Case Law Update

What Is Florida Statute § 768.0427?

Florida Statute § 768.0427 is a Florida law governing how medical expenses are proven and recovered in personal injury and wrongful death cases. It was enacted as part of Florida’s 2023 tort reform legislation and mainly addresses medical bills, letters of protection (LOPs), and what evidence a jury can see.

Purpose: As part of Florida’s 2023 tort reform legislation, this statute was intended to:

• Reduce inflated medical billing claims;
• Allow the defense to expose LOP relationships; and
• Tie damages more closely to actual medical reimbursement rates.

Relevant Facts & Procedural History

This case arose from a car accident in Fort Myers, Florida post-tort reform. Although the plaintiffs held private health insurance, they chose not to use it. Instead, they obtained treatment under letters of protection (LOPs), deferring payment until the conclusion of the litigation. This “strategic choice allegedly resulted in billed amounts significantly higher than typical insurance reimbursement rates.” To support the damages, Plaintiffs’ treating physician, Dr. Thomas Roush, was used as an expert witness. They did not, however, disclose a witness to calculate what their private insurance would have paid had claims been submitted.

The defendant then moved for partial summary judgment, arguing that under Fla. Stat. § 768.0427, Plaintiffs’ failure to introduce evidence of insurance reimbursement rates acts as a complete bar to recovering the past or future medical care from Dr. Roush.

The case was removed to the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division. The court, sitting in diversity jurisdiction, applied Florida’s substantive law. However, this case presented a novel question of state law, since no Florida appellate court had resolved such an issue.

The court asked whether this statute is a strict mandate requiring the plaintiff to introduce evidence of what their insurer would have paid, or else forfeit their claim for medical expenses.

The Court’s Ruling

The court rejected the defendant’s interpretation, holding that Fla. Stat. § 768.0427 does not create a mandatory evidentiary burden requiring plaintiffs to introduce evidence of insurance reimbursement rates to recover medical expenses. Instead, the statute serves as an evidentiary gateway, providing a non-exhaustive list of admissible evidence to prove damages for past or future medical treatment. The court emphasized that the statutory language — “shall include, but is not limited to” — indicates that the listed categories of evidence are illustrative rather than exclusive. This permissive reading was further supported by the statute’s catch-all provisions, which allow for the admission of “[a]ny evidence of reasonable amounts billed” and “[a]ny evidence of reasonable future amounts to be billed.”

The court also noted that when the legislature intends to impose restrictive evidentiary requirements, it uses explicit language, as seen in Fla. Stat. § 768.0427, which limits evidence of satisfied medical bills to the amount actually paid. The absence of such restrictive language in the subsections addressing unpaid and future medical expenses underscores the legislature’s intent to provide flexibility in the types of evidence admissible to prove damages.

Ultimately, the court concluded that Fla. Stat. § 768.0427 does not impose a procedural requirement on plaintiffs to produce specific evidence, such as insurance reimbursement rates, to recover medical expenses. Instead, it establishes a broad evidentiary framework, leaving the choice of evidence to the discretion of the parties. Consequently, the defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment was denied.

Practical Implications for Attorneys

For personal injury litigation in Florida, the case:

• Addresses early interpretation of Fla. Stat. § 768.0427;
• Limits defense attempts to exclude medical damages;
• Supports the plaintiff’s ability to recover full billed charges.

This case law update is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice, nor does it create an attorney-client relationship. The application of the authorities discussed depends on the specific facts of each case. Attorneys at Shiner Law Group are Members of The Florida Bar. This is attorney advertising.