STORAGE NAME: h6017c.JDC
DATE: 3/20/2025
1
FLORIDA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
BILL ANALYSIS
This bill analysis was prepared by nonpartisan committee staff and does not constitute an official statement of legislative intent.
BILL #: HB 6017
TITLE: Recovery of Damages for Medical Negligence
Resulting in Death
SPONSOR(S): Trabulsy, López, J.
COMPANION BILL: SB 734 (Yarborough)
LINKED BILLS: None
RELATED BILLS: SB 616 (Martin)
Committee References
Civil Justice & Claims
18 Y, 0 N
Judiciary
20 Y, 1 N
SUMMARY
Effect of the Bill:
HB 6017 expands the scope of damages available under Florida’s Wrongful Death Act by removing provisions
prohibiting two specified classes of individuals from recovering noneconomic wrongful death damages with
respect to claims related to medical negligence. More specifically, the bill removes the prohibition on recovery of
noneconomic wrongful death damages in medical negligence cases by the decedent’s children who are 25 years of
age or older and parents of a deceased child who was 25 years of age or older at the time of death.
Fiscal or Economic Impact:
The bill may have an indeterminate negative fiscal impact on state and local governments and private entities as
the expansion of Florida’s Wrongful Death Act may result in an increased number of or, at a minimum, increased
liability in medical malpractice lawsuits. Additonally, the bill may have an indeterminate positive fiscal impact on
decedents’ children who are 25 years of age or older and parents of deceased children who were 25 years of age or
older at the time of death as they may be able to recover increased monetary damages from state and local
government entities and private individuals party to the suit.
JUMP TO SUMMARY ANALYSIS RELEVANT INFORMATION BILL HISTORY
ANALYSIS
EFFECT OF THE BILL:
HB 6017 amends s. 768.21, F.S., expanding Florida’s Wrongful Death Act (Act) by removing provisions prohibiting
two specified classes of individuals from recovering noneconomic wrongful death damages with respect to claims
related to medical negligence. The bill does this by removing the medical negligence exception from the Act, which
currently prohibits the recovery of noneconomic wrongful death damages in medical negligence cases by the
decedent’s children who are 25 years of age or older and parents of a deceased child who was 25 years of age or
older at the time of death.
More specifically, under the bill, in wrongful death actions related to medical negligence:
The decedent’s children who are 25 years of age or older, may recover noneconomic damages, including
loss of parental companionship, instruction, and guidance and for mental pain and suffering of the children
from the date of injury if the decedent has no surviving spouse.
Parents of a deceased child who was 25 years of age or older at the time of death may recover for mental
pain and suffering of the parents from the date of injury if the deceased child has no other survivors.
(Section 1).
The bill makes other conforming changes. (Sections 2, 3, and 4).
The bill provides an effective date of July 1, 2025. (Section 5). JUMP TO SUMMARY ANALYSIS RELEVANT INFORMATION BILL HISTORY
2
FISCAL OR ECONOMIC IMPACT:
STATE GOVERNMENT:
The bill may have an indeterminate negative fiscal impact on state government due to the expansion of Florida’s
Wrongful Death Act, which may result in an increased number of or, at a minimum, increased liability in medical
malpractice lawsuits.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT:
The bill may have an indeterminate negative fiscal impact on local government due to the expansion of Florida’s
Wrongful Death Act, which may result in an increased number of or, at a minimum, increased liability in medical
malpractice lawsuits.
PRIVATE SECTOR:
The bill may have an indeterminate negative fiscal impact on health care providers by exposing them to an
increased number of or, at minimum, increased liability in medical malpractice lawsuits. Additionally, the bill may
have an indeterminate positive impact on decedents’ children who are 25 years of age or older and parents of
deceased children who were 25 years of age or older at the time of death as they may be able to recover increased
monetary damages from state and local government entities and private individuals party to the suit.
RELEVANT INFORMATION
SUBJECT OVERVIEW:
Florida’s Wrongful Death Act
“An action for wrongful death is a purely statutory right” that was not available at common law.
1 Under Florida's
Wrongful Death Act (Act),
2 when a person’s death is caused by a wrongful act, negligence, default, or breach of
contract or warranty of any person, and the event would have entitled the decedent to recover damages if he or she
had survived, the person who would have been liable if death had not occurred is still liable for specified damages,
notwithstanding the injured person’s death.
3
A wrongful death action must be brought by the decedent’s personal representative, who may recover specified
damages for the benefit of the decedent’s estate and his or her survivors as specified by the Act. A decedent’s
“survivors” include:
The surviving spouse of the decedent;
Children of the decedent, who are under 25 years of age;
Children of the decedent, who are 25 years of age or older, if there is no surviving spouse;
Parents of a deceased child who was under 25 years of age at the time of death;
Parents of a deceased child who was 25 years of age or older at the time of death and who had no other
survivors; and
Other blood relatives and adoptive brothers and sisters, if such relative or sibling was partly or wholly
dependent on the decedent for support
4 or services.
5, 6
A “survivor” under the Act may generally recover for:
The value of lost support and services from the date of the decedent’s injury to his or her death; and
1
Toombs v. Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc., 833 So. 2d 109, 111 (Fla. 2002).
2
Ss. 768.16 – .26, F.S.
3
S. 768.19, F.S.
4
“Support” includes non-monetary and monetary contributions. S. 768.18(3), F.S.
5
“Services” means tasks, usually of a household nature, regularly performed by the decedent that will be a necessary expense
to the survivors of the decedent. These services may vary according to the identity of the decedent and survivor and shall be
determined under the particular facts of each case. S. 768.18(4), F.S.
6
Ss. 768.18, 768.20, and 768.21, F.S. JUMP TO SUMMARY ANALYSIS RELEVANT INFORMATION BILL HISTORY
3
Loss of future support and services from the date of death, reduced to present value.
7
Further, specified survivors may generally recover for additional economic and noneconomic damages
8, including:
Loss of companionship and protection if sought by the surviving spouse;
9
Loss of companionship, instruction, and guidance if sought by:
o A child of the decedent which child is under 25 years of age;
o A child of the decedent which child is 25 years of age or older, if there is no surviving spouse;
10
Mental pain and suffering of the survivor, if the survivor seeking damages is:
o A surviving spouse;
11
o A child of the decedent which child is under 25 years of age;
o A child of the decedent which child is 25 years of age or older, if there is no surviving spouse;
12
o A parent of a deceased child who was under 25 years of age at the time of death;
o A parent of a deceased child who was 25 years of age or older at the time of death and who had no
other survivors;
13 and
Medical and funeral expenses due to the decedent’s injury or death by the survivor who paid such
expenses.
14
Additionally, under the Act, the decedent’s estate may generally recover for:
Loss of earnings of the decedent from the date of injury to the date of death;
Medical and funeral expenses due to the decedent’s injury or death that were paid by the estate or have
become a debt against the estate.
15
Under specified circumstances, the value the estate could reasonably have acquired had the decedent lived,
reduced to present value.
16
Medical Negligence Exception
Prior to 1990, Florida law prohibited a decedent’s child who was 25 years of age or older at the time of his or her
parent’s death and a parent of a deceased child who was 25 years of age or older at the time of death from
recovering noneconomic damages in any wrongful death action, regardless of whether it arose out of medical
negligence. With the enactment of ch. 90-14, Laws of Fla., s. 768.18, F.S., was amended to allow such claimants to
recover for noneconomic damages under certain circumstances.
17
However, while expanding the eligibility to recover noneconomic wrongful death damages, ch. 90-14, Laws of Fla.,
also created a medical negligence exception, upholding the prior prohibition in part, by providing that, in the case
of the death of a parent due to medical negligence, a surviving child who is 25 years of age or older may not seek
noneconomic wrongful death damages; and, in the case of the death of a child who was 25 years of age or older due
to medical negligence, a surviving parent may not seek noneconomic wrongful death damages.
18
In 2000, in Mizrahi v. North Miami Medical Center, Ltd., the appellants argued that the medical negligence exception
to the Act violated the Florida Constitution’s Equal Protection clause without a rational basis because it treated
surviving children who are 25 years of age or older whose parent died as a result of medical malpractice differently
than surviving children who are 25 years of age or older whose parent died as a result of a cause other than
7
S. 768.21(1), F.S.
8
“Noneconomic damages” are nonfinancial losses that would not have occurred but for the death giving rise to the cause of
action, including loss of companionship, protection, instruction, or guidance and mental pain and suffering. See s. 766.202(8),
F.S.
9
S. 768.21(2), F.S.
10
S. 768.21(3), F.S.
11
S. 768.21(2), F.S.
12
S. 768.21(3), F.S.
13
S. 768.21(4), F.S.
14
S. 768.21(5), F.S.
15
S. 768.21(6), F.S.
16
Id.
17
Ch. 90-14, Laws of Fla.
18
S. 768.21(8), F.S. JUMP TO SUMMARY ANALYSIS RELEVANT INFORMATION BILL HISTORY
4
medical malpractice.
19 The Court disagreed, noting that when carving out this exception the Legislature “referred
to and discussed the medical malpractice crisis and its adverse impact on the accessibility of health care.”
20 The
Court believed that the medical negligence exception would “limit claims made overall and would directly affect
the cost of providing health care by making it less expensive and more accessible.”
21 As such, the Florida Supreme
Court upheld this exception as constitutional, holding that it is rationally related to controlling healthcare costs and
to the accessibility of medical care to Florida residents.
22
However, in 2019, in Santiago v. Rodriguez, the Third District Court of Appeal of Florida certified a question of
great public importance to the Florida Supreme Court regarding the Court’s previous decision in Mizrahi in light of
subsequent Florida Supreme Court decisions, such as the 2014 holding in Estate of McCall v. U.S.
23 In McCall, the
Court, in discussing the medical malpractice crisis, held that “a crisis is not a permanent condition,” noting that
“conditions can change, which remove or negate the justification for a law, transforming what may have once been
reasonable into arbitrary and irrational legislation.”
24 Moreover, the Court in McCall concluded that the available
data did not support, or at minimum no longer supported, the existence of a medical malpractice crisis in Florida.
25
Given these findings, the Santiago court questioned whether the Florida Supreme Court would still find the medical
negligence exception constitutional given the current conditions in the State.
26 The Florida Supreme Court has not
since revisited this issue.
Other States
Some other states maintain more stringent limitations than those currently imposed under Florida law on the
recovery of noneconomic damages in any wrongful death action, not just those related to medical malpractice. For
instance, Alabama prohibits the recovery of compensatory damages
27 entirely, including any noneconomic
damages, in any wrongful death claim, and instead, only allows for the recovery of punitive damages.
28, 29 In Alaska,
a parent of a deceased child is prohibited from recovering noneconomic damages in a wrongful death action.
30
Further some states, such as Indiana,
31 only allow the recovery of noneconomic damages by a child of the decedent,
or parents of a deceased child, under very limited circumstances.
Alternatively, some states have begun expanding the scope of recovery as it relates to the wrongful death of a child,
allowing parents to recover noneconomic damages regardless of whether the child is a minor child. The Supreme
Court of Vermont observed that “children have an intrinsic value to their parents regardless of who is supporting
whom at the time of death.”
32 In expanding the scope of recovery related to the wrongful death of a child who is not
a minor, the Supreme Court of Vermont relied on the following reasoning from the Arizona Supreme Court:
Surely nature recoils from the suggestion that the society, companionship and love which compose
[a parent-child relationship] automatically fade upon emancipation; while common sense and
experience teach that the elements of [such a relationship] can never be commanded against a child’s
19
761 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 2000).
20
Id. at 1042.
21
Id.
22
Id. at 1043.
23
Santiago v. Rodriguez, 281 So. 3d 603, 608 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019).
24
134 So. 3d 894, 913 (Fla. 2014).
25
Id. at 906.
26
See generally Brown v. Nagelhout, 84 So. 3d 304, 309 (Fla. 2012) ("The doctrine of stare decisis bends where there has been
a significant change in circumstances since the adoption of the legal rule or where there has been an error in legal analysis").
27
Compensatory damages are awarded to a complainant to compensate him or her for a proven injury or loss, and include
both economic and noneconomic damages. Black’s Law Dictionary 174 (3d. pocket ed. 2006).
28
King v. National Spa and Pool Institute, Inc., 607 So. 2d 1241, 1246 (Ala. 1992).
29
Punitive damages are generally awarded where the defendant acted with recklessness, malice, or deceit and are intended to
punish the defendant. Black’s Law Dictionary 175 (3d. pocket ed. 2006).
30
Alaska Stat. Ann. § 09.55.580.
31
A parent of a deceased child may only recover noneconomic damages in a wrongful death action if the child has no other
survivors or dependents and is less than 20 years of age or less than 23 years of age and is enrolled in a postsecondary
educational institution or a career and technical education school or program. Ind. Code Ann. § 34-23-2-1.
32
Clymer v. Webster, 156 Vt. 614 (Vt. 1991). JUMP TO SUMMARY ANALYSIS RELEVANT INFORMATION BILL HISTORY
5
will at any age. [Such a] relationship, admittedly intangible, is ill-defined by reference to the ages of
the parties and ill-served by arbitrary age distinctions. Some [parent-child] relationships will be
blessed with mutual caring and love from infancy through death while others will always be bereft
of those qualities. Therefore, to suggest as a matter of law that [a] compensable [parent-child
relationship] begins at birth and ends at age eighteen is illogical and inconsistent with common sense
and experience. Human relationships cannot and should not be so neatly boxed.
33
Despite the various legal intricacies of other states, Florida remains the only state to distinguish which survivors
may recover noneconomic damages in wrongful death actions when such an action is brought based on medical
negligence.
34
BILL HISTORY
COMMITTEE REFERENCE ACTION DATE
STAFF
DIRECTOR/
POLICY CHIEF
ANALYSIS
PREPARED BY
Civil Justice & Claims
Subcommittee
18 Y, 0 N 3/5/2025 Jones Leshko
Judiciary Committee 20 Y, 1 N 3/20/2025 Kramer Leshko
33
Howard Frank, M.D., P.C. v. Superior Ct. of State of Ariz., In & For Maricopa Cnty., 150 Ariz. 228, 233 (Ariz. 1986).
34
Carter v. City of Birmingham, 444 So. 2d 373 (Ala. 1983); Alaska Stat. Ann. § 09.55.580; Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 12-612 and 12-
613; Ark. Code Ann. § 16-62-102; Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 377.60 and 377.61; Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 13-21-201 and 13-21-203;
Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 52-555; 10 Del.C. § 3724; D.C. Code Ann. § 16-2701; Ga. Code Ann., §§ 51-4-2 and 51-4-4; Haw. Rev. Stat.
Ann. § 663-3; I.C. § 5-311; 740 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 180/2; Ind. Code Ann. §§ 34-23-1-2 and 34-23-2-1; Iowa Code Ann. § 633.336;
Kan. Stat. Ann. §§ 60-1902 and 60-1903; Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 411.130; La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 2315.2; Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 18-
C, § 2-807; Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 3-904; Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 229, §§ 1 and 2; Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 600.2922;
Minn. Stat. Ann. § 573.02; Miss. Code Ann. § 11-7-13; Mo. Ann. Stat. §§ 537.080 and 537.090; Mont. Code Ann. § 27-1-513; In re
Est. of Bennett, 308 P.3d 63, 67 (Mont. 2013); Neb. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 30-810; Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 41.085; N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §
556:12; N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:31-5; N.M. Stat. Ann. § 41-2-3; N.Y. Est. Powers & Trusts Law § 5-4.3; N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 28A-18-2;
N.D. Cent. Code Ann. §§ 32-03.2-04 and 32-21-03; Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2125.02; Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, § 1053; Or. Rev. Stat.
Ann. § 30.020; 42 Pa. Stat. and Cons. Stat. Ann. § 8301; 10 R.I. Gen. Laws Ann. § 10-7-1.2; S.C. Code Ann. §§ 15-51-20 and 15-51-
40; S.D. Codified Laws §§ 21-5-5 and 21-5-7; Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 20-5-106 and 20-5-113; Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §§
71.004 and 71.010; Utah Code Ann. §§ 78B-3-102, 78B-3-105, and 78B-3-106; Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 14, § 1492; Va. Code Ann. §§ 8.01-
52 and 8.01-53; Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §§ 4.20.010, 4.20.020, and 4.24.010; W. Va. Code Ann. § 55-7-6; Wis. Stat. Ann. § 895.04;
Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-38-102.