt, who is paying for a billboard at the Florida-Georgia line advising visitors that they’re entering the “Free Kill State of Florida,” a biting play on the Governor’s oft-used slogan, the “Free State of Florida.”

The Florida Alliance for Retired Americans and AARP Florida are also supporting the measure.

Kristy Meadows, a veterinarian, said her father, Ted, went to AdventHealth Dade City this year complaining of severe sickness, but staff there ignored his symptoms and test results, dismissing him without a diagnosis or treatment. He died days later.

Meadows said that, like many surviving family members, she didn’t know about “free kill” until it affected her. And like many in the medical field and those who represent them, she said, she hates the phrase “free kill,” though it does “effectively describe what this law does.”

She then urged members of the Committee to think of their loved ones who aren’t married and don’t have minor children.

“Think about that relationship that you have with them. That relationship, the companionship, the love, means nothing under this law,” she said, adding that she herself and many of her family members fall into that category.

“Under this law, our lives have no compensable value. And now that I know that, do I feel safe going to a hospital in Florida? I’m not really sure anymore. But it does not have to stay that way.”

Representatives from medical companies and industry associations appeared in opposition to the measure, including the U.S. Chamber of Congress, Associated Industries of Florida, The Doctors Company, Florida Insurance Council, Florida Medical Association, American Property Casualty Insurance Association, Florida Justice Reform Institute and the Florida chapters of the American College of Physicians and American College of Surgeons.

All cautioned against passing HB 6003 without caps on damages, like the $1 million limit state Senators narrowly rejected before passing its predecessor bill (HB 6017) on a 33-4 vote May 1. House members voted 104-6 for HB 6017 in late March.

Jacksonville Republican Sen. Clay Yarborough, who carried the bill’s Senate companion during the 2025 Session, told Florida Politics last month that he did not plan to refile the bill, since he expected DeSantis would veto it again.

Bob Johnson, a transplant to Florida who has lived in The Villages for the past five years, said Wednesday that passing HB 6003 would make already costly health care even more expensive and advised lawmakers to shun it.

The Villages resident Bob Johnson, an opponent of HB 6003, said some of his neighbors fly to other states to seek medical care because it’s too expensive in Florida. Image via The Florida Channel.

The Florida Hospital Association’s General Counsel, Kristen Dobson, argued similarly. She said Florida is losing doctors at a rate double the national average as obstetricians, surgeons, internists and other specialists face some of the highest medical liability insurance rates in the country.

One major hospital in South Florida saw a 73% year-over-year increase in reinsurance and had to buy insurance through a “below A-rated carrier” for the first time, she said, attributing the strain felt across the state to liability issues.

Dobson pointed to so-called “nuclear verdicts” — jury-directed lawsuit awards of $10 million or more — she said are “becoming increasingly common and significantly destabilize the insurance market.” Just two months ago, a jury awarded nearly $71 million in a single case.

“The increasing threat of nuclear verdicts holds hospitals and health care providers hostage, forcing them to settle out of court regardless of the merits of the case, which drags up insurance rates and exacerbates the cost of health care, jeopardizing access to critical health care services in Florida,” she said. “The cost of this bill will be paid by Floridians, particularly those living in rural communities. Fewer doctors means longer wait times, worsening medical conditions, increased (emergency department use) and higher overall health care costs.”

Davie Democratic Rep. Mike Gottlieb, a criminal defense lawyer, blasted Dobson’s arguments as misleading and pointed the blame the wrong way. While lawmakers have repeatedly been warned that if they repeal “free kill,” the state will see “a couple thousand more cases,” that isn’t the strong argument those utilizing it seem to think it is.

“A couple thousand people dying at the hands of a doctor?” he said. “That’s really problematic if that’s what we’re talking about.”

Also unconvincing, he said, is alarm over “nuclear verdicts,” which evidence deep problems on the supply side of health care.

“When I hear ‘nuclear verdict,’ I hear gross negligence. The reason a jury is awarding someone $15 million is somebody made a huge mistake, something that was blatantly obvious,” he said. “That’s why a jury says, ‘You need to pay more than anybody else should pay, because you’re breaching the standards of care. Your causation was so high, and you committed a huge harm.’ That’s why we have nuclear verdicts, not because people’s mentality is changing.”

Cindy Jenkins, who lost her daughter to medical negligence, spoke to the House Judiciary Committee on Nov. 19, 2025. She is one of more than half a dozen surviving family members who have made it their mission to get ‘free kill’ repealed in Florida. Image via The Florida Channel.

Notably, the $71 million verdict was awarded to a woman left blind, partially paralyzed and with cognitive impairment following a stroke after a nurse at Tampa General Hospital failed to order proper testing and treatment before discharging her.

Gottlieb added that most obstetricians are fleeing Florida not due to insurance issues but because they’re overburdened amid a statewide population boom and because of the “repressive reproduction and maternity care laws” the GOP-dominated Legislature has passed in the past decade — something, he said, a simple Google search can prove.

“It has nothing to do with ‘free kill,’” he said. “They’re taking your eye off the ball.”

Republican Reps. Jon Albert, Danny Alvarez, Jessica Baker, David Borrero, Hillary Cassel, Traci Koster, Patt Maney, Michelle Salzman and Chuck Brannan, the Committee Chair, voted for HB 6003 on Wednesday alongside Gottlieb, López and Rep. Dan Daley.

The sole “no” vote came from Republican Rep. Tom Fabricio, who also voted against the 2025 version of the bill when it came before the Committee on March 20. Fabricio did not speak on the measure then or on Wednesday.

In her closing remarks, Trabulsy said that of all of HB 6003’s opponents who appeared in the Committee meeting, only two had come by her office to speak to her about it, while every supporter of the bill had done so.

“My door is always open, so I’m a little disappointed in that,” she said. “I think it’s because … they’re representing a company or they’re representing the insurance industry, and in their hearts, they know that it’s wrong, and they’ll probably look me in the eye and I would probably know that they’re not selling a good story.”

HB 6003 does not need a sponsor or companion bill in the Senate to pass. If the House passes the bill, the Senate can take it up directly, assign it to appropriate committees — or waive reference — and vote on it, amend it and return it to the House for concurrence or replace the text of a Senate bill with the House language via a strike-all amendment.

Without any Senate action, however, the bill will die.

‘Free kill’ repeal again heads to House floor, but a Senate companion bill still hasn’t been filed

Proposed repeal of Florida’s ‘free kill’ law again advances to penultimate House Committee

October 15, 2025/in Florida Politics

Jesse Scheckner – October 15, 2025

‘If you’re feeling a little déjà vu today, it’s because you should be.’

The 2026 Legislative Session isn’t set to start for another three months, but already one of its most contentious legislative proposals is just one vote from reaching the House floor.

Members of the House Civil Justice and Claims Subcommittee voted 16-2 to advance HB 6003, which would repeal a unique Florida law that denies some families the ability to sue for non-economic damages — like grief and loss of companionship — if a hospital or doctor’s error kills their loved one.

The measure is virtually identical to a bill lawmakers overwhelmingly approved in May, only for Gov. Ron DeSantis to veto it later that month, pointing to its lack of caps on damages as an incentive for lawyers to pursue what he called “jackpot justice.”

Fort Pierce Republican Rep. Dana Trabulsy and Orlando Democratic Rep. Johanna López have revived the proposal, still without limits on what plaintiffs can receive.

“If you’re feeling a little déjà vu today, it’s because you should be,” Trabulsy told the panel on Wednesday.

“In Florida, we have world-class doctors. This is in no way, shape or form a bill that is punishing the doctors or our medical staff. This bill is simply to repeal a piece of law that is unjust.”

The law in question is a 1990 carve-out in Florida’s Wrongful Death Act meant to appease insurers and medical practitioners while keeping insurance costs down. It bans families from suing for wrongful death due to medical negligence if a parent or offspring is 25 or older, unmarried and without children under 25.

Critics of the restriction dubbed it “free kill,” arguing it unfairly shields careless providers while leaving some families without the same recourse afforded to others. Many medical professionals take exception to that label, contending it suggests that doctors are willfully irresponsible or eager to take lives.

Trabulsy said the Governor’s “jackpot justice” term is far more offensive and noted that Florida law requires pre-lawsuit investigations before the filing of a wrongful death claim, meaning “no one can just go out and file a frivolous lawsuit.”

But the state already has arguably unfair protections for medical wrongdoing, she said, citing an existing Department of Health policy that allows doctors to shieldmalpractice settlements under $100,000 from public disclosure.

“It just gets pushed under the rug,” she said. “The Department of Health knows it, but if we’re seeking a physician, we don’t get to find that out. So, I would agree we need some work there.”

(L-R) Reps. Johanna López and Dana Trabulsy, a Fort Pierce Republican and Orlando Democrat, respectively, acknowledge victims’ families in the House Chamber gallery during the passing of the 2025 Session’s repeal of ‘free kill’ in March. Gov. Ron DeSantis later vetoed the measure. Image via Sarah Gray/Florida House.

As was the case with prior iterations of the bill, HB 6003 faced ample opposition from industry groups.

Among them: the Florida Hospital Association, Associated Industries of Florida, Florida Justice Reform Institute, Florida Orthopaedic Society, Florida Insurance Council and Florida Osteopathic Medical Association.

Andy Borom, an orthopedic surgeon in Tallahassee, said enacting HB 6003 would reduce health care access, as doctors already facing rising costs might opt to retire early rather than take on the risks the bill introduces.

Doctors in Florida, he said, already pay the highest number of medical malpractice claims in the country, an assertion supported by the Florida Hospital Association. A recent survey by a Florida-based personal injury firm found that Florida had the second-highest number of payouts between 2020 and 2024, behind New York.

“If your goal is to just throw another golden bone to the trial lawyers, you can feel free to do that,” Borom said. “But if you actually want physicians that are well-trained, well-experienced, to stay here in Florida and take care of you and your patients, you need to reconsider this.”

Vivian Gallo, head of claims at insurance company Howden, reiterated many of the talking points she shared when speaking against the legislation last Session. Since 2019, she said, Florida’s medical malpractice insurance premiums have been up to 70% higher than national rates, while the premiums and deductibles hospitals in the state must pay both rose 60%.

Meanwhile, 13 insurance carriers have stopped writing medical malpractice insurance in Florida, and those that still do have reduced the amount they’ll cover. The cause, she said, is “nuclear verdicts” in which plaintiffs win $20 million or more, which have grown more common in recent years.

“It’s tripling in the last two and a half years. That’s a huge increase,” she said, adding that if lawmakers insist on passing the bill again, they should cap non-economic damages “in line with what other states have done.”

Lobbyist Chris Nuland, who spoke on behalf of nearly a dozen organizations, including the Florida Chamber of Commerce and Florida Society of Plastic Surgeons, said the state law’s “free kill” colloquial descriptor “couldn’t be further from the truth.”

Doctors are still responsible for economic damages for medical malpractice, he said, and providers suspected of endangering or neglecting patients face scrutiny from the Florida Board of Medicine.

“Two weeks ago, seven physicians lost their licenses,” he said. “So, there is recourse to make sure that bad physicians do not continue to practice.”

Representatives of the Florida Alliance for Retired Americans, AARP and Florida Medical Rights Association appeared in support of HB 6003.

So did numerous surviving family members, including Cindy Jenkins, who lost her 25-year-old daughter in 2023 due to what she described as “reckless negligence” at a Kissimmee hospital, and Beth Young, whose mother died the same year after a “simple, overnight watchman procedure.”

Marcia Scheppler shared how her 29-year-old son with Down syndrome and autism, Joseph “Jojo” Thompson, died in 2019 of septic shock after being denied medical services at a Port St. Lucie hospital. A Florida Department of Health investigation later found that the hospital and its staff violated the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, which requires hospitals to treat anyone within 250 yards of their facilities.

The delay of care to Thompson, who Scheppler said was a “2-year-old in a 29-year-old body,” directly led to his death. However, because of the current Florida law, Scheppler could not seek justice.

“When the ER refused to treat him, it wasn’t the first time he faced medical discrimination. It was just the time that killed him,” Scheppler said, adding that as a nurse, she believes in and supports health care and responsible practitioners. “Conscientious, well-trained doctors needn’t worry. But we shouldn’t protect bad actors to save money over life.”

Restaurateur Daryl Perritt, who is paying for a billboard at the state line advising visitors that they’re entering the “Free Kill State of Florida,” spoke of losing his 33-year-old son last year due to blood clots at a St. Johns County hospital, where staff were advised beforehand of his susceptibility to embolisms.

“You’ve listened to stories like mine for 30 years,” he said.

The billboard reading “Welcome to the Free Kill State of Florida” stands near the Florida Welcome Center on I-95. Daryl Perritt says he intends to keep the sign up until Florida’s “free kill” law is overturned. He’s also working to see many other such signs rise across the state. Image via Daryl Perritt and Cindy Jenkins.

Perritt noted how every surviving family member who spoke against the law only learned of it after their loved ones died. Conversely, he said, those arguing for keeping the law intact or adding caps are “very familiar” with it.

“I’d like to hear one of them come up and speak about something other than money,” he said. “I don’t need money. I need answers.”

Alyssa Crocker, a business development specialist who is running for Miami Mayor, shared how her father died of “egregious and unconscionable medical negligence” at North Shore Medical Center, which has faced numerous medical malpractice lawsuits in recent years.

“If the right person died — meaning the wrong age, the wrong family structure — there is no legal path to justice,” she said.

Florida Medical Rights Association Deputy Director Darcy McGill, who found her mother dead in a hospital bed “covered in blood” two days after minor hip surgery, said capping non-economic damages — last proposed at $1 million — doesn’t improve safety, lower premiums or improve health care.

McGill said that while HB 6003 aims to end “free kill,” there’s a parallel effort underway to reimpose caps on currently admissible non-economic claims. The problem is, the Florida Supreme Court has repeatedly struck down measures capping those damages, ruling them unconstitutional.

“Lobbyists claim caps create balance,” she said. “In truth, they create barriers, shielding powerful industries while silencing families.”

Davie Democratic Rep. Mike Gottlieb, a criminal defense lawyer, said there are myriad other professions in Florida — general contractors, Realtors, architects, cosmetologists, taxi drivers and lawyers, among others — where insurance coverage is mandatory.

But doctors in the Sunshine State have another option: to “go bare” and not carry any insurance, opting instead to take out relatively small lines of credit.

“People deserve to be compensated the same as if that gross negligence killed someone in an automobile accident, plain and simple,” he said.

Jacksonville Republican Rep. Dean Black, a cattle rancher, said he believes HB 6003 comes from a place of compassion and seeking justice, but expressed concern about the impact on health care costs.

He suggested that Trabulsy and López reconsider including “reasonable limits” on payouts. Rep. Paula Stark, a St. Cloud Republican, agreed.

Democratic Rep. Michele Rayner, a trial lawyer from St. Petersburg, said she hoped to hear opponents of HB 6003 offer an alternative solution to the problem, but none did.

“I understand the business community’s concern,” she said. “That simply does not outweigh people’s lives.”

Republican Reps. Kim Berfield and Danny Nix — a hospital government relations executive and a commercial Realtor, respectively — voted against HB 6003 but didn’t debate over it Wednesday.

Notably, both voted for its 2025 version.

HB 6003 does not yet have a Senate companion. Its sponsor last year, Jacksonville Republican Sen. Clay Yarborough, told Florida Politics he wouldn’t refile the proposal because he expects “the same outcome from the 2025 Session.”

HB 6003 will next go to the House Judiciary Committee, after which it will reach the chamber floor.

___

Editor’s note: This report was updated to include Scheppler and Thompson’s story.

Proposed repeal of Florida’s ‘free kill’ law again advances to penultimate House Committee

Takeaways from Tallahassee — Be prepared

May 31, 2025/in Florida Politics

Staff Reports – May 31, 2025

—Phew! Part Deux —

Justice reform advocates and health care providers joined DeSantis on Thursday while he vetoed the ‘free kill’ bill (HB 6017).

“The question is: What would this legislation do for the cost of health care in Florida, access to care in Florida, and our ability to recruit and keep physicians?” DeSantis said. “I don’t think that what they’ve proposed here is going to put us on the strong foot without these additional safeguards. So, for that reason, I am announcing that we will be vetoing that legislation.”

Andy Bolin, owner of Bolin Law Group, stated during a news conference with the Governor that Florida physicians are currently facing the highest medical insurance premiums in the United States.

They aren’t putting ‘Free Kill State of Florida’ signs at the border, but FJRI is jumping for joy following the Governor’s veto.

“We need to make sure we’re doing everything we can to engage physicians, to make sure that we have physicians that are not only going to be able to provide access to care, but that are making decisions based on the quality of care,” Bolin said.

Opponents of the ‘free kill’ repeal assert medical malpractice laws currently incentivize the pursuit of cases to win big claims, which can lead to “nuclear” verdicts that can add up to tens of millions of dollars for health care providers. These costs are ultimately passed on to health care consumers.

William Large, president of the Florida Justice Reform Institute, said in a statement that the legislation would have been “catastrophic” for Florida’s health care system and those who need it — Florida families.

“Having affordable access to health care is of paramount importance to Floridians and must be protected,” Large said. “HB 6017 proposed only to expand liability for our health care community without any safeguards to ensure that Florida’s health care system and residents do not suffer as a result.”

Takeaways from Tallahassee — Be prepared

‘There simply isn’t enough justice to go around’: Controversial ‘free kill’ law to survive with Governor’s veto

May 29, 2025/in Florida Politics

Jesse Scheckner – May 29, 2025

A bill to repeal the unique Florida restriction derisively dubbed ‘free kill’ passed overwhelmingly in both legislative chambers. The Governor vetoed it Thursday.

Following through on his mid-May vow to do so, Gov. Ron DeSantis has blocked bipartisan legislation that would have repealed a decades-old Florida law that critics derisively dubbed “free kill.”

In a letter to House Speaker Daniel Perez, DeSantis confirmed he vetoed the measure, maintaining the state’s existing prohibition on lawsuits by unmarried adults over 25 and their parents from suing for pain and suffering due to a wrongful death caused by medical malpractice.

He framed his decision as one based on financial impact, keeping Florida attractive to doctors and maintaining the state’s level of health care as its insurance market stabilizes.

“What would this legislation do for the cost of health care in Florida, access to care in Florida and our ability to recruit and keep physicians?” he said at a Thursday press conference announcing his plan to kill the bill. “It would lead to higher costs for Floridians. It would lead to less access to care in Florida. It would make it harder for us to keep, recruit and maintain physicians in the state of Florida.”

As he did earlier this month, the Governor cited a lack of caps on legal damages in the bill as a significant flaw.

Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo agreed, calling the Governor’s veto “the right thing to do.”

“The issue of justice, legal justice, economic damages, non-economic damages — there simply isn’t enough justice to go around and have the system be able to stand up on its two feet,” Ladapo said.

“It’s just not possible. And the right thing to do, the wise thing to do in that situation, is to have caps. Frankly, it’s insane to have a system with no caps on non-economic damages and expect for that system to continue to sustain itself and function as it was intended to function, which is to provide care to patients.”

Florida is the only state to have a law like “free kill.” It was enacted in 1990 as part of an expansion to the state’s Wrongful Death Act, with proponents saying at the time that doing otherwise would send medical malpractice insurance premiums skyrocketing and doctors fleeing to other states.

Proponents of the repeal bill (HB 6017) — including Jacksonville Republican Sen. Clay Yarborough, Orlando Democratic Rep. Johanna López and Fort Pierce Republican Rep. Dana Trabulsy — said insurance costs have gone up anyway and maintain that the restriction should never have passed.

But DeSantis proclaimed the measure dead on arrival at a May 15 press conference, echoing financial concerns detractors shared as HB 6017 and its Senate companion (SB 734) advanced in their respective chambers.

He also pointed to the failure of an amendment Yarborough proffered that would have capped payouts at $1 million. Stuart Republican Sen. Gayle Harrell, a health care information technology executive, also cited the amendment’s narrow failure as her reason for voting against the bill, which passed 33-4 in the Senate and 104-6 in the House.

“If you had caps on the amount of damages, people could see that would disincentivize a lot of jackpot justice,” he said, noting that plaintiffs today aren’t blocked from seeking economic damages related to medical malpractice, only non-economic ones pertaining to grief and sorrow.

“You can already do economic damages (and with caps), then you would be able to do non-economic damages, but you would not be able to hit the lottery.”

Karen Aguilar, whose elderly father died in January due to alleged negligence at a Pasco County hospital, called the Governor’s choice of words “disgraceful.”

“No, we’re not sitting here trying to get rich,” she told WFLA a day after the press conference. “We want accountability.”

Aguilar wasn’t alone in noting that for most people, losing a 25-year-old child or parent to medical malpractice wouldn’t feel like winning the lottery.

After DeSantis announced the veto, Yarborough released a statement expressing disappointment in the decision but deference to the Governor and his role in state policymaking. He also confirmed he would not seek a veto override, which would require a two-thirds majority in both chambers.

That’s still possible, given the support HB 6017 received this year, but unlikely without the Senate sponsor’s support of such action.

“I accept the Governor’s decision,” Yarborough said. “For me, this discussion has always been about the dignity and the inherent, God-given value of every human life. While no sum of money can replace the loss of life, our laws should not place some lives at a higher value than others when it comes to the profound and lasting impact of medical negligence on a family. From the time the Governor took office, his actions have demonstrated he shares these views on the value of every life.”

Trabulsy, meanwhile, unsuccessfully urged DeSantis to reconsider in a letter Thursday, arguing that removing the exemption would restore fairness and accountability to the state’s legal system.

“We are the only state that shields bad actors from accountability in such a sweeping way,” she said.

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle praised HB 6017 as a humane change, righting a long-standing wrong.

Zephyrhills Republican Sen. Danny Burgess said he believed “a clean repeal is the right thing to do,” adding that because a “negligible amount of claims” fit the bill’s narrow scope, ending “free kill” wouldn’t be a significant cost-driver in raising insurance premiums.

“There’s no difference between a 25-year-and-364-day-old adult and a 26-year-old’s value of life, in my opinion, and I don’t think anyone believes that, for the record,” he said, calling the current law “one of the most arbitrary of laws we have on our books.”

Sen. Jason Pizzo, a Hollywood Democrat-turned-independent, said arguments that doctors wouldn’t be able to secure medical malpractice insurance if HB 6017 passed were “ridiculous.” No separate insurance category exists, he said, that excludes “doctors who specialize in making sure they operate on or treat people who have only adult children who can’t recover” damages under Florida law.

“Let’s not race to the bottom,” Pizzo said. “Let’s make our doctors better, more responsible.”

(L-R) Jacksonville Republican Sen. Clay Yarborough, Fort Pierce Republican Rep. Dana Trabulsy and Orlando Democratic Rep. Johanna López sponsored successful legislation this year to delete ‘free kill’ from Florida Statutes. Images via Florida Politics and the Florida House of Representatives.
Ocoee Democratic Rep. LaVon Bracy Davis, a lawyer, said the measure would help wipe away “a stain on our state’s moral conscience.”

“Grief does not expire at 25. The bond between a parent and child does not dissolve with age, and the right to seek justice should never be determined by a birthday,” she said. “This legislation is more than legal reform; it’s a declaration of humanity.”

Public testimony during the committee process, particularly from surviving family members of malpractice victims, was overwhelmingly supportive of HB 6017.

Cindy Jenkins, whose daughter died two years ago due to what she described as “horrific negligence” at a hospital in Orlando, said medical malpractice premiums are high in Florida because Florida has a lot of medical malpractice.

“The way you decrease medical malpractice premiums is to stop medical malpractice,” she said. “My child is a free kill. I have no justice.”

Lauren Korniyenko’s 70-year-old mother died in a hospital two days after what she called an “uncomplicated surgery to repair a fractured hip.” Brevard County law enforcement cordoned off the room as a possible homicide scene, she said, and the autopsy revealed staff ignored at least 10 “critical signs of a surgical site infection” that led to her death.

“In an era focused on greater scrutiny of government spending, this law enables the waste and abuse of taxpayer money,” she said.

Republican Joel Rudman, a doctor and former House lawmaker, endorsed the legislation in March, arguing that the only medical professionals who want to see the statute remain in place are bad at their jobs. He also rejected arguments that there is a “medical malpractice meltdown” in Florida, with a surge in such legal actions in recent years.

“As a physician, my malpractice rates have remained static in the last decade. It’s not even one of (my) top three expenditures,” he said. “Doctors aren’t going to leave Florida because of this bill — no good doctor. If a bad doctor wants to leave, bye.”

Karen Murillo of AARP Florida said the existing statute “discriminates against older and vulnerable adults” and should be deleted.

But there were numerous opponents of the measure, too, who warned Florida’s sky-high insurance and medical costs could increase further if HB 6017 became law.

“You’re seeing the highest rates in the country in Miami-Dade County in four categories: family practice, emergency room physicians, orthopedists, and we’ve talked about obstetricians,” said David Mica Jr., Executive Vice President of Public Affairs at the Florida Hospital Association.

“One-third of your rural hospitals in this state are operating in the negative margin. … We are talking about receiving care in the areas where we need it.”

Andy Bolin of the Florida Justice Reform Institute said his clients “face the highest medical malpractice premiums” in the U.S. He argued that “infusing” new cases into the system would make that problem worse and suggested that if the bill goes forward, damages must be capped.

Associated Industries of Florida’s Adam Basford urged lawmakers to take a “holistic” view of the problem and “mitigate” the impact on providers.

The Florida Chamber’s Carolyn Johnson said the bill would increase litigation, insurance rates and health care costs while decreasing access to care.

About a week after lawmakers passed the bill, the American Tort Reform Association urged DeSantis to kill the legislation, which it argued “takes Florida in the wrong direction.”

“Signing this legislation is likely to hurt Florida’s health care environment, which already faces physician and specialist shortages and high insurance premiums,” the group’s President, Sherman “Tiger” Joyce, said in a statement. “We expect legislation like this in New York, not in Florida.”

The group applauded DeSantis’ veto on Thursday, calling it a “decisive stand for fairness and common sense in Florida’s courts.”

So did Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse Florida (FL CALA), a Plantation-based nonprofit.

“Once again, the residents of Florida have been safeguarded by the Governor’s strong commitment to civil justice. HB 6017 would have reversed key protections and expanded non-economic damages while opening the door to limitless intangible loss verdicts in areas like pain and suffering,” the group’s Executive Director, Tom Gaitens, said in a statement. “On behalf of our advocates across the state, FL CALA thanks Gov. DeSantis for his commitment to end abusive lawsuits.”

Meanwhile, the Tallahassee-based Florida Justice Association (FJA), which repeatedly advocated for HB 6017 and its Senate analog (SB 734) as they advanced this year through their respective chambers, decried the continuation of what it called “a legal loophole that denies justice to families whose unmarried adult loved ones die due to medical negligence.”

FJA President Todd Michaels pointed out that 93% of the Legislature supported HB 6017. He also noted that when DeSantis announced his plan to veto HB 6017 earlier in the day, he did so without any input or support from people who lost loved ones due to the issue at hand.

“In a room filled with doctors, hospital executives, the insurance industry and other caps proponents, but not a single family or victim of medical negligence — the Governor called for caps in all medical malpractice cases, a clear signal that he prioritizes the financial interests of hospitals, doctors, and insurance companies over the lives and rights of everyday Floridians,” Michaels said in a statement.

Aaron Davis, a partner at the Miami-based law firm Davis Goldman, which specializes in personal injury and medical malpractice cases, also said he was disappointed with the Governor’s decision to veto HB 6017, calling it “a devastating setback for families seeking accountability in the wake of medical negligence.”

“For decades, this outdated provision has denied justice to grieving parents and adult children, and the veto preserves a system that protects negligent providers over victims,” he said in a statement. “This move signals continued barriers in personal injury litigation for families in Florida, but it also underscores the urgency of pushing for reform in future Legislative Sessions.”

‘There simply isn’t enough justice to go around’: Controversial ‘free kill’ law to survive with Governor’s veto

Diagnosis for 3.24.25: Checking the pulse of Florida health care news and policy

March 25, 2025/in Florida Politics

Diagnosis for 3.24.25: Checking the pulse of Florida health care news and policy

Staff Reports – March 24, 2025

“Lobbyist scolded for ‘scare tactics’ in Committee debate on wrongful-death bill” via Christine Sexton of the Florida Phoenix — 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.

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

Mark Berlick faces criticism for alleged “scare tactics” while lobbying against Florida’s wrongful-death bill in committee.

Diagnosis for 3.24.25: Checking the pulse of Florida health care news and policy

‘Everybody now has skin in this game’

March 22, 2025/in Florida Politics

‘Everybody now has skin in this game’: House advances ‘loser pays’ rules for insurance lawsuits

Jesse Scheckner – March 22, 2025

Sympathy for insurers has plunged in the wake of bombshell reporting last month.

After years of passing insurer-friendly bills to stabilize the market and attract companies to the state, Florida lawmakers are now advancing legislation to give policyholders more even footing with providers.

This week, members of the House Insurance and Banking Subcommittee voted 15-1 for HB 1551, which would create a prevailing party standard — the loser pays, essentially — for attorney’s fees in insurance-related lawsuits.

Proponents say the measure will hold insurers more accountable to their policyholders. Opponents contend it’ll line the pockets of attorneys while raising costs for consumers.

The prevailing party standard is different from “one-way attorney’s fees,” an arrangement under which insurers had to pay the attorney’s fees of policyholders suing them if the plaintiffs secured any financial award in the case.

The GOP-controlled Legislature nixed that provision through a sweeping insurance reform package (SB 2A) in December 2022 that won plaudits from insurance companies and denouncements from Democrats and policyholders who decried it as a “bailout” for companies raising rates while denying claims.

One of those Democrats, now a Republican, was Dania Beach Rep. Hillary Cassel, HB 1551’s sponsor. She called the 11-page proposal a “win-win, which we don’t often see in this process.”

“This is a win for consumers. This is a win for valid claims. This is a win to hold those insurance companies that don’t want to do the right thing accountable. And this is a win for insurance companies to defend against frivolous litigation,” she said.

“Everybody now has skin in this game.”

Cassel, a lawyer who specializes in representing Floridians against their property insurance companies, made clear that key aspects of SB 2A and its 2021 predecessor, SB 76, would remain in place. Among them: a reduced timeframe to file claims — now one year, down from three — and a requirement for policyholders to file a notice of intent to litigate before they sue.

Both bills preceded a steep reduction in insurance-focused litigation and the arrival of 11 insurers to the state to scoop up policies state-run Citizens Property Insurance shed through its “depopulation” program.

But they didn’t reduce premiums, which for many policyholders have rocketed up in recent years, outpacing inflation and leading some to opt out of having property insurance altogether.

Delray Beach Republican Rep. Mike Caruso, who cast the sole “no” vote Thursday, noted that according to a House staff analysis of the bill, HB 1551 isn’t likely to lower premiums either. In fact, he said, staff predicted it could lead to higher costs for consumers.

Caruso suggested instead to give Florida’s still-relatively-new insurance laws more time to work — which they have, he said, referencing an announcement Gov. Ron DeSantis made last month about declining premiums and a growing market.

“Why now?” he said. “I’m not saying it’s a perfect world and that we’ve completely rectified it, but because of the legislation, in addition to having these companies come in and bringing down the number … of policies Citizens carries, we’ve seen insurance rates stabilize.”

Cassel said that since the passage of SB 2A, Florida has seen a 40% decrease in insurance litigation.

“I don’t believe any of our constituents have seen a decrease in their premiums by 40%, but we’ve seen claims being denied,” she said. “This allows the valid claims to move forward in litigation and hold those insurance companies that aren’t doing the right thing accountable.”

TALLAHASSEE, FLA. 12/14/22-Rep. Hillary Cassel, D-Dania Beach, at podium, talks about the property insurance bill passed by the Republican-controlled legislature, Wednesday at the Capitol in Tallahassee.
COLIN HACKLEY PHOTO

Cassel’s bill and others aimed at rectifying Florida’s insurance woes come in the wake of massive costs from severe storms like last year’s Hurricane Milton. They also follow revelations from a 2022 state report the Tampa Bay Times obtained after a two-year wait for public records, which revealed that as Florida insurers claimed to be losing money, they were sending hundreds of millions of dollars to their out-of-state parent companies. The study’s author concluded most insurance executives in Florida violated state regulations.

The bombshell report was never given to state lawmakers. Cassel filed HB 1551 six days after the Times’ story went live.

Palm Bay Republican Rep. Monique Miller said the state insurance report, which was never made public until the Times published it, has led to something of a quandary for lawmakers.

“While that report was sitting there, some information (in it) made its way into a Special Session in which this Legislature voted to change substantially how we manage this marketplace, and so we find ourselves today (where) we have citizens who have paid their insurance premiums, as high as they were … and now they’re not getting the relief they need,” she said.

“And they have no recourse. So, we’re finding ourselves again having to act in an urgent situation, and while it’s not ideal, I think we have to do something to relieve that market pressure until we find out what’s actually happened with the insurance companies.”

Several organizations and companies attended the meeting to oppose HB 1551, including the Florida Justice Reform Institute, Americans Prosperity Casualty Insurance Association, Florida Insurance Council, National Federation of Business, U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Associated Industries of Florida.

Brandon Blake of the Personal Insurance Federation of Florida said that contrary to Cassel’s characterization of it, HB 1551 would not improve the insurance market’s equilibrium and will instead incentivize lawyers to sue insurers rather than represent clients in medical malpractice or personal injury claims.

He added that despite carrying a different title and general description, there is little that differentiates the prevailing party standard from the one-way attorney’s fees Florida jettisoned years ago.

“Instead of going back to balance, this will go back to the issue of having 76% of lawsuits where we only have 8% of claims nationwide,” he said. “This is going to gob back to seeing the 20% increases (yearly in premium) rates as opposed to just 8% now.”

Mark Wilson, President and CEO of the Florida Chamber of Commerce said in a statement that if HB 1551 would “effectively reverse the elimination of the one-way attorney fee provision causing explosive litigation that the Florida Chamber fought to remove for nearly a decade.”

Other organizations, including the Florida Medical Association, Florida Chiropractic Association and the Merlin Law Group, signaled support for the change.

Laura Youmans of the Florida Justice Association said HB 1551 is, in essence, about an individual’s right to freely contract, and the contracts at issue — the ones insures offer — are “contracts of adhesion,” meaning they’re documents the companies prewrite that policyholders must sign or be denied coverage.

“The problem … is that this imbalance means you will never see an insurance company suing a consumer for failing to comply with a contract,” she said. “If they don’t comply, (then) they’re canceled, so (insurers) don’t have to use the courts to access the value of their contracts like we do.”

HB 1551, co-sponsored by St. Coud Republican Rep. Paula Stark, has one more hearing before the House Judiciary Committee before going to a floor vote. Its Senate analog (SB 426) by Fort Myers Republican Sen. Jonathan Martin awaits a hearing before the first of three committees to which it was referred this month.

‘Everybody now has skin in this game’: House advances ‘loser pays’ rules for insurance lawsuits

‘Do justice’: House panel advances tweaks to health insurance lawsuit rules

March 21, 2025/in Florida Politics

Jesse Scheckner – March 21, 2025

‘We got it wrong in 2023. I think we’re fixing it now.’
Legislation to improve two-year-old guardrails for health insurance lawsuits cleared its first House hurdle this week with uniform support on the dais, but mixed reviews from stakeholders.

Members of the House Civil Justice and Claims Subcommittee voted 15-0 for HB 947, which targets a law passed in 2023 to tamp down on lawsuit abuses in Florida.

Supporters say the new, three-page proposal fixes confusion over the 2023 law, through small but vital tweaks, swapping the word “may” for “shall” to afford plaintiffs, defendants and courts the flexibility to include all information pertinent to a case.

Opponents argue it will remove beneficial guidance that outlined mandatory information cases must include while disincentivizing unreasonable claims.

Miami Republican Rep. Omar Blanco, the bill’s sponsor, said HB 947 “promotes consistency, clarity and trust in Florida’s legal system.”

“I’m on no side of anybody but the people who are suffering and to do justice for what has transpired,” he said. “A couple years ago, this took a turn for the worse, and now we’re looking to right that and take a path to a better solution for everybody.”

HB 947, which would go into effect July 1, would allow any court-approved evidence demonstrating the actual value of medical treatments or services, rather than predefined criteria — 120% and 170% reimbursement rates for Medicare and Medicaid, respectively — that is currently allowed.

It would permit evidence in cases about the amount of health care coverage insurers are obligated to pay, reasonable and customary rates, or the amount paid under a letter of protection (LOP) for past unpaid charges. Similar evidence types for future medical treatments or services would also be admissible.

That’s important, said Davie Democratic Rep. Mike Gottlieb, a lawyer, because Medicare and Medicaid rates are “generally significantly lower than what is reasonable and customary” and are not ideal benchmarks.

“Anybody on the defense can bring in the Medicaid or Medicare if they believe that’s reasonable or customary, and a jury can see and hear that evidence,” he said. “This is a better bill. I think we got it wrong in 2023. I think we’re fixing it now.”

Punta Gorda Republican Rep. Vanessa Oliver, a lawyer-turned-ambulance company CEO, agreed “health care rates are all over the place” and that the “government-imposed rate is the floor,” in terms of cost.

“Juries need to see every single (data point and cost) and hear all the relevant testimony so they can make a good, informed decision,” she said.

TALLAHASSEE, FLA. 11/19/24-Rep. Omar Blanco, R-Miami, takes the oath of office during Organizational Session, Tuesday at the Capitol in Tallahassee.
COLIN HACKLEY PHOTO

Public arguments on both sides of the issue were ample at the Thursday committee meeting. Organizations and companies opposing HB 947 included the Florida Insurance Council, The Doctors Company, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, State Farm, Publix, American Property Casualty Insurance Association, Uber, Personal Insurance Federation of Florida and Associated Industries of Florida.

Laurette Balinsky of the Florida Justice Reform Institute said the bill would “undo all the good progress (Florida) made on transparency and damages since 2023,” before which charges on bills were “not grounded in reality.”

Balinsky said health care costs have fallen since Gov. Ron DeSantis signed the 2023 bill (HB 837), a priority for then-Senate President Kathleen Passidomo and House Speaker Paul Renner. She said swapping “may” for “shall” will eliminate uniformity in what evidence must be presented to jurors, replacing it with a discretionary, inconsistent standard.

Ellin Kunz, a certified medical auditor working for Associated Industries of Florida with more than three decades of experience in health care work, said courts before 2023 had a “complete lack of guidance as to what constitutes reasonable value of health care,” but that’s no longer the case.

“We now have guidelines in place to provide objective benchmarks,” she said. “By removing these benchmarks, we will once again not have anything objective.”

But that’s not what HB 947 would do, according to Waylon Thompson of the Florida Justice Association. He noted that when HB 837 passed two years ago, its sponsor, former Sarasota Republican Rep. Tommy Gregory, said its goal was to enable juries to hear all the evidence plaintiffs and defendants bring.

“That’s a fair system,” he said. “Unfortunately, it did not bring balance in application. … Now, the plaintiff is required to not only produce the evidence of the value of the reasonable medical expenses that were incurred, but they also have to bring forth evidence that supports the defendant’s ability to then say the treatment was not proper (and) the expense was not reasonable.”

Thompson cited what he said are conflicting parts of the relevant statute (768.0427). In one section, (b)1, it says the plaintiff “shall” — must — introduce evidence of what health insurance will pay. He said if the plaintiff does not do this, they don’t get any compensation for medical expenses.

And the problem, he said, is that section runs contrary to another subsection, (e), which states, “Individual contracts between providers and authorized commercial insurers or authorized health maintenance organizations are not subject to discovery or disclosure and are not admissible into evidence.”

Thompson pointed out that other bills advancing this Session are also “cleaning up” language in Florida Statutes by replacing “shall” with “may.”

“That’s what needs to be done, and that’s what the bill is doing here,” he said. “It’s saying evidence may include from either the plaintiff or the defendant all the evidence regarding the medical care and (the) cost of it.”

The Florida Medical Association, Florida Chiropractic Association and Anthony Albert, an orthopedic surgeon from St. Petersburg, also appeared at the meeting to support HB 947.

Shortly after the measure advanced Thursday, Florida Chamber of Commerce Mark Wilson issued a statement expressing disappointment.

The bill, he said, undoes the progress made to rebalance Florida’s civil justice system by reinstituting an abusive legal practice that artificially drives up medical damages and allows a handful of unscrupulous doctors and billboard trial lawyers to literally inflate verdicts and exploit the system at the expense of Florida families and local businesses.”

HB 947 will next go to the House Judiciary Committee, its last stop before the House floor. Its upper-chamber companion (SB 1520) by Fort Pierce Republican Sen. Erin Grall awaits a hearing before the first of three committees to which it was referred this month.

‘Do justice’: House panel advances tweaks to health insurance lawsuit rules

‘Creating parity’: Repeal of Florida’s ‘free kill’ law cleared for House floor

March 20, 2025/in Florida Politics

Jesse Scheckner – March 20, 2025

‘If a bad doctor wants to leave, bye.’

House lawmakers are moving closer to repealing a unique Florida law that today blocks many medical malpractice lawsuits.

Members of the House Judiciary Committee voted 20-1 for HB 6017, which would erase a state provision referred to by critics as Florida’s “free kill” law. Members of the committee sided with the families of lost loved ones over doctors and insurers who warn of adverse consequences.

The bill will next be heard on the House floor.

Florida law today prohibits adult children and parents older than 25 from collecting negligence and noneconomic damages for medical malpractice after the death of patients. Florida enacted the law in 1990 and remains the only state with the restriction.

It was an update to the state’s Wrongful Death Act in 1972, which in part reads, “It is the public policy of the state to shift the losses when a wrongful death occurs from the survivors of the decedents to the wrongdoer.”

The standard applies to all cases except for those involving patient care. And that, by definition, makes it a double standard, according to the bill’s sponsors, Reps. Dana Trabulsy and Johanna López.

Trabulsy, a Fort Pierce Republican, said Thursday that the purpose of her bill isn’t to hurt those working in medicine; it’s to provide equal legal protections to everyone in the Sunshine State.

“Do you believe that the life of someone lost due to negligence or malpractice is less than any other case where someone could regain noneconomic damages for wrongdoing?” she said.

“We do a very good job in the medical field here. This is not an attack on doctors whatsoever. This is creating parity in the statute and among folks that can recover noneconomic damage.”

López, an Orlando Democrat, said the measure would deliver “fairness and justice” to people who have long had little recourse after a doctor’s carelessness devastated them.

As was the case in the bill’s prior stop and in Senate discussions about its upper-chamber analog (SB 734), advocates for and against the proposal were numerous and impassioned.

Travis Creighton, one of many surviving family members, cited several Florida Supreme Court rules that conflict with the statute in question (768.21). The statute that HB 6017 aims to repeal, he said, “arbitrarily discriminates between classes of survivors (and strips) rights not for lack of harm but through a last-minute legislative carve-out.”

Karen Murillo of AARP Florida said the statute “discriminates against older and vulnerable adults” and should be deleted.

“This law has been on the books for years. It was put in place because medical malpractice insurers promised that this was going to reduce the cost for health care practitioners in this state and reduce the cost of health care,” she said. “It did not. Instead, it protected insurers from indefensible acts of medical negligence.”

Former Navarre Republican Rep. Joel Rudman, a long-practicing physician, spoke for HB 6017 too, arguing that the only doctors who want to see the statute remain in place are bad doctors. He also rejected arguments that there is a “medical malpractice meltdown” in Florida, with a surge in such legal actions in recent years.

A slew of medical and insurance organizations urged the committee to vote down the bill, including the Small Business and Consumers Alliance, ProAssurance Corp., The Doctors Company, Associated Industries of Florida, Florida Medical Association, Florida Osteopathic Medical Association, Florida Justice Reform Institute, Florida Chamber of Commerce, Florida Council for Safe Communities and the Small Business and Consumer Alliance.

Shelly Nick, a registered nurse now working in health care risk management, called HB 6017 “compassionate but misdirected” and predicted it would lead to at least 500 additional wrongful death lawsuits yearly.

Vivian Gallo, Managing Director of health care casualty coverage and claims for Marsh McLennan, said that since 2019, Florida’s medical malpractice insurance premiums have been up to 70% higher than national rates. And over the same stretch, she said, premiums and deductibles hospitals must pay have both risen 60%.

That’s unusual since increased deductibles often accompany level or declining premiums, she said, and it’s because of the rising number of so-called “nuclear verdicts” in medical malpractice suits — awards of $20 million or more — that since 2017 have seen numerous insurers exit the Florida market.

It’s not unique to Florida — nuclear verdicts have increased 400% in recent years — but it’s worse here, Gallo said.

“In Florida, between 2010 and 2020, there were 11 nuclear verdicts,” she said. “Since 2023, there were eight.”

Ocoee Democratic Rep. LaVon Bracy Davis said she’s seen firsthand the unhealed wounds that “free kill” causes.

“This statute says that if you’re over 25 and lose a parent to medical negligence, your grief is worth nothing in the eyes of the law. It tells grieving families that their loved ones’ lives didn’t count,” she said. “This is not justice.”

Rep. Hillary Cassel, a Dania Beach Republican, said the bottom line is that Florida doesn’t want bad doctors, and the ones here should be held accountable.

“I don’t want to have to go through what these families went through,” she said.

She then chastised Mark Berlick of the Florida Justice Reform Institute for asserting that HB 6017 would incentivize out-of-town opportunists to sue doctors and hospitals after the death of estranged family members.

“(He) doesn’t have an ounce of data to support that, and that was nothing more than a scare tactic, (an) insult on our intelligence and an insult to the people who are here today who are clearly not estranged from the loved ones they have lost,” she said. “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.”

Miami Lakes Republican Rep. Tom Fabricio cast the sole “no” Thursday. He didn’t ask questions or argue against the bill.

It marked the only vote in two committee stops against HB 6017, which has co-sponsorship from Republican Reps. Debbie Mayfield of Melbourne and Susan Plascencia of Orlando, as well as Democratic Rep. Anna Eskamani of Orlando.

HB 6017 awaits scheduling for House floor consideration. SB 734, sponsored by Jacksonville Republican Sen. Clay Yarborough, pends a hearing before the Senate Rules Committee before heading to a floor vote. It passed in the Senate Judiciary Committee and Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Health and Human Services by 9-2 and 8-2 votes, respectively.

‘Creating parity’: Repeal of Florida’s ‘free kill’ law cleared for House floor

Diagnosis for 3.24.25: Checking the pulse of Florida health care news and policy

‘Everybody now has skin in this game’: House advances ‘loser pays’ rules for insurance lawsuits

Sympathy for insurers has plunged in the wake of bombshell reporting last month.

Florida Justice Reform Institute

Site Links