Florida HB 837 (2023): What the Tort Reform Law Means for Pharmacy Liens and Letters of Protection

James Wong — Founder & Pharmacist, LienScripts | February 22, 2026 | 9 min read

Florida's 2023 tort reform law — HB 837 — introduced the most significant changes to Florida personal injury practice in decades. The 'amounts actually paid' standard, mandatory LOP disclosure, and modified comparative fault rules directly affect how pharmacy liens and letters of protection work in Florida PI cases. Here's the complete breakdown.

HB 837: Florida's 2023 Tort Reform Package

Florida House Bill 837, signed into law in March 2023, was the most sweeping overhaul of Florida personal injury law in a generation. Backed by insurance industry groups and opposed by the plaintiffs' bar, the bill made major changes across four key areas:

1. Medical expense damages — the "amounts actually paid" standard
2. Letters of protection — mandatory disclosure requirements
3. Comparative fault — shift from pure to modified (51% bar)
4. Statute of limitations — reduced from four to two years

Each of these changes has implications for pharmacy liens and letters of protection. This post covers all four with specific guidance for Florida PI attorneys.

Section 1: The "Amounts Actually Paid" Standard

What the Law Says

HB 837 amends Florida Statutes § 768.0427 to limit claimable medical damages to amounts that are "actually paid" for care, rather than amounts "billed." For patients with health insurance, "actually paid" means the insurer's negotiated rate — not the full billed amount.

What This Means for Pharmacy Liens

This is the provision most directly affecting pharmacy liens and letters of protection. A pharmacy lien is, by design, not paid before the case resolves. The pharmacy has deferred its entire claim to settlement — meaning nothing is "actually paid" at the time the plaintiff presents damages.

Two competing interpretations have emerged in Florida courts:

The restrictive interpretation: The pharmacy lien should be limited to what would have been paid if the patient had health insurance — essentially a negotiated-rate cap applied to lien-based providers. Under this theory, pharmacy lien recovery would be substantially reduced in contested cases.

The market-rate interpretation: A deferred-payment lien, where no insurance is in play, should be valued at the reasonable cash-pay market rate for the medications — a rate that may be substantially closer to billed amounts than insured rates. Under this theory, the lien recovery is the market value of uninsured care, not a Medicare or negotiated-insurance floor.

As of 2026, Florida courts are still developing the case law on this question. Attorneys managing pharmacy liens in Florida should:

• Monitor LienScripts' state law updates page for case law developments
• Document market rate comparables for each lien prescription
• Work with pharmacy partners to support lien amounts with market rate evidence

[!KEY] The "amounts actually paid" question is the most actively litigated aspect of HB 837's impact on lien-based care. Build your damages presentation to address the market value of each medication — not just the billed amount.

Section 2: Mandatory Letter of Protection Disclosure

What the Law Says

HB 837 adds Florida Statutes § 768.0428, which requires any claimant asserting medical damages based on treatment provided under a letter of protection (LOP) to disclose that LOP to the defense at the outset of the LOP-based medical expense claim.

Specifically:

• The disclosure must identify the existence of the LOP
• The disclosure must identify the provider(s) operating under the LOP
• The defense is permitted to introduce the existence of the LOP as evidence of the alleged unreasonableness of the medical expenses

What This Means for Attorneys

Disclosure is mandatory and early. Florida PI attorneys managing cases with pharmacy liens or letters of protection must identify and disclose these arrangements at the beginning of the medical damages phase — not wait to see if the defense discovers them.

The defense can weaponize LOP existence. Under HB 837, the defense can now tell a jury: "This pharmacy agreed to defer payment until settlement, meaning there was no real market test of this charge — and here is what Medicare would have paid for the same medications." Whether this argument succeeds depends on your preparation.

Preparation matters more now. The LOP/lien disclosure requirement shifts the strategic posture: you can no longer introduce medical damages without simultaneously explaining why the deferred-payment arrangement is reasonable. Prepare affirmative explanations of why the patient used lien-based care (no insurance, PIP exhausted, denied coverage) and why the pharmacy's rates reflect actual market value.

What This Does NOT Mean

The disclosure requirement and the defense's ability to introduce LOP existence as evidence do not automatically reduce pharmacy lien recovery. They create a battleground, not a cap. The ultimate question is still what "reasonable value" means for the specific medications — and that question requires evidence, not just the fact that an LOP existed.

Section 3: Modified Comparative Fault (51% Bar)

What the Law Says

HB 837 changes Florida's comparative fault standard from pure comparative fault to modified comparative fault with a 51% bar.

Under pure comparative fault (the prior rule), a plaintiff who was 90% at fault could still recover 10% of their damages from the defendant.

Under the new modified standard, a plaintiff found 51% or more at fault is completely barred from recovery.

What This Means for PI Cases

The 51% bar creates new defense arguments in any case where the plaintiff's conduct contributed to the accident. Defense counsel will now more aggressively argue contributory fault percentages above 50%, because success completely eliminates the plaintiff's recovery rather than merely reducing it.

For pharmacy lien cases, a plaintiff who is found 51% or more at fault recovers nothing — including no recovery on pharmacy liens. This means the fault allocation question in any contested liability case now directly affects whether pharmacy liens will be collected at all.

Practical implication: In Florida cases with any credible contributory fault argument, pharmacy lien enrollment and treatment continuation should be evaluated with awareness of the 51% bar risk. A case with genuine shared-fault exposure carries a realistic possibility of zero lien recovery if the jury finds plaintiff majority fault.

Section 4: Two-Year Statute of Limitations

What the Law Says

HB 837 reduces the negligence statute of limitations in Florida from four years to two years for claims accruing on or after March 24, 2023. (Claims accruing before that date are governed by the prior four-year period.)

What This Means for Pharmacy Liens

Pharmacy lien cases resolved within the two-year limitations period are unaffected. The complications arise at the edges:

Claims accruing near the transition date: For accidents occurring shortly before March 24, 2023, confirm which limitations period applies under the transitional rules.

Late-reported or late-filed cases: A two-year period means that some cases that would have been timely under the old four-year rule are now barred. For pharmacy liens on cases that are or were approaching the limitations deadline, assess the new SOL before continuing to provide treatment.

Treatment duration and settlement timing: With a two-year limitations period, the window between accident and required case filing has shortened. Pharmacy lien treatment plans should be built with awareness that cases now have a harder deadline for suit filing.

Practical Protocol for Florida PI Attorneys Post-HB 837

At intake (post-March 2023 accidents):

• Confirm the accident date to determine which limitations period applies
• Assess fault allocation honestly — does the plaintiff have meaningful contributory fault that could trigger the 51% bar?
• Confirm PIP status and likely exhaustion timeline
• Enroll in pharmacy lien program and document the basis for lien-based care (no insurance, PIP gap, etc.)

During treatment:

• Build market rate evidence file for each lien prescription: what does this medication cost at a cash-pay pharmacy in the same geographic market?
• Document why each prescription reflects individualized clinical judgment, not a blanket protocol
• Track prescription dates and amounts for inclusion in demand package with market rate analysis

At demand/litigation:

• Disclose all LOP/lien arrangements promptly under § 768.0428
• Include affirmative damages narrative explaining why lien-based pharmacy was necessary (no coverage, PIP exhausted, etc.)
• Present market rate evidence alongside billed amounts
• Be prepared to litigate the "amounts actually paid" question under § 768.0427 as case law develops

Related Resources

• Florida PIP Pharmacy Fraud: What the 2012 Reform Taught the Industry
• The Tort Reform Wave: FL, GA, and CA
• What Is a Pharmacy Lien?
• Florida Pharmacy Lien Laws Explained
• Health Insurance Subrogation vs. Pharmacy Lien

[!SOURCE] Florida HB 837 — Civil Remedies and Procedures (Enrolled 2023) — Full enrolled text of Florida's 2023 tort reform legislation, including the amounts-actually-paid standard (§ 768.0427), LOP disclosure (§ 768.0428), modified comparative fault, and two-year statute of limitations.