Senate Rules Committee advances bill restoring wrongful-death non‑economic damages in medical‑negligence cases

Senate Bill 734, carried in the Rules Committee by Senator Yarbrough, would repeal statutory exceptions that bar certain survivors from recovering non‑economic damages when a wrongful death is caused by medical negligence.

Senator Yarbrough, the bill sponsor, told the committee the 1990 carve‑outs conflict with the original legislative intent of Florida's Wrongful Death Act and said, “I filed Senate Bill 7 34 because the current exceptions in 7 68 21 8 are unjust, they do not value life, and they prevent accountability.”

The bill’s nut graf: supporters say the change restores parity to wrongful‑death remedies for medical negligence; opponents warn the change could increase malpractice exposure, raise insurance costs and affect access to care.

Committee debate focused on two late‑filed amendments that would expand what evidence a jury may see in a malpractice trial. Senator Burton offered an amendment to make Department of Health (DOH) investigative findings discoverable; Senator Martin filed a late “amendment to the amendment” that would also make prior complaint reports, settlement documents and other prior adverse incident reports discoverable in court. Both amendments prompted lengthy legal and policy exchanges on admissibility standards, burdens of proof, and jury prejudice.

Supporters of the expanded discovery argued family members have been shut out of investigative processes and that DOH findings and administrative records can be crucial to civil cases. Cindy Jenkins, who identified herself as a family member of a patient who died, said the amendment allowed families “some insight into what's going on at the Department of Health.” Several survivors who spoke during public testimony asked legislators to restore a path to civil court and called the current carve‑outs discriminatory.

Health‑care industry groups, insurers and physician groups opposed the evidentiary expansions. Andy Bolin of the Florida Justice Reform Institute argued the changes would inject information about liability‑coverage and unrelated prior matters that could “prejudice the jury.” Mark Delagal of The Doctors Company warned that permitting unrelated prior actions and settlement information “is not relevant information” to the case at hand and risks higher awards.

Committee members debated tradeoffs: some said the bill is primarily about restoring equal legal rights; others said the evidentiary changes are too sweeping for a final committee stop and should be vetted in separate bills.

The committee heard extended public testimony from family members, physicians and stakeholder organizations. Testimony ran the gamut from personal accounts of alleged negligent care to analyses of potential effects on malpractice insurance and physician supply. Several witnesses said DOH investigations can take years and are conducted confidentially; others urged strengthening DOH and licensing systems rather than altering civil discovery rules.

Action: The committee considered the bill and late‑filed amendments during its Rules stop and ultimately reported SB 734 favorably.

Ending: With the Rules Committee’s favorable report, SB 734 now moves to the next stage of the Legislature for further consideration.