THE FLORIDA SENATE
SPECIAL MASTER ON CLAIM BILLS
Location
409 The Capitol
Mailing Address
404 South Monroe Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1100
(850) 487-5229
DATE COMM ACTION
3/14/25 SM Favorable
3/19/25 JU Favorable
3/24/25 CA Pre-meeting
RC
March 14, 2025
The Honorable Ben Albritton
President, The Florida Senate
Suite 409, The Capitol
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1100
Re: SB 20 – Senator Burgess
HB 6529 – Representative Alvarez
Relief of Relief of J.N., a minor, by Hillsborough County
SPECIAL MASTER’S FINAL REPORT
THIS IS A SETTLED CLAIM BILL FOR LOCAL FUNDS IN
THE AMOUNT OF $400,000. THIS AMOUNT IS THE
REMAINING UNPAID BALANCE OF A $600,000
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT FOR INJURIES AND
DAMAGES CAUSED BY THE ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE OF
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY.
FINDINGS OF FACT: The Accident
On June 7, 2019, Claimant J.N., an eleven-year-old child, at
the time of the incident, was riding her bicycle on a sidewalk
owned and operated by Hillsborough County. The Claimant
was accompanied by her stepfather, Gabriel Soto. The
sidewalk is located along the east side of East Bay Road
and adjacent to the East Bay Lakes subdivision in
Gibsonton, Florida.
As J.N. was riding her bicycle, her bicycle wheel came into
contact with an uneven area of concrete slab sidewalk.
1
causing her to lose control of her bicycle and travel down the
1
Special Master’s Hearing at 0:11:02-11:04; 0:12:34-0:13:01; See also, Claimant’s exhibit 2. SPECIAL MASTER’S FINAL REPORT – SB 20
March 14, 2025
Page 2
steep slope located next to the sidewalk. J.N., while wearing
a helmet, fell face-forward into an open drainage ditch and
struck a concrete drainage culvert with her face.
Evidence was presented that the County received notice of
the uneven sidewalk prior to the Claimant’s injury on June 7,
2019. Testimony was admitted that service requests
regarding that portion of the sidewalk were entered into the
County’s MaintStar work order tracking software system on
February 13, 2018.
2
The impact caused significant lacerations, sliced through
portions of her gums, fractured her jaw, and avulsed multiple
adult teeth. Mr. Soto observed J.N. lying on the ground in a
state of shock with a large open laceration to her face. She
was bleeding profusely from her head, face, and mouth. Mr.
Soto picked J.N. up and took her back to their home.
J.N. was immediately taken to the emergency room at St.
Joseph’s Hospital where she was admitted and underwent a
CT scan which showed a fracture of the nasal bone, fracture
of the maxilla and fracture of superior alveolus. J.N.
remained in the hospital for 3 days undergoing extensive
surgery to her face including her mouth, lip, nose, and jaw.
Following discharge from the hospital. She had additional
oral surgery and medical care and treatment in the weeks
and months that followed.
3
On June 10, 2019, J.N. was seen for a consult regarding
facial trauma. She presented with facial swelling and
discomfort.
On June 14, 2019, J.N. underwent her second surgery
consisting of a closed reduction of her nasal fracture.
On February 20, 2021, J.N. was seen by a Pediatric
Epilepsy and Neurology Specialist as a result of headaches
that had started five to six months previously, which was
shortly after the accident. She was noted to have headaches
as frequently as once or twice a week, and sometimes every
two weeks. The pain was described as occipital and felt like
pounding, throbbing and, aching pain. The headaches are
2
Hillsborough County Response to RTP, filed Dec. 1, 2021, Work Request #WR00196599 created Feb. 13, 2018,
Bates stamped “HC0007.”
3
Medical Records Summary, June 7, 2019. (Claimant’s Exhibit #3). SPECIAL MASTER’S FINAL REPORT – SB 20
March 14, 2025
Page 3
associated with light and sound sensitivity along with
nausea.
She reported difficulty sleeping. J.N. was placed on
rizatriptan and clonidine. She reported no prior medical
history of migraine headaches.
J.N.’s Current Condition
On March 16, 2022, J.N. had a consultation with the oral
surgeon at Moffett Oral Surgery and Dental Implant Center.
J.N. was informed that she would need a bone graft. Dr.
Moffett expects J.N. to be ready for the bone graft process
when she is 16 or 17 years old. She will then start the
process for implants.
J.N. is 16 years old and wears a Maryland bridge. She is
preparing for the bone graft. The process will take four to five
months to heal before she can go back to her dentist for
them to install her crowns.
LITIGATION HISTORY: Settlement
The Claimant and Hillsborough County have entered into a
settlement agreement for a total of $600,000. Claimant has
received $200,000 from Hillsborough County and seeks the
remaining $400,000.
4
An order granting the settlement agreement was entered on
March 7, 2023.
5
All proceeds of the settlement agreement are to be paid
through a structured settlement/annuity and held in a trust that
has been established for the benefit of the Claimant. The
proceeds are to be disbursed in accordance with the details
of the structured settlement/annuity and terms of the trust.
Claimant’s attorney has submitted a future needs analysis
based on a treatment plan developed for J.N..
6
The future
needs produced an estimated total of lifetime costs to be
4
Settlement Agreement between Stephany Grullon, parent/guardian of J.N., a minor and Hillsborough County,
September 20, 2022, pgs. 1-4 (Claimant’s Exhibit 5).
5
Claimant’s supplemental record marked Settlement Annuity Contract.
6
Treatment Plan (Claimant’s Exhibit 4). SPECIAL MASTER’S FINAL REPORT – SB 20
March 14, 2025
Page 4
between $700,000 and $1 million. Claimant’s attorney
testified that the cost estimate was based on upcoming
surgeries, future medical care, past and future pain and
suffering, as well as mental anguish.
7
As part of the agreement, the respondent agreed to not
oppose the claim bill.
CLAIM BILL HEARING: On January 27, 2025, the House and Senate special masters
held a half-day de novo hearing in the matter of SB 20 (2025),
relief of J.N., a minor, by Hillsborough County.
Both parties stipulated to all exhibits submitted into evidence
by the Claimant. Respondent’s attorney made it clear that
Hillsborough County was in support of the claim bill and would
not be presenting any evidence counter to the Claimant or
settlement agreement.
8
Both parties cooperated fully with the
House and Senate and responded to all requests for
information.
9
Claimant’s Case-in-Chief
Claimant’s attorney presented a narrative recitation of the
facts as stipulated by the parties detailing the Claimant’s life
before the accident, the accident, the details of her life after
the accident, injuries, recovery, and the related elements of a
negligence claim.
10
Witness Gabriel Soto
Mr. Soto testified that the Claimant was an experienced bike
rider and was wearing a helmet. He testified that this was not
a path that the two had previously traveled or with which they
were familiar. Mr. Soto also testified that he was riding four to
five feet behind the Claimant and witnessed her hit an uneven
surface that sent her down the steep slope and into the
drainage ditch. He testified that when he reached her, she was
awake but in shock and may have lost consciousness at the
scene. The Claimant’s nose was broken, lip was split open,
and teeth were missing. He testified that he immediately
7
Special Master Hearing at 43:25:00-46:10:00; 1.38:26-1:40:00.
8
Id. at 2:32:00-2:35:00.
9
Id. at 1:50:00-2:05:00.
10
Id. at 7:24:00-11:24:00. SPECIAL MASTER’S FINAL REPORT – SB 20
March 14, 2025
Page 5
rushed the Claimant to their house, and she was transported
to the hospital.
11
Witness Stephany Grullion
Ms. Grullion, parent and natural guardian of the Claimant,
testified regarding J.N.’s medical treatment. Ms. Grullion
testified that the Claimant has headaches that were reported
one month after the accident. The Claimant visited a pediatric
neurologist who determined that the headaches were due to
the collision. Ms. Grullion also testified that the Claimant still
had the headaches twice a week but she no longer takes
prescription medication; rather, uses over-the-counter
medication for relief.
12
Claimant still experiences numbness on one side of her lip, as
well as a lip twitch. The Claimant has nose sensitivity and
cannot wear her glasses because the weight of the glasses
bothers her.
Ms. Grullion testified that the Claimant’s medical expenses
were paid by insurance.
13
Witness J.N.
J.N. testified that since the accident, she has developed many
insecurities. She feels uncomfortable speaking because her
lip twitches, and she avoids smiling due to her dissatisfaction
with her teeth and the scar on her lip..
14
J.N. testified that she still experiences facial numbness and
that she still frequently has headaches. She testified that she
has missed school due to migraines but that she does well in
school.
15
She is unable to play sports or do extracurricular
activities because the physical activity causes her to have
headaches.
16
J.N. testified that she has migraines three to
four times per week with noise and light sensitivity.
11
Id. at 11:54:00-17:48:00.
12
Id. at 1:00:00-1:04:28.
13
Id. at 1:10:19-1:10:44.
14
Id. at 1:15:07-1:19:37.
15
Id. at 1:31:00-1:33:00.
16
Id. at 1:16:00-1:19:07. SPECIAL MASTER’S FINAL REPORT – SB 20
March 14, 2025
Page 6
J.N. also testified that she has been wearing the Maryland
bridge for three years and that it causes her discomfort when
food gets stuck in it. She stated that it also hurts her gums.
17
Respondent’s Case-in-Chief
The Respondent did not present or contest any evidence,
theories, or arguments.
18
Respondent indicated that if the claim bill were to pass, payout
to the Claimant was structured to have less of a financial
impact on the county’s budget, by structuring payments in
increments to be paid over the next five (5) years.
19
The county does not have any excess insurance and is self-
insured.
20
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: The claim bill hearing was held on January 27, 2025, was a
de novo proceeding to determine liability in a negligence claim
for damages suffered by the Claimant and, if negligence is
found, whether the amount of the claim is reasonable. This
report is based on evidence presented to the special master
prior to, during, and after the hearing. The Legislature is not
bound by settlements or jury verdicts when considering a
claim bill, the passage of which is an act of legislative grace.
Sovereign immunity limits the amount of damages a Claimant
can collect from the state or any of its agencies as a result of
its negligence or the negligence of its employees to $200,000
for one individual and $300,000 for all claims or judgments
arising out of the same incident. Funds in excess of this limit
may only be paid upon approval of a claim bill by the
Legislature. Thus, the Claimant will not receive the full amount
of the settlement unless the Legislature approves this claim
bill authorizing the additional payment.
21
In this matter, the Claimant alleges negligence on behalf of
Hillsborough County.
17
Id. at 1:21:42-1:22:29.
18
Id. at 1:52:09-1:57:20.
19
Id. at 2:00:00-2:03:37; see also, Claimant’s supplemental exhibit titled Schedule of Benefits and Payees.
20
Id. at 2:03:37-2:04:44.
21
Section 768.28, F.S. SPECIAL MASTER’S FINAL REPORT – SB 20
March 14, 2025
Page 7
The plaintiff bears the burden of proving, by the greater weight
of the evidence, that the defendant’s action was a breach of
duty that the defendant owed to the plaintiff. The “greater
weight of the evidence” burden of proof “means the more
persuasive and convincing force and effect of the entire
evidence in the case.”
22
“Negligence is described as the failure to use reasonable
care, which is the care that a reasonably careful person would
use under like circumstances”;
23
and “a legal cause of loss,
injury or damage if it directly and in natural and continuous
sequence produces or contributes substantially to producing
such loss, injury or damage, so that it can reasonably be said
that, but for the negligence, the loss, injury or damage would
not have occurred.”
24
To establish liability, a Claimant must prove four (4) elements,
by the greater weight of the evidence:
(1) Duty: where the defendant has a legal obligation to
protect others against unreasonable risks.
(2) Breach: which occurs when the defendant has failed to
conform to the required standard of conduct.
(3) Causation – where the defendant’s conduct is
foreseeably and substantially the cause of the resulting
damages; and
(4) Damages – actual harm.
25
In this case, the County’s liability depends on whether the
County breached its duty of care to Claimant and whether that
breach caused her damages.
Duty
Under Florida law, “[W]hile a city is not an insurer of the
motorist or the pedestrian who travels its streets and
sidewalks, it is responsible, of course, for damages resulting
from defects which have been in existence so long that they
22
Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Civ.) 401.3, Greater Weight of the Evidence.
23
Florida Civil Jury Instructions, 401.4 – Negligence.
24
Florida Civil Jury Instructions, 401.12(a) – Legal Cause, Generally.
25
Hodges v. United States, 78 F.4
th
1365, 1375 (11
th
Cir. Aug. 18, 2023); and Clay Elec. Coop., Inc. v. Johnson,
873 So.2d 1182, 1185 (Fla. 2003). SPECIAL MASTER’S FINAL REPORT – SB 20
March 14, 2025
Page 8
could have been discovered by the exercise of reasonable
care, and repaired.”
26
A municipality “is required to exercise reasonable diligence in
repairing defects after the unsafe condition of the street or
sidewalks known or ought to have been known to the officers
thereof having authority to act.”
27
In this case, the county does not dispute that it had a duty to
use reasonable care in maintaining safe premises, free from
dangers to the personal safety of its invitees.
28
Florida law defines “routine maintenance” required by the
county to be performed on the sidewalk, drainage ditch, and
culvert as follows:
(23) “Routine maintenance” means minor repairs
and associated tasks necessary to maintain a safe
and efficient transportation system. The term
includes: pavement patching; shoulder repair;
cleaning and repair of drainage ditches, traffic
signs, and structures; mowing; bridge inspection
and maintenance; pavement striping; litter
cleanup; and other similar activities.
29
There was no evidence presented by the Respondent that
challenged or countered the facts as presented above.
Breach
Based on the stipulated facts and exhibits presented by the
Claimant, it is evident that Hillsborough County breached its
duty of reasonable care by failing to maintain the sidewalk in
a safe manner. The County had notice that the sidewalk was
badly buckled and uneven. The Claimant’s evidence indicates
that County employee Juan Olivero Lopez inspected the
sidewalk prior to the date of the incident and noted that “the
26
Mullins v. City of Miami, 60 So.2d 174, 176 (Fla. 1952) (citing City of St. Petersburg v. Roach, 4 So.2d 367,368
(Fla 1941) (holding “[t]here is no doubt that the injury suffered by the defendant in error was chargeable to a
defect in the sidewalk and it was successfully argued in the trial court that it had been there for sufficient length of
time for the city to have become aware of the imperfection and have remedied it”)).
27
City of Miami Beach v. Quinn, 5 So.2d 593, 593 (Fla. 1942).
28
Hillsborough County Answer and Affirmative Defenses Pleading, 3.
29
Section 334.03, F.S. SPECIAL MASTER’S FINAL REPORT – SB 20
March 14, 2025
Page 9
section of sidewalk should have been removed and replaced
prior to this incident.”
30
There was no evidence presented by the Respondent that
challenged or countered the facts as presented above.
Causation
Negligence is “a legal cause of loss, injury or damage if it
directly and in natural and continuous sequence produces or
contributes substantially to producing such loss, injury or
damage, so that it can reasonably be said that, but for the
negligence, the loss, injury or damage would not have
occurred.”
31
The Claimant presented evidence that the buckled sidewalk
was the direct and precipitating cause of her injuries, and that
it was a foreseeable outcome from the risk produced by the
County’s failure to maintain the sidewalk. But for Hillsborough
County’s negligence the accident would not have occurred,
and the Claimant would not have been severely injured.
32
Comparative Negligence
Comparative negligence is the legal theory that a defendant
may diminish his or her responsibility to an injured plaintiff by
demonstrating that another person, sometimes the plaintiff
and sometimes another defendant or even an unnamed party,
was also negligent and that negligence contributed to the
plaintiff’s injuries.
The Claimant presented evidence that the Claimant was
wearing a helmet at the time of the accident, was experienced
in riding a bicycle, and the bicycle was operationally sound at
the time of the accident.
33
There was no evidence presented by the Respondent that
challenged or countered the facts presented above. There
was no evidence presented that would attribute any
negligence to the Claimant or any other unnamed third party.
30
Claimant’s complaint filed June 28, 2022, 5.; see also Claimant’s Exhibit 1(Photographs of sidewalk).
31
Florida Civil Jury Instructions, 401.12(a) –Legal Cause, Generally.
32
Special Master Hearing at 29:25-32:28.
33
Id. at 16:01:00-16:25:00. SPECIAL MASTER’S FINAL REPORT – SB 20
March 14, 2025
Page 10
Based on the evidence and through review of all relevant
material, the undersigned finds that the greater weight of
evidence demonstrates that Hillsborough County had a duty
of care, which it breached, and that breach was the legal or
proximate cause of the accident and responsible for the
Claimant’s injuries.
Damages
As a result of the accident the Claimant was admitted to the
hospital with severe facial trauma. She underwent a CT scan
which showed a fracture of the nasal bone, fracture of the
maxilla, and fracture of superior alveolus.
34
The evidence indicated that the Claimant had multiple
surgeries to her mouth, lip, nose, and jaw. According to
testimony from the Claimant and her mother, Stephany
Grullon, the Claimant will need to have a bone graft and
surgery for dental implants in the future.
Economic Damages
The Claimant’s attorney presented voluminous medical bills
and statements. A copy of the annuity contract, settlement
agreement and order approving the settlement were
provided.
35
Noneconomic Damages
The Claimant suffered significant noneconomic damages in
the form of pain and suffering, mental anguish and loss of
enjoyment of life. The Claimant suffers frequent and continual
migraines as a result of striking her head on the concrete
culvert. In addition to her physical pain, the Claimant
experiences low self-esteem and insecurity because of her
scars and missing teeth. The Claimant is unable to engage in
physical activities that she enjoyed prior to the accident and
has insecurities about her appearance and dating. The
Claimant testified to having a lip twitch and facial numbness,
that she will likely experience for the rest of her life.
34
Claimant’s Exhibit 3 (Claimant’s medical records).
35
Claimant’s supplemental record (Annuity contract, Settlement agreement, Order Approving Settlement). SPECIAL MASTER’S FINAL REPORT – SB 20
March 14, 2025
Page 11
Standard jury instructions provide that, “There is no exact
standard” for measuring “[a]ny bodily injury sustained by [a
plaintiff] any resulting pain and suffering, disability or physical
impairment, disfigurement, mental anguish, inconvenience, or
loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life experienced in the
past or to be experienced in the future.” ”
36
As this was a settlement without the benefit of a jury trial, and
because there is no formula or fixed criteria for an award, it is
unknown how much a jury might have awarded had this
matter gone to trial.
37
The claimant’s attorney submitted evidence that the claimant
suffers migraines as a result of the accident. The migraines
occur whenever she is active.
38
The claimant testified that she
did not suffer migraines prior to the accident and that the
migraines are ongoing and frequent in nature.
39
Counsel for the Claimant speculates that a jury would have
awarded a verdict in excess of $1,000.000.
Based on the settlement agreement and the total economic
damages, the remaining difference of the settled amount is
$400,000.
There was no economic evidence presented by the
Respondent to challenge or counter the reports and evidence
submitted by the Claimant.
ATTORNEY FEES: Section 768.28, of the Florida Statutes, limits the Claimant’s
attorney fees to 25 percent of the total recovery reached by
any judgment or settlement in a sovereign immunity claim.
The Claimant’s attorney has acknowledged this limitation and
36
Florida Civil Jury Instructions, 501.2a –Personal Injury and Property Damages – Elements.
37
In Parrish v. City of Orlando, 53 So. 3d 1199, 1203, (Fla 5
th
DCA 2011), the plaintiff and her husband were walking
to the Citrus Bowl when she tripped and fell on an uneven sidewalk, seriously injuring her left shoulder. Due to the
severity of the injury, the plaintiff had to have shoulder replacement surgery and subsequently developed axillary
nerve palsy. At trial, the plaintiff’s treating doctor testified that her shoulder injury was permanent and caused by
the fall. The city presented no opposing testimony. The jury awarded damages for past medical expenses and future
medical expenses, but no award for past or future noneconomic damages. The court determined that the “failure to
make an award for future economic damages is unreasonable when there is evidence of permanent injury and a
need for treatment in the future.” “[W]hen medical evidence on permanence or causation is undisputed,
unimpeached, or not otherwise subject to question based on other evidence presented at trial, the jury is not free
to simply ignore or arbitrarily reject that evidence and tender a verdict in conflict.” Parrish at 1202.
38
Special Master Hearing at 1:24:00-1:25:30.
39
Id. SPECIAL MASTER’S FINAL REPORT – SB 20
March 14, 2025
Page 12
verified in writing that nothing in excess of 25 percent of the
gross recovery will be withheld or paid as attorney and
lobbyist fees.
RECOMMENDATIONS: Based upon the foregoing, I recommend that SB 20 be
reported FAVORABLY.
Respectfully submitted,
Jovona I. Parker
Senate Special Master
cc: Secretary of the Senate