In March 2023, Florida’s government via HB 837 accomplished what T&M Founding Partner Robert Tyson made possible years earlier in the seminal California Supreme Court case of Hamilton Meats[i], forever changing what medical billing evidence may be considered in personal injury trials. This surreal and almost dreamlike reform for defense attorneys and insurance companies alike, while making significant changes[ii], has not been as impactful as initially envisioned, at least as it relates to the application of Fla. Stat. 768.0427 concerning admissibility of medical evidence. With Fla. Stat. 768.0427 affecting cases filed after March 23, 2023, it is now in 2025 that Florida’s circuit courts are trying cases with these new evidentiary rules on what medical billing and CPT code documentation may be admitted.

First, as with any law, enforcement may be inconsistent. Additionally, with the enactment of Fla. Stat. 768.0427, counsel must adjust how to litigate/discover and present information at trial. Now, more than ever, attorneys must be sure to ask in-depth questions during discovery, ensuring they gather information on plaintiff’s health insurance; selection of doctors/providers; and whether/why plaintiff chose not to utilize their health insurance, Medicare/Medicaid, and/or supplemental health insurance.

Medical Billing & Coding Experts – Every Pi Defense Case

Due to the nature of the new laws, the use of medical billing and coding experts may now be necessary in all Florida personal injury trials, regardless of the amount of medical damages at issue. Because the new tort reform allows for comparative governmental health insurance pricing (e.g. Medicare rates), and/or plaintiff’s own health insurance pricing (pending if plaintiff opted not to use it for treatment), medical billing experts are needed to break down and explain Medicare/Medicaid pricing for jurors. Moreover, with many providers using inaccurate CPT medical coding to overbill and/or over scope for work performed, an experienced medical billing and coding expert at trial will help jurors (and practitioners alike) understand the complexities of healthcare, billing, CPT codes, and evidence submitted.

Motions in Limine Remain Necessary

Even for some 2023 and 2024 trials, defense practitioners filed motions in limine to argue for retroactive application of tort reform’s procedural and evidentiary changes, like Fla. Stat. 768.0427, in suits filed pre-March 2023, advocating for courts to implement the new laws as early as possible. Now that trials are proceeding on cases filed post-tort reform, plaintiffs’ attorneys are fighting for the old procedural/evidentiary rules to be applied to accidents that occurred but were not filed pre-tort reform. Even in cases where both the accident and filing occurred post-tort reform, a well-crafted motion in limine appears to be critical in securing clear application of the new laws in Florida in each/every case.

Impact on Nuclear Verdicts®

At the close of 2025, there remains limited data on Nuclear Verdicts® in Florida impacted by our “new” tort reform. Indeed, some Florida judges, throughout 2023-2025 via orders on motions in limine, curtailed the application of various aspects of Florida’s tort reform, namely Fla. Stat. 768.0427.[iii] While some practitioners/carriers may value pain and suffering based in part on medical specials, jurors rarely (if ever) use that method, particularly in situations involving Nuclear Verdicts®. Juries that award Nuclear Verdicts® frequently include large pain and suffering valuations, untethered to medical specials, and instead rooted in anchoring by Plaintiff counsel and strong emotion, as explained more fully in Nuclear Verdicts®: The Apex – Break the Pattern.

Takeaway

Since it is new legislation, at this time, it is difficult to discern the exact impact Florida’s tort reform has on Nuclear Verdicts®. California adopted a similar rule related to the admissibility of plaintiff’s damages via case law years prior[iv], but despite that, Nuclear Verdicts® remain omnipresent throughout the state (see, e.g. the recent March 2025 Starbucks $50M Verdict).[v] Accordingly, though this tort reform is a win for practitioners in Florida, defense strategy at trial must still account for the possibility of Nuclear Verdicts®. This is why it remains paramount to utilize well-researched and vetted defense/psychological skills at trial. For more on Nuclear Verdict data, analysis, and recommendations on how to avoid them, please refer to our firm’s latest book, Nuclear Verdicts®: The Apex – Break the Pattern, and our online resource: www.apexdefenseconsulting.com.

Keep Reading

Tyson & Mendes Saves $680,088,308 in 2025 Is New York Getting a Bad-Faith Bill? Defusing Nuclear Verdicts®: How to Effectively Argue Pain & Suffering Damages at Trial to Prevent Excessive Jury Awards What I’m Thankful For as a Lawyer A Class in Class Actions: A Primer Inspired by Angelini v. TTI Outdoor Power Equipment, Inc. Artificial Intelligence: Friend or Foe? Behind the Briefs: Confronting Mental Health and Exposing Invisible Monsters 2025: An Industry-Changing Year Georgia’s 2025 Tort Reform on Premises Liability: How Does it Apply to Slip and Fall Cases?

Sources

[i] “Motorist, who was seriously injured when the vehicle she was driving was struck by a truck, brought personal injury action against employer of truck’s driver. After entering judgment on jury’s special verdict awarding motorist compensatory damages including past medical expenses, the Superior Court, San Diego County, No. GIN053925, Adrienne A. Orfield, J., granted employer’s motion to reduce the jury’s special verdict for motorist’s past medical expenses by the amount of the negotiated rate differential. Motorist appealed. The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded. Driver’s employer petitioned for review. The Supreme Court granted review, superseding the opinion of the Court of Appeal. Holding: The Supreme Court, Werdegar, J., held that motorist could not recover negotiated rate differential as past medical expenses.” Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc., 52 Cal. 4th 541, 257 P.3d 1130 (2011). Specifically, the Court in Hamilton Meats stated that, “The collateral source rule, which precludes deduction of compensation the plaintiff has received from sources independent of the tortfeasor from damages the plaintiff ‘would otherwise collect from the tortfeasor’ … ensures that plaintiff here may recover in damages the amounts her insurer paid for her medical care. The rule, however, has no bearing on amounts that were included in a provider’s bill but for which the plaintiff never incurred liability because the provider, by prior agreement, accepted a lesser amount as full payment. Such sums are not damages the plaintiff would otherwise have collected from the defendant. They are neither paid to the providers on the plaintiff’s behalf nor paid to the plaintiff in indemnity of his or her expenses. Because they do not represent an economic loss for the plaintiff, they are not recoverable in the first instance. The collateral source rule precludes certain deductions against otherwise recoverable damages, but does not expand the scope of economic damages to include expenses the plaintiff never incurred.” Id. at 548–49.

[ii] Beyond reducing medicals to exclude expenses Plaintiff never incurred (Fla. Stat. 768.0427(2)(a), Florida’s tort reform changed the statute of limitations for negligence actions from 4 years to 2 years (Fla. Stat. 95.11), created a negligence security presumption against liability for third-party criminal acts (Fla. Stat. 768.0701), adopted a modified comparative negligence standard from the previous pure comparative standard, eliminated one-way attorneys fee awards (repealing Fla. Stat. 626.9373, 627.428, 631.70, and 631.926), limited the award of attorney fee multipliers (Fla. Stat. 57.104), altered civil remedy and bad faith claims (see, e.g. Fla. Stat. 624.155(4)(b)&(c), 624.155(5)(a)&(b), 624.155(6), reduced attorney fee recovery in coverage cases (enacting Fla. Stat. 86.121), and altering Fla. Stat. 627.756 to remove reference to prior Fla. Stat. 627.428 awarding attorney fees in certain construction disputes, and adding language to provide for fee awards against surety insurers), etc.

[iii] See, e.g., ORDER ON MOTION IN LIMINE, In the Eighth Judicial Circuit of Florida, County of Alachua – allowing Plaintiff to board gross unpaid medicals in case where Plaintiff has Medicaid benefits.

[iv] Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc., 52 Cal. 4th 541, 257 P.3d 1130 (2011).

[v] In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. Garcia v. Starbucks Corp., No. 20STCV10214