TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — The Florida Senate is scheduled to take up a House bill Wednesday that could repeal the state’s so-called “Free Kill” law, a statute preventing many families from seeking damages in medical negligence deaths. 

However, a proposed amendment filed late Monday would add a cap on non-economic damages if approved, sparking strong reactions from both advocates and opponents as the legislative session nears its end.

For Sabrina Davis, the fight to repeal the law is deeply personal.

Her father, Keith Davis, a 62-year-old Navy veteran, died in a Florida hospital in 2020 after an undiagnosed blood clot went untreated. 

The Florida Health Department later found his doctor had committed medical malpractice by failing to assess and treat his risk. Because her father was unmarried and had no children under 25, Davis said every attorney she contacted told her she could not sue for pain and suffering under current law.

“After contacting eight attorneys, they all said the same thing, was your dad married and how old are you? That’s when I learned about this law,” Davis said.

Florida’s “Free Kill” law has been in place since 1990 and bars families from suing for non-economic damages in medical malpractice wrongful death cases if the deceased was over 25, unmarried, and had no children under 25.

The House overwhelmingly passed HB 6017 last month to repeal the law, with a 104-6 vote, and the bill is now before the Senate. 

A last-minute proposed amendment would cap non-economic damages such as pain and suffering at $500,000 for claims against practitioners and $750,000 for claims against hospitals, regardless of whether the patient survived or died.

“You can’t put a price on your loved one’s life, you just can’t,” Davis said.

Medical defense attorney Andy Bolin argued Florida’s medical providers already face the highest malpractice insurance premiums in the nation and that unlimited damages could worsen the problem.

“Orlando Health had its second $45 million verdict just a couple of weeks ago,” Bolin said. “Those are the types of runaway verdicts that the system just can’t continue to withstand.”

Bolin said his clients generally oppose repealing the law without protections like damage caps, citing concerns over rising costs and potential impacts on healthcare access.

“When you have that level of pressure from the tort system on the medical community, it automatically has some ripple effect throughout the healthcare system,” he said.

Davis, however, believes the proposed caps could lead to more lawsuits, not fewer.

“The way I see it is the defendant will almost never offer the cap, and the family is not going to accept anything less because it would be an insult to the family,” Davis said. “So, it’s going to cause families to go in front of a judge and use more court resources, causing more jury trials.”

The legislative session is scheduled to end Friday but could be extended if the state budget is not finalized.