Florida Justice Reform Institute
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Meet the President
  • Legislative
    • On the Front Line
    • On The Front Line 2025
    • Achievements
    • 2025 Legislation
  • Appellate Work
  • FJRI in the News
  • Get Involved
    • Become a Member
    • The Committee for Florida Justice Reform
    • Contact
  • Click to open the search input field Click to open the search input field Search
  • Menu Menu
Florida Justice Reform Institute

DeSantis continues shifting Florida Supreme Court rightward with new appointment

May 23, 2023/in Sarasota Herald-Tribune

Sarasota Herald-Tribune

Zac Anderson – Sarasota Herald-Tribune – May 23, 2023

Gov. Ron DeSantis continued to reshape the Florida Supreme Court Tuesday with the appointment of Judge Meredith Sasso to replace Justice Ricky Polston, who resigned in March.

The appointment means that five of the Supreme Court’s seven sitting justices are DeSantis appointees, which has allowed the governor to steer the court firmly to the right.

A 2008 graduate of the University of Florida’s law school, Sasso worked in private practice and served as chief deputy general counsel for U.S. Sen. Rick Scott when he was governor. In 2019, DeSantis appointed her to the Fifth District Court of Appeal, and she moved to the Sixth District Court of Appeal in Lakeland this year.

Sasso DeSantis

 Judge Meredith Sasso and her two children are pictured with Govenor Ron DeSantis, who appointed her to the Supreme Court on May 23, 2023. Photo Provided.

DeSantis in 2019 replaced three liberal-leaning justices with conservatives, swinging the balance of the court, which for years had stood as an obstacle to some of the conservative policies pushed by Republicans who controlled the Legislature and governor’s mansion.

Sasso appears likely to continue pushing the court rightward. She is a member of the Federalist Society, which has helped shape some of the nation’s most prominent conservative judges. All of DeSantis’ Supreme Court appointees have been Federalist Society members.

DeSantis said Sasso’s “fidelity to the Constitution will help preserve freedom in our state for generations to come,” adding that she “understands the importance of our constitutional system and the rule of law.”

Judge Sasso

Judge Meredith Sasso questions an attorney during oral arguments for the
Sixth Dictrict Court of Appeals.  Gov. Ron DeSantis appointed Sasso to the
Florida Supreme Court Tuesday.  TBA, Ernst Peters/The Ledger

Sasso is the seventh woman to serve on the Supreme Court, which now has three female justices for the first time.

A Cuban American, Sasso grew up in Tallahassee. She is married with two children.

In her application for the Supreme Court seat, Sasso wrote that while working in the executive branch of government, she “gained an informed appreciation for the separation of powers.”

“Appropriate deference to coordinate branches is not a matter of courtesy; it is essential for the people’s chosen representatives to operate,” Sasso wrote. “Likewise, judicial decisions are not the only available solution to problems. When judges step outside their role, they often justify it by claiming an altruistic purpose of correcting a perceived injustice. But as judges, we should honor both our defined role and the overall system in which we operate.”

The Florida Justice Reform Institute, a legal group that advocates on issues such as limiting lawsuits against businesses, praised the appointment. William Large, the organization’s president, issued a statement that said the pick continued DeSantis’ efforts to carry out a promise to reshape the Supreme Court.

“The governor’s appointment of Meredith Sasso to the Florida Supreme Court cements this promise of appointing justices with a proven record of embracing textualism and the notion that the courts should interpret our laws, not write them.” Large said.

Sasso will join Chief Justice Carlos Muniz and Justices John Couriel, Jamie Grosshans and Renatha Francis as DeSantis appointees on the court. Justices Charles Canady and Jorge Labarga were appointed by then-Republican Gov. Charlie Crist.

Information from the News Service of Florida was used in this report.

https://www.heraldtribune.com/story/news/politics/2023/05/23/florida-gov-ron-desantis-appoints-meredith-sasso-to-supreme-court/70248010007/ 

https://www.fljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/fjri-news.jpg 800 800 RAD Tech https://www.fljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Florida-Justice-Reform-Institute.jpg RAD Tech2023-05-23 15:55:112024-12-05 15:45:12DeSantis continues shifting Florida Supreme Court rightward with new appointment
Florida Justice Reform Institute

Business groups demand that Florida craft virus lawsuit protections

November 27, 2020/in Sarasota Herald-Tribune

 

Sarasota Herald Tribune

Business groups demand that Florida craft virus lawsuit protections

John Kennedy – Sarasota Herald-Tribune
Published 09:37 pm – Nov. 27, 2020

TALLAHASSEE – Business groups have been clamoring for months for Florida lawmakers to enact measures aimed at protecting stores, cruise ships, health care providers and nursing homes slapped by hundreds of lawsuits stemming from the coronavirus pandemic.

Florida’s new Republican leaders say they are willing to approve some safeguards for businesses. But how far they’ll go is uncertain.

Meanwhile, some question whether there really is a looming courtroom crisis.

“It’s a solution in search of a problem,” said Paul Jess, executive director of the Florida Justice Association, which represents trial lawyers in Florida.

“There have been lawsuits filed,” he added. “But they all face a huge causation problem. They have to prove that someone caught COVID because of a business’s negligence. And that often is just not a winnable case.”

Gov. DeSantis: Vaccines will go to Florida’s long term care facilities as soon as they arrive When can I get my vaccine? ACIP, a little known but crucial advisory panel, releases first safety, distribution guidelines USA TODAY vaccine panel: ‘Best news so far’ in COVID-19 fight, but logistical challenges remain

While it’s not surprising that a trial lawyers’ group would oppose any measures limiting courtroom access, Florida Republicans leading the Legislature also are supporting  the broad concept of shielding businesses from lawsuits related to COVID-19 exposure or transmission.

But they acknowledge they don’t know exactly how to do it.

“I think we all agree it’s a problem that we need to figure out the best way to solve,” said House Speaker Chris Sprowls, R-Palm Harbor.

Sprowls said it was important that companies “trying to do the best thing for their customers and employees don’t get blindsided by a frivolous lawsuit, while making sure that somebody who was doing the wrong thing, that they’re still held accountable.”

Senate President Wilton Simpson, R-Trilby, said it was important that any legislation not “let people off the hook for negligence.”

“I don’t think you ever in any condition put a blanket statement … that no one would have any liability associated with COVID,” he said. “But I think if you’ve made the right attempt to follow the CDC (federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) guidelines, then that’s something we should take a look at.”

 Woman in grocery store Florida businesses want lawmakers to enact new protections from lawsuits stemming from COVID-19 exposure or transmission.  Sarah Gonzalez, NPR

From the earliest weeks of the pandemic, the Florida Chamber of Commerce and the Florida Justice Reform Institute, which lobbies to reduce the legal risks facing businesses, have spearheaded the effort for lawsuit limits. More than a dozen states so far have enacted some kind of liability protection.

The COVID-19 Complaint Tracker, a national database maintained by the law firm Hunton Andrews Kurth, showed 483 lawsuits have been filed in Florida related to the virus.

But about one-quarter of these complaints involve insurance companies, which Jess said mostly involve companies suing their insurers for failing to make good on business interruption policies supposed to help cover losses caused by the virus.

Still, William Large, president of the Florida Justice Reform Institute, said many other lawsuits have been filed against nursing homes by staff, patients and their families, cruise lines by passengers and crews, tour companies by customers in refund disputes and a host of workplace clashes tied to the coronavirus.

Large acknowledged that the lawsuits in Florida have not yet advanced to trial and could still be dismissed by a judge on legal grounds that there is insufficient proof that a business played a role in spreading the infection.

Still, he said, companies can’t operate under the threat that they’ll be tied up in court defending themselves.

“Business is down 50%, 60% sometimes 70% for some companies, and others have gone bankrupt,” Large said. “On top of that, they’re going to get sued for the transmission of COVID-19 because somebody thinks they got it in a particular facility, even if everyone is following state and local guidelines, cleaning up and spraying Lysol.

“But someone walks in without symptoms and is a carrier and someone else catches it.  It’s just not right the business should be held responsible,” he added.

A 40-member industry task force this summer proposed legislation that increased the standard for COVID-related liability to gross negligence or intentional bad conduct by a firm. It also proposed a tougher “clear and convincing” standard to establish liability, rather than just a preponderance of evidence that a company acted badly.

Task force members included representatives of restaurants, hotels, nursing homes, retailers, home builders and insurers.

Large and others earlier this year pushed Gov. Ron DeSantis and legislative leaders to call a special session to address the matter, which didn’t happen. At the same time, in Washington, U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell also insisted that Congress make it harder for workers and customers to sue employers and businesses for any damages related to the coronavirus.

McConnell demanded that liability protections be part of any new stimulus plan crafted to help states and jobless Americans. But so far, no agreement has been reached on another funding proposal, with several negotiations between Congress and President Donald Trump falling apart before Election Day.

President-elect Joe Biden is calling for an emergency aid package to be approved by Congress before he takes office in January, but whether liability protections fit into that are uncertain.

Congressional Democrats have argued that granting such protections would effectively give businesses and employers freedom to endanger workers without fear of repercussion.

Such concerns hover over the latest Florida drive for action.

“From a public policy point of view, if I’m a business now and there’s no immunity from COVID liability, I’m encouraged to do things properly and safely, to keep people from thinking of suing me,” Jess said.

“But if a law passed that gave me total immunity, what is my motivation for protecting the public?” he added. “As a business owner, I’d say. ‘Come on in, we don’t require masks, we don’t have social distancing.  We don’t care. You can’t sue us, we’re got total immunity.’”

https://www.heraldtribune.com/story/news/politics/state/2020/11/27/covid-florida-lawmakers-uncertain-how-far-go-lawsuit-protections/6400056002/ 

https://www.fljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/fjri-news.jpg 800 800 RAD Tech https://www.fljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Florida-Justice-Reform-Institute.jpg RAD Tech2020-11-27 15:52:142024-11-25 09:00:12Business groups demand that Florida craft virus lawsuit protections
Florida Justice Reform Institute

A loophole in Florida’s Wrongful Death Act

October 13, 2019/in Sarasota Herald-Tribune

 

Herald Tribune

A loophole in Florida’s Wrongful Death Act

By Carrie Seidman
ColumnistPosted Oct 13, 2019 at 6:20 AM

Updated Oct 13, 2019 at 12:40 PM

If you’re a single adult over 25 with no minor children, who dies as a result of medical negligence, your family has no legal recourse.

On Aug. 2, less than a month after his 51st birthday, Gerald Giannillo, a longtime and much-loved massage therapist at the Longboat Key Club, checked in at Sarasota Memorial Hospital for surgery to repair an aneurysm and leaking heart valve caused by a hereditary condition.

Eighteen days later, at Tampa General Hospital, where he had been transferred by helicopter four days after the delicate surgery, he was removed from life support.

Shirley Giannillo Shirley Giannillo of Sarasota is still looking for answers as to why her son, Gerald Giannillo, died after a heart value repair surgery in August. [HERALD-TRIBUNE STAFF PHONE/DAN WAGNER]

There is no clarity on whether any mistakes were made in Giannillo’s procedure. Sarasota Memorial officials say he was at a high risk for an aortic tear, which would likely have brought life-threatening bleeding. They say surgeons repaired his aneurysm and preserved his heart valve, but despite their best efforts to restore full function to his heart, one section of his left ventricle did not respond to further treatment.

After consulting with cardiac surgeons at Columbia University Medical Center and transplant surgeons in Tampa, Giannillo was transferred to Tampa General, Sarasota Memorial says. He died on Aug. 20 without ever having regained consciousness or stabilized sufficiently to be placed on a heart transplant list.

For Giannillo’s family and Tracey, his girlfriend of 24 years (who asked that her last name not be disclosed,) haunting questions remain about what went wrong.

As hope for placing her son on the transplant list expired, Shirley Giannillo, acting on the advice of a relative, contacted a lawyer. The family wanted to explore the possibility of initiating an independent investigation into the circumstances of Giannillo’s care and death. But even before she’d finished explaining her situation, the attorney cut her off.

Because of a little-known exemption in Florida’s Wrongful Death Act, neither she nor the next of kin of anyone who was over the age of 25, unmarried and without minor children, was entitled to file a medical malpractice suit.

“Florida law is not on your side,” she was told. “You have no legal recourse.’”

The ‘free kill’ exemption

Florida’s Wrongful Death Act — Section 768.21(8) Florida Statute — is the state’s legal blueprint for redressing a death caused by negligence. It provides guidelines for who can bring a medical facility or a health care provider to court in the event of a suspected wrongful death, and by what measure they can be compensated.

Statement from Sarasota Memorial Hospital

Gerald Giannillo came to SMH on Aug. 2 with a life-threatening heart condition — a worsening aortic aneurysm. His aorta was severely enlarged due to an abnormally weak wall, causing his valve to leak and his heart to enlarge. He was at high risk for a tear, which could cause life-threatening bleeding, and required major open-heart surgery to fully assess his condition and repair the weakened area.

During surgery, the condition of his heart was worse than expected. We repaired his aneurysm and preserved his valve, but despite our best efforts to restore full function to Gerald’s heart, one section of his left ventricle was failing and did not respond to further surgical and critical care interventions.

Although he showed some improvement over the next three days, Gerald’s heart remained too weak to remove him from a mechanical heart/lung support system. During his hospital stay, we consulted cardiac surgeons at Columbia University Medical Center and transplant surgeons from Tampa General Hospital, and by consensus, transferred him to Tampa General on Aug. 6.

It is a sad situation, and we are very sorry Shirley Giannillo and her family are coping with the sudden and unexpected loss of a loved one.

At the time of Gerald’s discharge from SMH, all evaluations and consultations indicated he was a good candidate for a heart transplant. We were saddened to learn of his death from a stroke two weeks later.

Gerald’s cardiac surgeon and our physician leaders have met with and talked to his family and are trying to help them through the grief process. We have also worked extensively to help them understand the complex medical issues he faced and address any remaining questions or concerns they have about the care provided by our team.

But an exemption within the law prevents the remaining next of kin of any adult child (in Florida, anyone age 25 or older) who has no spouse or minor children, or the adult children of a parent who has no spouse, from recovering damages for pain and suffering after a wrongful death in a medical setting.

In other words, in cases where medical negligence is suspected, only a spouse or a minor child may file a wrongful death grievance in a court of law.

The provision is known in the vernacular by a term that many in the health care and insurance industries find offensive: The Florida “Free Kill” law. Since the exemption means there is no threat of monetary punishment for lax or incompetent treatment in these cases, a dead patient represents no financial liability, whereas a severely harmed patient who survives could mean significant liability exposure. Thus the label “free kill.”

Florida is the only state in the nation with such an exclusion. Given the state’s high population of widowed seniors, unmarried college students and middle-aged single and divorced individuals whose children are over 25, it is estimated more than half the state’s population falls into the “free kill” category.

‘Every life matters’

At first, Shirley Giannillo and her relatives found the attorney’s explanation hard to fathom; surely he must be mistaken, they thought. But after she and other family members called several other personal injury attorneys and got the exact same response, they realized it must be true. No attorney was going to take a case in which no economic damages could be recovered.

“After you talk to three of them, you have to go, ‘OK, this is the law,’” she said. “They don’t want to look into it because there’s no money in it for them. Nobody will take it on.”

Giannillo, a 71-year-old hairstylist who lost her husband to cancer seven years ago and her only other child to lymphoma 20 years ago, says her motivation in contacting a lawyer was never about seeking money or retaliation. She simply wanted to have someone who was not connected with the hospital conduct an unbiased review of her son’s care. She has since sent a letter to the Florida Board of Medicine, requesting an investigation.

“I don’t want to ruin anyone’s reputation, but if something was done wrong, someone should be held responsible,” she said. “I’m sure they are being as truthful as they can be. But we were interested in looking for an independent person outside the hospital to look into this.”

Tracey said she and Giannillo had talked about marrying many times, including shortly before his surgery. If they’d known about the wrongful death exemption, they would surely have done so before he went ahead with the operation, she said.

An intensely private person, she has no desire to draw more attention to herself or her tragic situation. Nevertheless, as she grapples with her loss and struggles to find a way to face each day, she believes it is important to bring attention to a law she considers unjust and to advocate for its change.

Not because it will provide her with the answers she longs for, but because “every life matters.”

A question of constitutionality

The Wrongful Death statute evolved from medical malpractice tort reforms of the late ’80s and early ’90s, prior to which there were limitations on who could bring any kind of negligence lawsuit for damages.

In 1990, the Legislature altered a statute to add the ability of adult children and parents of an adult child to bring wrongful death lawsuits in non-medical negligence cases — a right they had not previously enjoyed. But while that meant they could file suit if, for example, their loved one was hit by a drunk driver while crossing the street, the statute specifically excluded medical malpractice lawsuits.

Florida legislators felt that by protecting medical providers from a plethora of malpractice suits and escalating liability insurance rates, it would encourage more physicians to practice in the state and lower the cost of health care by reducing malpractice premiums.

Opponents argue that neither of those benefits have accrued and that the exemption has done, in fact, done more harm than good. Instead of attracting the best doctors, they say, Florida has lured physicians who’ve experienced malpractice suits elsewhere or had their licenses stripped in other states. They point to the fact that malpractice insurance and health care costs have also continued to steadily climb, despite the exemption.

Moreover, they claim the law has also robbed the Medicaid and Medicare systems, which are not paid back for the health care services they covered in cases where no lawsuit can substantiate negligence.

The constitutionality of the law also has been challenged. In a 2000 case, Mizrahi v. North Miami Medical Center, the surviving adult children of Morris Mizrahi charged that they had not been afforded equal protection under the law by being prevented from filing a medical negligence suit.

Nevertheless, the Florida Supreme Court upheld the exclusion as constitutional, stating “the statute’s disparate treatment of medical malpractice wrongful deaths does bear a rational relationship to the legitimate state interest of ensuring the accessibility of medical care to Florida residents by curtailing the skyrocketing medical malpractice insurance premiums in Florida.”

William Large, president of the Florida Justice Reform Institute, said he believes the danger in trying to get rid of the exemption could potentially be more detrimental than allowing it to stand.

“I think the current law shouldn’t be changed,” Large said. “If a stakeholder group attempts to tinker with the medical malpractice subsection, I suspect the Legislature actually might repeal the 1990 amendments that adult children and parents of an adult child can sue for wrongful death in a non-medical malpractice context.”

Seeking equal protection

But others don’t share his perspective.

Melody Page founded the Florida Medical Rights Association with Debbie Sowden in 2017 after both women experienced medical tragedies they say cost the lives of their fathers. Incredulity is a common response when people learn about the exemption, says Page, who in her spare time runs the FMRA, a registered nonprofit advocating to eliminate the exclusion.

“A lot of times, people just don’t believe you,” said Page, who lives in Lake Worth, near West Palm Beach. “When I say the hospital killed my dad and I can’t sue, people say to me, ‘Oh, that can’t be true. You mean you can’t sue because it’s hard to prove.’ No, I can’t sue because I’m 47 and single.”

Page’s father suffered a “complicated grief” breakdown after his wife died unexpectedly from influenza one night in November 2016. Emotionally distraught, he was Baker Acted to a hospital, where he was administered heavy doses of sedatives. Within three days, he was dead from what Page believes was an overdose of overlapping medications.

“I lost them both in a four-day period,” says Page, who is not married and who has a daughter who will turn 25 next year, meaning she will soon fall into the exclusionary category herself. “We had a double funeral. And it changed my life.”

Since founding the FMRA, she has heard from dozens of families who have also lost loved ones to suspected negligence, only to discover they had no legal recourse. Among them: A woman whose 25-year-old son, recovered from a drug overdose, died sitting next to her in a hospital discharge lounge, after a nurse removed a PIC line inappropriately, and a father whose adult son bled out after a scope threaded up his leg inadvertently pierced a femoral artery. A page on the FMRA website (floridamedicalrights.org) is devoted to pictures of victims.

“I know a lot of people want to change this law because they want vengeance,” Page said. “But you can’t sue backwards. I’m not doing this for the money. We’re doing this because we want to insure patient safety, increase medical accountability and protect our constitutional rights.”

Page said she believes the medical malpractice exemption is not only blatantly inequitable but unconstitutional under the principle of “equal protection under the law.” A growing number of Florida residents — at least those who are aware of the exemption at all — agree with her. She has gathered tens of thousands of petition signatures and forwarded hundreds of letters to Florida Senate and House members requesting the law be amended.

But as she discovered last year, going up against those invested in keeping the exemption in place — primarily insurance companies and health care institutions — is no easy mission.

Proposed amendment fails

Last February, Page was in attendance when an amendment that would have removed the exemption made it to the Florida House Civil Justice Committee. Proposed by Representative Amy Mercado and attached to a tort reform bill seeking to add additional caps to Florida medical malpractice cases, it drew support from several representatives, from both sides of the aisle. Nevertheless, it was shelved after a voice vote called by Civil Justice Committee Chair Bob Rommel, D-Naples.

“This is a fine example of ageism and prejudice against the family unit itself,” said Page, who blogged about the rejection on FMRA website. “It was clearly put in place with the intent for insurance companies to save money — but at the cost of devaluing human life.”

The Florida Medical Association, the Florida Hospital Association and medical malpractice insurers — all of whom were instrumental in getting the exemption carved out in the first place — would face escalating costs if the provision were eliminated. And they wield plenty of power.

Page has yet to find a legislator with sufficient political clout and the will to champion the change.

“What a lot of them say is, ‘I’m not the right person, but if you can get this on a bill, I’ll vote for it,’” says Page of the legislators she’s contacted. “They’re afraid to be on the forefront of it, because these insurance companies are so powerful. But I fully plan on identifying those who are trying to keep it in place.

“And if we can just raise awareness among the public, maybe that’s what will help this be changed.”

TAKE ACTION
If you are interested in seeing Florida’s Wrongful Death Act changed to remove the exemption for single adults over 25 without minor children, you can:

Sign a petition at: floridamedicalrights.org/petitions-fmra

Sign a letter to legislators at: floridamedicalrights.org/sign-letter-to-legislators

https://www.heraldtribune.com/news/20191013/loophole-in-floridas-wrongful-death-act

https://www.fljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/fjri-news.jpg 800 800 RAD Tech https://www.fljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Florida-Justice-Reform-Institute.jpg RAD Tech2019-10-13 15:56:042024-11-29 13:05:37A loophole in Florida’s Wrongful Death Act
Florida Justice Reform Institute

Powerful lobbies butt heads over negligence legislation

April 11, 2011/in Sarasota Herald-Tribune

 

Sarasota Herald Tribune

Powerful lobbies butt heads over negligence legislation

By Lloyd Dunkelberger , Herald-Tribune
/ Thursday, April 21, 2011

Injured Floridians’ ability to sue nursing homes, doctors and hospitals for compensation when they are hurt by negligence could be curtailed under legislation pitting some of the capital’s most powerful lobbying groups against each other.

Doctors, trial lawyers, nursing homes and insurance companies are all vying for influence over an issue that will be decided as the Legislature moves toward its scheduled May 6 adjournment.

Among the most contentious issues is a provision that would limit suits when a nursing home patient dies. The survivors would be limited to a $250,000 cap for non-economic damages — such as pain and suffering — although there would be no cap on economic damages, which cover medical bills, funeral costs and related items.

Randolph Gray, a Madison County man who lost both his parents in nursing home incidents, has been lobbying lawmakers to remove the damage cap from a major Medicaid bill (SB 1927) that is ready for a Senate floor vote. He said his father choked to death after a meal, while his mother died because of negligence involving a breathing tube.

“It is wrong to limit the rights of Floridians to have their voices heard in the one place open to all — the courts,” Randolph, who works for the state Department of Financial Services, told the Senate Budget Committee.

Sen. Joe Negron, R-Stuart, the chief architect of the Medicaid bill, called the $250,000 cap a “reasonable amount,” noting that survivors could still claim unlimited economic and punitive damages, providing they can prove the nursing home acted wrongfully.

But Negron also said “the policy is certainly debatable.”

The issue encapsulates the competing forces lawmakers face as they debate lawsuit limits.

Lawmakers must balance the rights of victims of negligence against the claims that costly litigation is adding to the financial burden of government programs like Medicaid or of Florida businesses from health care companies to auto manufacturers.

“These will always be difficult discussions because you’re trying to fit things together that you care about deeply,” said Rep. Dennis Baxley, R-Ocala, one of the House leaders on lawsuit limits. “You want victims to be properly cared for. But on the other hand, you don’t want to drive up the cost of health care, drive up the cost of the insurance, simply because of a lot of windfall cases that have to be paid.”

Other major lawsuit limits moving in the last weeks of the annual session include:

A cap on non-economic damages on claims made by Medicaid patients against doctors or other medical providers. A per-incident cap of $300,000 would be set, with no single health care provider having to pay more than $200,000. Critics say the cap discriminates against Medicaid patients, since other patients can claim up to $500,000 in non-economic damages.

A bill (HB 479 and SB 1590) that is a top priority for the Florida Medical Association would give more legal protections to doctors and hospitals facing malpractice lawsuits. Among the provisions, hospitals would not be liable for most actions by doctors if they were independent contractors. The measure also sets new standards for expert witnesses and allows lawsuit defendants more power to question the medical care of the injured patients.

Trial lawyers say those proposals, as well as the nursing home cap, would shift the balance from the injured patients — who already face restrictions on lawsuits against hospitals, nursing homes and other medical providers — to the providers.

“Those rights and the safety of nursing home residents are in great jeopardy if these bills were to become law,” said Debra Henley, executive director of the Florida Justice Association, a trial lawyer advocacy group.

“None of what they are considering will bring any jobs to Florida,” Henley said. “What it will do instead is it will shift the costs from the health care providers that are responsible for injuring Floridians to the taxpayers.”

The lawsuit restrictions are riding a wave of political momentum this spring pushed by a highly conservative Legislature and Gov. Rick Scott, who called the excessive filing of lawsuits part of the “axis of unemployment” blocking the state’s economic recovery.

And aside from the legislation related to nursing homes and the health care professionals, several other major “tort” bills remain in play.

Among them is a bill (SB 142), which already passed the Senate, that would shield automakers from paying some damages if they can show the driver was partially negligent for the accident.

The bill would overturn a Florida Supreme Court decision that determined that automakers could be held solely at fault for defective vehicles even if the drivers were partially at fault for the accidents.

Another measure (SB 1694) would cap legal fees in auto-insurance injury cases.

But other tort bills have stalled despite Scott’s advocacy for lawsuit limits and the conservative bent of the Legislature. Among them is a bill that would have made it harder for consumers to sue insurance companies if they acted in “bad faith” in paying claims.

Supporters of lawsuit limits say while they remain optimistic that this year’s Legislature will eventually agree on many of these bills, they also concede that the fight remains difficult, in large part because of the opposition from the politically influential trial lawyers.

“There are no guarantees in this process,” said William Large, head of the Florida Justice Reform Institute. “A lot of people campaigned on tort reform but it turns out getting tort reform across the finish line is a lot harder than just using rhetoric.”

 https://politics.heraldtribune.com/2011/04/21/powerful-lobbies-butt-heads-over-negligence-legislation/ 

https://www.fljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/fjri-news.jpg 800 800 RAD Tech https://www.fljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Florida-Justice-Reform-Institute.jpg RAD Tech2011-04-11 15:50:292024-11-26 08:44:24Powerful lobbies butt heads over negligence legislation
Florida Justice Reform Institute

Senate passes bill to change how lawsuit damages are divided

March 31, 2006/in Sarasota Herald-Tribune

 

Sarasota Herald Tribune

Senate passes bill to change how lawsuit damages are divided

By David Royce

Associated Press –March 31, 2006

TALLAHASSEE, Fla.  – Defendants in lawsuits would be insulated from having to pay the damages of codefendants who are broke under a bill Gov. Jeb Bush said he would sign after the Senate easily passed it Thursday.

The Senate vote was 27-13 on the measure, which would eliminate a doctrine in civil law that requires some defendants to pick up the damages assigned to another party who can’t afford to pay.  Bush in the past has called the doctrine a “job killer.”

The bill (HB 145) was the top priority of the business community, which claims that too often businesses with “deep pockets” get added onto lawsuits. It was also the top priority of House Speaker Allan Bense, R-Panama City.  The House had passed a similar measure earlier. 

“This allows people to pay for the mistakes that they make, but not the mistakes of others,” said Sen. Daniel Webster, R-Winter Park, the Senate sponsor of the bill.

Supporters said it was a simple tenet of fairness that a defendant found to be responsible for 30 percent of damages should only have to pay 30 percent, and not have to pay more simply because another defendant can’t afford to pay.

“Every defendant in a civil justice suit will (now) pay their fair share,” said William Large, head of the Florida Justice Reform Institute, which pushed for the change.

But it wouldn’t be fair for everyone, opponents said, arguing some victims won’t be able to collect what they’re due.

What is a victim “can only collect 10 percent of the money you have to pay to the local hospital?” asked Sen. Ron Klein, D-Boca Raton.  “Where’s the fairness there? You, the injured party, you now have to fend for yourself.”

Or the cost of injured victims’ medical care will be shifted to taxpayers through public hospitals and government programs that care for the indigent, said Scott Carruthers, executive director of the Academy of Trial Lawyers.  

“Someone is going to pay the medical costs,” Carruthers said. “The Legislature said, ‘We’re going to let the guilty go free and make victims and taxpayers pay.'”

Backers of the change said it was also a question of economics.  Bush was among those, saying he would sign the bill into law “with great joy,” in part because the doctrine has been a hindrance to economic development.  

“Repealing the law removes a barrier for businesses considering relocating to Florida,” Bush said.

Slade O’Brien, a spokesman for Florida Stop Lawsuit Abuse, a group of mostly small businesses that promote measures to insulate business from lawsuit losses, said the current law leads businesses to charge more for goods and services, because they have to insure themselves against big losses. 

“There’s that fear that you’re going to end up getting stuck with more than you’re responsible for, so often they’re encouraged to go ahead and settle,” said O’Brien. 

While the measure is often portrayed as a help primarily to big corporations that are often thought of as “deep pockets,” smaller businesses have been hurt by the doctrine as well, O’Brien and other supporters said.

Bill Spann, vice president of the Associated General Contractors of Greater Florida, said builders who contract out part of their work are among those at risk for having to pay someone else’s damages. “Very often the general contractors are held accountable for the performance of others” involved in a building contract, Spann said.  “This legislation will ensure that the financial responsibility for any errors it apportioned fairly.”

A few members of each party did cross the aisle to vote party lines, with Republicans mostly backing the business position and Democrats largely against the bill, aligned with plaintiffs’ lawyers who represent victims of accidents, negligence or wrongdoing.  

https://www.fljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/fjri-news.jpg 800 800 RAD Tech https://www.fljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Florida-Justice-Reform-Institute.jpg RAD Tech2006-03-31 15:50:272024-11-26 10:05:56Senate passes bill to change how lawsuit damages are divided
Search Search

FJRI News Categories

FJRI News Archive

Florida Justice Reform Institute

Florida Justice Reform Institute

  • Phone

    (850) 222-0170

  • Hours of Operation

    Monday – Friday, 9 a.m.-5 p.m.

  • Address

    210 S Monroe Street
    Tallahassee, FL 32301

Site Links

  • The Committee for Florida Justice Reform
  • About
  • Legislative
  • Appellate Work
  • FJRI in the News
  • Get Involved
© 2025 Florida Justice Reform Institute, All Rights Reserved. | Website Hosting & Web Development by RAD TECH
  • Link to Facebook
  • Link to X
  • Link to LinkedIn
Scroll to top Scroll to top Scroll to top