![]() If the claimant was referred, they must disclose the identity of the person who made the referral-even if the referral was made by the claimant’s attorney. Claimants must now disclose specified information regarding letters of protection, including whether the claimant was referred for treatment. Under HB 837, the Legislature has completely abrogated Worley. 2017), the Florida Supreme Court held that a lawyer’s referral of a client to a medical provider is protected by the attorney-client privilege. Nevertheless, in the landmark case of Worley v. The existence of a referral relationship is relevant to potential financial bias. Letters of protection are often executed after an attorney refers their client to a physician. ![]() The intent is for the medical provider to be paid from the proceeds of the lawsuit. The same holds true for future medical expenses.Ī letter of protection is a written agreement between a patient and a medical provider wherein the latter agrees to defer collection of any medical bills until the patient recovers in a lawsuit. The type of evidence which may be admitted is contingent upon whether the claimant has insurance and, if so, the type of insurance. Notably, evidence offered to prove the amount of damages for past medical treatment or services that have been satisfied is limited to evidence of the amount actually paid, regardless of the source of payment.Īs to unpaid charges for already incurred medical treatment or services, § 768.0427 sets forth a non-exhaustive list of evidence which may be introduced. In the newly created statute, the Legislature has provided guidelines regarding the admissibility of evidence to prove past and future medical expenses in personal injury or wrongful death actions. Uniform Standards for Calculating Medical Damages The effect of this amendment is that the statute of limitations applicable to ordinary negligence claims now mirrors that applicable to claims for professional malpractice. The time for commencing action for negligence has been cut in half parties now have two years to file suit under Florida Statute § 95.11(4)(a). Time Limit for Negligence Actions Cut to Two Years Alternatively, if there are multiple claimants, insurers may file an interpleader action within 90 days of receiving notice of competing claims or make the policy limits available, pursuant to binding arbitration. In a nutshell, an insurer may not be sued for bad faith if it tenders the lesser of the policy limits or the amount demanded within 90 days of actual notice of a claim. The Legislature has also increased insurers’ protections from bad faith actions. Insurer Protections from Bad-Faith Actions One-way fees in property insurance claims litigation were already limited by Senate Bill 2A, approved in December. Notably, this statute does not apply in actions arising under a residential or commercial property insurance policy. Under the newly created Florida Statute § 86.121, an insurer is required to pay attorney fees only in declaratory actions, and only if (i) there has been a total denial of coverage, and (ii) the named insured, omnibus insured, or named beneficiary prevails in the declaratory action. Previously, insurers were generally required to pay attorneys’ fees in first-party cases where the insured prevailed. Near-Elimination of One-Way Attorney Fees ![]() Hence, the Legislature has-in effect-virtually abolished the use of contingency fee multipliers except under very limited circumstances. This presumption may be overcome only in rare and exceptional circumstances, and evidence that competent counsel could not otherwise be retained is required. ![]() With the amendment of Florida Statute § 57.104, the Legislature has created a strong presumption that a Lodestar fee is sufficient and reasonable in cases where attorneys’ fees are determined or awarded by the court. I n cases where courts are authorized to award attorney fees, Florida courts have historically increased the Lodestar amount (i.e., the reasonable hourly rate multiplied by the reasonable number of hours expended) by applying a contingency fee multiplier in certain cases. This bar to recovery does not, however, apply to actions for personal injury or wrongful death arising out of medical negligence. This means that although a claimant’s fault will still diminish the amount of damages awarded in proportion to their fault, a claimant will be barred from recovery if they are more than 50% at fault. Now, however, Florida has shifted to a modified comparative fault scheme. Prior to the amendment of Florida Statute § 768.81, Florida was considered a pure comparative fault state, meaning that a claimant’s contributory fault diminished the amount of damages awarded in proportion to the claimant’s fault, but it did not bar recovery. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |