Lobbyist scolded for ‘scare tactics’ in committee debate on wrongful-death bill

TALLAHASSEE, FLA. 2/9/23-Rep. Hillary Cassel, D-Dania Beach, speaks in favor of the Intercollegiate Athlete Compensation and Rights Thursday at the Capitol in Tallahassee. COLIN HACKLEY PHOTO

Rep. Hillary Cassel on Thursday blasted a lobbyist for his testimony on a bill that would increase the potential for wrongful death lawsuits to be filed against Florida doctors and hospitals, accusing him of using scare tactics to try to sink the bill.

During public testimony on HB 6017 before the House Judiciary Committee, lawyer Mark Berlick said allowing adult children of single parents to sue physicians and hospitals for noneconomic damages, such as pain and suffering, would open the door to estranged children suing Florida’s hospitals and physicians.

Berlick, a lawyer with the Bolin Law Group, said he represented the Florida Justice Reform Institute, which champions lawsuit limitations.

He testified that the “bulk” of people who would be filing medical malpractice lawsuits are going to be nonstate residents who are estranged from family members who live in Florida.

“So, though you’ll end up with the individuals that will end up with a check being sent to them for an individual that never sets foot in the state of Florida, they won’t receive any medical care here. They won’t have any taxes paid here. They’ll just simply receive a settlement check from the death of their relatives,” he said.

The comments didn’t sit well with Cassel, a Republican who noted that the majority of the people in the committee hearing who testified on behalf of the bill were Florida residents.

“We as members expect that the people that come before us to provide information are going to do so truthfully and with facts, and for the gentleman from the Florida Justice Reform Institute to come before us and assert that the people that are going to benefit from this don’t live in this state and must be estranged from their families, and we’re going to just be writing checks to estranged members, doesn’t have an ounce of data to support that,” Cassel said.

“And that was nothing more than a scare tactic to this committee, and it’s an insult on our intelligence, and it’s an insult to the people who are here today, who are clearly not estranged from the loved ones that they have lost. And of the ones that have testified, all but two are Floridians. So, if you’re going to come before this committee and make assertions about what’s going to happen if we pass legislation, I expect you bring facts and data and not scare tactics and opinions.”

Quid pro quo

The insurance industry, Florida hospitals associations, and organized medicine such as the Florida Medical and Florida Osteopathic associations, oppose the bill in its current form. But they are willing to support eliminating the ban if the Legislature agrees to limit damages for pain and suffering.

Otherwise, increasing civil liability will further increase medical malpractice insurance rates and drive physicians away from practicing, the opponents say.

To date, neither the House nor Senate have included the industry-coveted caps in the bill. The Senate passed its version, SB 734, earlier this week.

Rudman returns

There are some individual physicians, though, who support the proposal, including former state Rep. Joel Rudman.

Rudman resigned from the House to launch an unsuccessful congressional bid but returned Thursday to testify in support of the bill.

A Navarre physician, Rudman said he came to Florida from Alabama during the 1990s and the high medical malpractice rates didn’t drive him away. The premiums he pays today, he said, haven’t changed in a decade. And the costs of the insurance protection from lawsuits isn’t among his top three overhead costs.

“I’ve had a license since 1997, and I’ve never been sued. I’m very proud of that,” Rudman said. “It’s not because of some bogus protections carve-out in the current statute. It’s because I’m damn good at my job. And this bill will not change that, either. The only doctors that want to see this statute remain in place are bad doctors and, unfortunately, we have a few of those in the state of Florida.”