For the second consecutive Session, House lawmakers have approved legislation to repeal a unique Florida law that today denies some families legal recourse in medical malpractice cases.

It’s the same measure the Legislature passed last year with overwhelming support before Gov. Ron DeSantis vetoed it, warning the bill’s lack of caps on damages would cause malpractice insurance premiums to skyrocket.

This time, however, the bill (HB 6003) does not have a Senate companion, making its path through the upper chamber more arduous.

And because it passed without any changes, making it essentially the same as last year’s measure, the bill’s survival is unlikely if it again reaches the Governor’s desk.

The House passed HB 6003 by an 88-17 margin, with nearly three times as many “nay” votes Thursday as there were in the chamber last March for the bill’s 2025 incarnation.

HB 6003, if it becomes law, would delete a restriction in Florida Statutes blocking the award of noneconomic damages — grief, loss of companionship, pain and suffering, and the like — in cases of lethal medical negligence if the victim is 25 or older, unmarried and without children under 25.

Critics of the 35-year-old restriction have dubbed it “free kill,” as it shields careless providers while leaving surviving loved ones without the same court-based remedies available to others.

That restriction is “un-American,” said Fort Pierce Republican Rep. Dana Trabulsy, the co-prime sponsor of HB 6003 with Orlando Democratic Rep. Johanna López.

“Constitutionally in America, we deserve access to the courts. There should be no exceptions to that,” she said. “This is an unjust law. This is our opportunity to make it right.”

Trabulsy dismissed DeSantis’ explanation for vetoing the bill last year and his assertion that opportunistic lawyers and families would pursue “jackpot justice” if the existing law was repealed.

“This has gone through the courts, and caps have been deemed unconstitutional. That’s why there are no caps on this bill,” she said, referencing Florida cases like Estate of McCall v. United States, North Broward Hospital District v. Kalitan and the 1991 Alabama case Moore v. Mobile Infirmary Association.

Trabulsy also stressed, as she did as HB 6003 advanced through committees, that she believes Florida offers “world-class health care” and is home to exceptionally capable medical professionals and service providers.

“But there is medical malpractice, and when there is, we should be able to hold someone accountable,” she said. “And we can in every other section of law except this one, unless you have a loved one that is over the age of 25, unmarried and (with) no dependents. And in that scenario, your family members just don’t count in the state of Florida. And that’s just wrong.”

López said HB 6003 is about “real people” and named more than a dozen medical malpractice victims whose families had limited ability to seek recompense.

“Their stories remind us that the language in our legal code has real consequences,” she said.

Two other Democratic Representatives — Kevin Chambliss of Homestead and Yvonne Hinson of Gainesville — commended Trabulsy for her work and implored their colleagues in the chamber to support the bill.

Chambliss spoke of Ed Salazar, a Miami-Dade County resident and member of the Florida Medical Rights Association whose 28-year-old son Christopher died of cardiopulmonary arrest while recovering from an auto accident in an intensive care unit. Salazar later penned “A Free Kill” documenting the family’s difficulties dealing with Florida’s “little known law.”

“With this vote,” Chambliss said, “we will be taking an important step in righting the wrong that has happened to this family.”

Hinson briefly discussed an earlier bill she filed to repeal “free kill” that her House peers ignored and a similar proposal former North Fort Myers Republican Rep. Spencer Roach carried in 2022, which the House passed, but the Senate ignored.

She praised Trabulsy for “building a system of support” for HB 6003 and urged support for the change.

“This is a good move,” she said.

“Free kill” was added to Florida’s books in 1990, when lawmakers added the carve-out to the state’s Wrongful Death Act in what at the time was presented as an effort to keep medical insurance premiums down.

The opposite occurred, despite the concession.

As HB 6003 moved forward this year, representatives from medical companies and insurance associations spoke against the proposal, cautioning against passing it without caps on damages like the $1 million limit Senators narrowly rejected before passing its predecessor bill last year.

The Florida Hospital Association’s General Counsel, Kristen Dobson, said in November that Florida is losing doctors at a rate double the national average as obstetricians, surgeons, internists and other specialists face some of the highest medical liability insurance rates in the country.

One major hospital in South Florida saw a 73% year-over-year increase in reinsurance and had to buy insurance through a “below ‘A’-rated carrier” for the first time, she said, attributing the strain felt across the state to liability issues.

Dobson pointed to so-called “nuclear verdicts” — jury-directed lawsuit awards of $10 million or more — she said have become “increasingly common and significantly destabilize the insurance market.” Just two months ago, a jury awarded nearly $71 million in a single case.

“The increasing threat of nuclear verdicts holds hospitals and health care providers hostage, forcing them to settle out of court regardless of the merits of the case, which drags up insurance rates and exacerbates the cost of health care, jeopardizing access to critical health care services in Florida,” she said.

“The cost of this bill will be paid by Floridians, particularly those living in rural communities. Fewer doctors means longer wait times, worsening medical conditions, increased (emergency department use) and higher overall health care costs.”

Trabulsy said Thursday that admonishments of so-called “nuclear verdicts” are scare tactics and such awards won’t happen in Florida if HB 6003 becomes law.

“It was said that we will have family members coming out of the woodwork to sue — we will have multiple family members and there will be nuclear verdicts multiple times for one victim. That’s just not true,” she said. “An estate has to be formed. An estate … brings forth the case, not individual family members. So it’s just not true.”

HB 6003 does not need a sponsor or companion bill in the Senate to pass. The Senate can take it up directly, assign it to appropriate committees — or waive reference — and vote on it, amended or as-is, and return it to the House for concurrence.

The Senate could also replace the text of a Senate bill with the House language via a strike-all amendment.

Jacksonville Republican Sen. Clay Yarborough, who carried the bill’s Senate companion during the 2025 Session, told Florida Politics in September that he did not plan to refile the bill, since he expected DeSantis would veto it again.

No other Senator stepped up to take it in Yarborough’s stead.

The Naples Better Government Committee has announced endorsements for the upcoming Naples City Council election, backing four candidates after a full day of interviews and deliberations.

The committee is endorsing Ted Blankenship, incumbent Ray Christman, John Krol and Scott Schultz.

Although three Council seats are up for election this cycle, the committee said it opted to recommend four candidates due to what it described as the overall strength and depth of the field. The group did not endorse the other four candidates: Dan Barone, John Langley, Sally Petersen and Penny Taylor.

According to the committee, members conducted one-on-one interviews with all eight candidates over a six-hour period, beginning in the morning and concluding midafternoon. Following the interviews, committee members spent nearly an hour in closed-door discussion evaluating each candidate’s leadership ability, experience, vision for the city and commitment to Naples.

The Feb. 3 election will help shape the seven-member Naples City Council, which consists of a Mayor and six Council members elected at large on a nonpartisan basis. Council members and the Mayor serve four-year terms and are limited to two consecutive terms under the city charter.

The Naples Better Government Committee describes itself as a long-standing civic organization that has conducted candidate evaluations and issued nonpartisan recommendations to voters for decades. The group’s executive board and membership include individuals with backgrounds in business, real estate, law and civic leadership, and members represent both major political parties.

The committee encouraged Naples residents to remain engaged and informed, and actively participate ahead of the municipal election.

“These endorsements reflect our mission to promote transparent, accountable, and effective local government,” Committee President Scott J. Lepore said in a statement. “While we recognize the strengths of every candidate we interviewed, we believe these four individuals are best positioned to serve Naples with integrity, experience, and vision.”