No. SB 1558
Filed under Legal.
Admissible Evidence in Personal Injury or Wrongful Death Actions; Providing that evidence admissible in personal injury or wrongful death actions may be used for rebutting, as well as for proving, the amount of certain damages; providing that such evidence may be offered by any party, etc.
Plain English Summary
AI-GENERATEDThis amends Florida's medical-expense evidence statute for personal injury and wrongful death cases so any party can offer the listed evidence not just to prove medical damages, but also to rebut them.
Previously the statute's language only addressed evidence offered to prove damages. Now it explicitly opens the same evidence categories, like insurance-obligated rates and letter-of-protection terms, to the side disputing the claimed amount.
A new line confirms no party has to use this evidence just because it is available; offering it stays optional even though it is now open to every side.
A separate section says the change applies to all causes of action already covered by the statute and is meant only to clarify, not materially alter it, a stronger retroactivity signal than a bare clarification label.
AIThe core evidentiary standard for medical-expense damages in personal injury and wrongful death cases now applies to evidence offered to rebut the claimed amount, not only evidence offered to prove it.
AIFor both unpaid incurred medical charges and future medical costs, the statute now says any party may offer the listed evidence, replacing passive language that did not specify who could introduce it. This gives a defendant explicit footing to introduce insurance-obligated or negotiated-rate evidence to contest a plaintiff's claimed medical costs.
AIA separate section states the amendments apply to every cause of action the statute already covers and are intended only to clarify, not materially alter, the subsection. That is a stronger and more explicit retroactivity signal than a bare clarification label.
AIEven though any party may now offer evidence to prove or rebut medical-expense damages, nothing in the subsection requires a party to do so, and this sits alongside the existing rule that no party must seek a reduction in billed charges it is not contractually entitled to.