As Florida approaches the 2025 legislative session, the controversial ‘free kill’ law, which restricts the ability of families to sue for pain and suffering in medical malpractice cases, is under increasing scrutiny. At the heart of this issue is a poignant narrative encapsulated by the experiences of Lauren Korniyenko, who faced insurmountable grief following her mother’s death after a hip surgery that was marred by alleged medical negligence. Korniyenko’s case has become a focal point for a movement seeking to repeal the law, exposing a larger systemic problem within Florida’s healthcare and legal framework.
The ‘free kill’ law, formally established in 1990, significantly limits the ability to pursue non-economic damages, which encompass pain and suffering, for individuals over the age of 25 who die due to medical malpractice. Under this statute, only a spouse or children under the age of 25 can seek redress for emotional suffering, relegating families like Korniyenko’s to seek damages solely for tangible economic losses, such as funeral expenses and unpaid medical bills. This has resulted in a chilling effect on legal action against healthcare providers, as many families find it financially unfeasible to pursue lawsuits that return insufficient compensation to justify legal fees.
Korniyenko’s personal tragedy underscores a broader issue in Florida where families often remain unaware of these legal limitations until confronted with the aftermath of a loved one’s death. She articulates the frustration experienced by many: “In any other industry, if somebody is so negligent that it costs somebody else their life, there are means and measures to hold them accountable.” This sentiment resonates deeply among families who feel that the law places undue value on their loved one’s life based purely on their age and familial status.
As advocates rally to repeal this law, they are met with resistance from medical organizations that cite the need for caps on pain-and-suffering damages to prevent rising malpractice insurance premiums. This argument posits that without such caps, Florida will struggle to attract and retain healthcare professionals, potentially threatening the availability and quality of care. Dr. Jason Goldman, representing the medical community, has voiced concerns over the “hostile” malpractice climate, suggesting that caps on noneconomic damages are essential to maintaining a viable healthcare workforce in the state.
Efforts to amend or repeal the ‘free kill’ law have so far faced significant challenges in the Florida legislature. State Sen. Clay Yarborough’s recent attempts have been stalled, despite proposals to include caps on non-economic damages in an effort to bridge the divide between advocates and medical groups. However, this compromise has also drawn criticism from families who argue that it commodifies the value of life, reducing the complex emotional and psychological impact of losing a loved one to a mere financial figure.
In the 2025 legislative session, new proposals are expected, with State Rep. Johanna López at the forefront, motivated by similar personal experiences of loss and the unjust barriers to justice created by the law. López’s advocacy is emblematic of a growing awareness and grassroots movement seeking to challenge the status quo and demand accountability within Florida’s healthcare system.
The implications of the ‘free kill’ law extend beyond individual cases; they raise vital questions about patient safety, healthcare accountability, and the rights of citizens within the judicial system. Critics, including Korniyenko, argue that the lack of meaningful consequences for negligent doctors poses a public health risk, potentially allowing irresponsible practices to persist unchecked. It’s a public health issue,” she asserts, calling for systemic changes that ensure all patients receive safe care and that doctors are held accountable for their actions.
As discussions surrounding the law continue, the narrative of personal loss and the struggle for justice will likely play a crucial role in shaping public opinion and legislative action. The outcome of this ongoing debate has the potential to redefine the landscape of medical malpractice in Florida, influencing both the rights of patients and the practices of healthcare providers moving forward.
