.

The Quarterly Dose

New Rules, New Risks: Florida’s Latest Health Care Legislation Explained

The Quarterly Dose – August 2025

August 1, 2025

by Megan J. Nelson

On July 1, 2025, the following laws were enacted and may affect health care providers in Florida. These legislative changes introduce updates to regulatory compliance, patient care protocols and provider responsibilities. This overview highlights key provisions and their practical implications for providers across the state.

HB 519 — Administration of Controlled Substances by Paramedics
The Florida Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act (Chapter 893, Fla. Stat.) allowed for specific licensed practitioners to authorize the administration of a controlled substance by a licensed nurse or an intern practitioner. It did not expressly include paramedics. Under federal law, the Protecting Patient Access to Emergency Medications Act of 2017 (PPAEMA) created specific rules relevant to the EMS setting, allowing for a paramedic to administer controlled substances outside the physical presence of a medical director if the EMS agency was authorized to do so by state law, was registered with the DEA, and had a standing order or verbal order from a medical director.

What the changes mean:
A licensed practitioner may now authorize a certified paramedic to administer controlled substances in the course of providing emergency services.

HB 647 —Advanced Practice Registered Nurse Services (APRN)
Advanced practice registered nurses were not authorized to file a death certificate or complete a medical certification of cause of death, unless they were registered for autonomous practice.

What the changes mean:
An advanced practice registered nurse providing hospice care may certify the cause of death and file the certificate of death.

SB 958 — Type 1 Diabetes Early Detection Program
This bill created § 381.992, Fla. Stat., and requires the Department of Health, in collaboration with school districts throughout the state, to develop Type 1 diabetes information material related to early detection for the parents and guardians of students. The material must include a description of Type 1 diabetes, the risk factors and warning signs associated with Type 1 diabetes, the process for screening students using a blood autoantibody test, and recommendations for further evaluation for students displaying warning signs or positive early detection screening results.

What the new law means:
Medical providers may see an increase in concerned parents wanting to discuss Type 1 diabetes. However, some parents may not be able to seek medical care due to financial and insurance reasons.

It may be beneficial for pediatricians to reach out to their local school districts and assist with providing additional education and/or workshops for parents.

HB 791 - Surrendered Infants
Section 383.50, Fla. Stat., allows parents to safely surrender infants up to 30 days of life at an emergency medical services station, fire station, or hospital without civil or criminal liability. Existing provisions related to the presumption that the parent intended to surrender the infant, consented to appropriate medical treatment and care, and to the termination of parental rights; the care and custodial processing of an infant upon lawful surrender; and the parent’s anonymity upon surrender remain in effect.

New additions to the law:
The new law extends the previous law to include the surrender of an infant using an infant safety device. An infant safety device is a device that is installed in a supporting wall of a hospital, an emergency medical services station, or a fire station and that has an exterior point of access allowing an individual to place an infant inside and an interior point of access allowing individuals inside the building to safely retrieve the infant.

The infant safety device must be:

  • Physically part of the hospital, emergency medical services station, or fire station and be in a conspicuous and visible area to employees;
  • Temperature controlled and ventilated;
  • Equipped with a dual alarm system which automatically triggers an alarm inside the building when an infant is placed in the device, and the alarm must be tested at least once a week;
  • Equipped with a surveillance system that allows for monitoring the inside of the device 24 hours a day; and 
  • Physically checked at least twice a day.

If the infant safety device is located at an emergency medical services station or fire station, the alarm must also immediately alert 911, and dispatch must send the nearest first responder to retrieve the infant.

HB 1089 — Newborn Screenings
Newborn screening is a preventive public health service provided in every state to identify, diagnose and manage newborns at risk for selected disorders that, without detection and treatment, can lead to permanent development and physical damage or death. The Florida Newborn Screening Program serves to promote the screening of all newborns for metabolic, hereditary and congenital disorders known to result in significant impairment of health or intellect. The program currently screens for 37 core conditions and 23 secondary conditions, nearly all of which are screened for through the collection and testing of blood spots. Hearing screening, critical congenital heart disease and targeted testing for congenital cytomegalovirus are completed at the birthing facility through point of care testing.

What the changes mean:
Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (DMD) will be added to the Newborn Screening beginning January 1, 2027. DMD is a rare genetic condition, but it is also the most common childhood-onset form of muscular dystrophy. It affects approximately one in every 3,300—5,000 live male births. DMD is an X-linked inherited neuromuscular disorder that can be carried by females, but typically only presents symptomatically in boys. DMD is considered a lethal condition for which there is no curative treatment. However, early diagnoses and a multidisciplinary approach can slow the progression of the disease, prolong the survival rate and maintain a quality of life.

SB 1156 — Home Health Aide for Medically Fragile Children Program
The Home Health Aide for Medically Fragile Children (HHAMFC) Program was created in 2023 in response to the national health care provider shortage and its impact on medically fragile children and their family caregivers to provide an opportunity for family caregivers to receive training and gainful employment. Other Medicaid programs exist that pay a family member to provide home health services to a Medicaid enrollee, but the HHAMFC Program is the only one that pays a family member who is not a licensed nurse for the provision of home health services to a medically fragile child. The program allows a family caregiver to be reimbursed by Medicaid as an HHAMFC once they have completed an approved training program or graduated from an accredited pre-licensure nursing education program and are waiting to take the state licensing exam.

What the changes mean:
The HHAMFC must complete an approved training program, and the employing home health agency must provide validation of the HHAMFC prior to the aide providing services to an eligible relative. The employing home health agency must also provide training on HIV/AIDS and ensure that the HHAMFC holds and maintains a CPR certification.

The training program must consist of at least 76 total hours of training with at least 40 hours of home health aide training, 20 hours of skills training tailored to the needs of the child, 16 hours of clinical training related to the child’s needs, and training on HIV infections and CPR.

Increased the Medicaid utilization cap from eight hours per day to 12 hours per day.

Requires the home health agency to report an adverse incident within 48 hours of the incident.

HB 1195 — Fentanyl Testing
The bill created § 395.1042, Fla. Stat., and requires a hospital or hospital-based off-campus emergency department treating patients for possible drug overdose or poisoning to include testing for fentanyl in the urine drug screening. If the urine test is positive for fentanyl, a second analytical confirmation test must be performed. The results of the urine drug test and confirmation test must be retained as part of the patient’s medical record for the period of time required by the hospital’s current practice.

What the new law means:
Providers must include testing for fentanyl when a patient is suspected of a possible drug overdose or poisoning.

The addition of testing for fentanyl should not be limited to patients who are suspected of a possible drug overdose or poisoning. As fentanyl overdoses are becoming more common in patients who unknowingly take a substance that contains fentanyl, emergency medical providers should include testing for fentanyl when ordering any urine drug screening, including for patients who are disoriented or unconscious for unknown reasons.

HB 1353 — Home Health Care Services
What the changes mean:
An administrator may now manage up to five home health agencies that have the same controlling interest, regardless of where they are located in the state.

The initial admission visit, all service evaluation visits, and the discharge visit that a home health agency must provide may now be performed by a registered nurse who is contracted but not a direct employee of the home health agency.

HB 1421 — Improving Screening for and Treatment of Blood Clots
This bill aims to improve the screening for and treatment of venous thromboembolism or deep vein thrombosis (blood clots).

New additions to the law:
Every hospital with an emergency department and every ambulatory surgical center must develop and implement policies and procedures for the rendering of appropriate medical attention for patients at risk of forming blood clots.

All non-physician personnel must be trained on the policies and procedures annually. A certified nursing assistant (CNA) employed by a nursing home must undergo in-service training which includes recognizing the signs and symptoms of a blood clot and techniques for providing an emergency response.

A CNA wishing to administer medication, as delegated by a registered nurse, must complete training on identifying signs and symptoms of a blood clot and response protocols to assist a patient with a blood clot as part of the 34-hour training course on medication administration.

Assisted living facilities must provide a pamphlet to residents upon admission which contains information about risk factors for, and recognizing signs and symptoms of, a blood clot.

SB 1768 - Stem Cell Therapy
The new law, §§ 458.3245 and 459.0127, Fla. Stat., authorizes physicians to perform stem cell therapies that have not been approved by the FDA when used for orthopedic conditions, wound care or pain management. It sets forth standards for the retrieval, manufacture, storage and use of stem cells, ensuring the stem cells used are obtained from facilities that meet rigorous regulatory and accreditation requirements. Before administering any stem cell therapy, a physician must provide written notice to the patient that the therapy is not approved by the FDA and must obtain signed informed consent clearly informing the patient of the nature and purpose of the proposed treatment prior to initiation of therapy. Any advertisements must include clearly legible writing indicating the stem cell therapy is not approved by the FDA.

Who does the law not apply to:
Physicians who have obtained FDA approval for an investigational new drug or device for the use of human cells, tissues, or cellular or tissue-based products.

Physicians who perform stem cell therapy under an employment or other contract on behalf of an institution that is certified to perform stem cell therapy or has expertise in stem cell therapy as determined by the Department of Health.

Violations of the law:
A violation may subject the physician to disciplinary action by their regulating board.

A physician who willfully performs, or actively participates in, treatment or research using human cells or tissues derived from a fetus or embryo after abortion commits a felony of the third degree.

A physician who willfully performs, or actively participates in, the sale, manufacture or distribution of computer products created using human cells, tissues or cellular tissue-based products commits a felony of the third degree.

SB 1808 — Refund of Overpayments Made by Patients
This bill requires anyone who accepts payment from a patient’s insurance for services rendered by a health care practitioner and determines that a patient has overpaid for said services to refund the overpayment within 30 days. If a health care practitioner fails to timely refund the overpayment, the failure will constitute grounds for disciplinary action. If a facility or provider licensed by the Agency for Health Care Administration fails to timely refund an overpayment, the agency may impose an administrative penalty of up to $500 on the license.

HB 597 — Diabetes Management in Schools
Public schools may acquire and maintain a supply of undesignated glucagon for use on students with diabetes experiencing hypoglycemic emergencies. Public schools are authorized to obtain the glucagon through a prescription from a county health department or authorized healthcare practitioner, or through arrangements with manufacturers or suppliers. This will help decrease the delay in treatment as students with diabetes experiencing a hypoglycemic emergency can now be treated with glucagon even if they don’t have their own medication at school.

SB 1514 —Anaphylaxis in Public and Charter Schools
Schools may maintain a supply of epinephrine auto-injectors (epi-pens), accessible to trained school personnel or authorized students. They must adopt a physician-developed protocol for school personnel, medical and non-medical, who are trained to recognize an anaphylactic reaction and to administer an injection of epinephrine via auto-injection during emergencies. This will help decrease the delay in treatment as students who are experiencing an anaphylactic emergency can receive an injection of epinephrine via an auto-injector by a school nurse or other trained school employee, even if they don’t have their own epi-pen with them. 


 

The Quarterly Dose – August 2025, has been prepared for our readers by Marshall Dennehey. It is solely intended to provide information on recent legal developments and is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We welcome the opportunity to provide such legal assistance as you require on this and other subjects. If you receive the alerts in error, please send a note to tamontemuro@mdwcg.com. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. © 2025 Marshall Dennehey. All Rights Reserved.

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Appeals Court Reverses Trial Court Order Striking Complaint as Sanction for Violating Discovery Order

All Dry USA v. Savell, 2026 WL 816093 (Fla. 1st DCA 2026) The First District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order denying All Dry USA’s complaint as a sanction for violating a discovery order. The appellate court found that All Dry USA’s failure to comply with the trial court’s case management order did not give the trial court the authority to strike All Dry USA’s pleadings. All Dry USA provided water mitigation, mold remediation, and a restorative tarp at the property owned by the Savells. The property had been damaged by Hurricane Sally. All Dry USA provided invoices for the three services it performed in the amount of $90,130.61. The Savells refused to pay the invoices, stating that while they had retained All Dry USA, there was no agreement reached regarding the cost of the services. All Dry USA proceeded to file a lawsuit against the Savells, alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The Savells answered the lawsuit and served discovery upon All Dry USA. All Dry USA failed to respond to the discovery requests and the Savells moved for an order compelling discovery. The trial court issued an order compelling All Dry USA to respond to Savells discovery requests and comply with all outstanding discovery deadlines per the case management order. On the day its responses were due, All Dry USA filed a motion to extend the deadline to comply with the court’s order. Before the motion was ruled upon, the Savells filed a motion to have All Dry USA’s complaint stricken for violating the trial court’s order compelling All Dry USA’s responses. The trial court granted the motion to strike, and then granted the Savell’s request for entry of default final judgment, based upon there no longer being an operative complaint. The First District Court of Appeal reversed, ruling that an order striking pleadings is justified if it is found that a party has violated numerous discovery orders, or has shown a “deliberate and contumacious disregard of the court's authority.” Mercer v. Raine, 443 So. 2d 944, 946 (Fla. 1983). The appellate court stated that a trial court’s authority to strike pleadings is not unbridled and that the situation before the court did not justify the striking of All Dry USA’s pleadings. In reaching its decision, the First District focused on the fact that the trial court only addressed the potential prejudice to Savell by All Dry USA failing to respond to discovery and seeking an extension of the deadline. The appellate court stated that prejudice is not the only factor to be considered and that the trial court needed to address if All Dry USA’s behavior in failing to comply with the discovery order was willful and deliberate.  The First District also stated that nothing in rule 1.200 or 1.380 grants a trial court the authority to strike a pleading because certain case management deadlines are not met. The appellate court held that the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure allow trial courts to bring the parties in, order them to comply with the case management discovery deadlines, and then strike pleadings if the subsequent discovery orders are disobeyed. This ruling shows the importance of understanding the authority that is binding on the trial court a party is appearing in front of. The First District’s view on a trial court’s ability to strike pleadings is in contrast with other appellate court’s throughout Florida.

Result

No-Cause Jury Verdict Secured in Wrongful Death Trial

We successfully obtained a no-cause jury verdict in a 13-day wrongful death trial. The decedent, a 59-year-old man, was admitted to the emergency room on February 15, 2019, with complaints of abdominal pain, decreased appetite, and constipation, despite the use of laxatives. The patient did not complain of any nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea. He had a significant medical history including diabetes, hypertension, prior coronary artery stenting, morbid obesity (with past gastric bypass surgery), longstanding ventral hernia, and back pain. A CT scan revealed multiple hernias and a potential closed-loop bowel obstruction, leading to a surgery consultation. Our client, an emergency general surgeon, interpreted that the patient did not have a closed loop or any significant obstruction and recommended non-surgical management. The patient was approved to have clear liquids, and had a vomiting incident shortly after, but our client was not notified. The patient was returned to NPO status, and after improving overnight, he was returned to “clears” and additional medical and renal consults were ordered. Our client did not receive any communications from the residents/nurses of any changes in the patient’s condition. On February 18, 2019, two rapid responses were called due to increased heart rate and vomiting. It is believed that the vomiting resulted in aspiration, causing sepsis, ultimately leading to the patient’s death. During the trial, the plaintiff’s sole medical expert highlighted imaging on the wrong hernia, which called into question all of his opinions in the case. We made key objections related to the expert testimony, limiting what the allegations were, and preventing new allegations from being made. After approximately two and a half hours of deliberating, the jury returned a no-cause verdict. 

News

Marshall Dennehey’s John J. Hare Brings Home Attorney of the Year Honors; Firm Named Litigation Department of the Year in Two Categories

Marshall Dennehey took home top honors in three categories at the The Legal Intelligencer’s 2026 Pennsylvania Legal Awards, held June 11 in Philadelphia. The first place awards include: Attorney of the Year: John J. Hare, Chair of the firm’s Appellate Advocacy & Post-Trial Practice Group and Executive Committee member, together with Charles “Chip” Becker of Kline & Specter Litigation Department of the Year, Appellate – Third Win in a Row! Litigation Department of the Year, Product Liability/Mass Torts “There is no one more deserving of Attorney of the Year honors than John. This award is a testament to his exceptional skill, dedication, and leadership—qualities that truly exemplify the very best of our firm,” said G. Mark Thompson, Marshall Dennehey’s President & CEO. “These honors also reflect the strength and depth of our product liability, mass torts, and appellate practices across Pennsylvania and beyond, underscoring our ongoing commitment to delivering outstanding results for our clients.” Attorney of the Year – John J. Hare, Marshall Dennehey, together with Charles “Chip” Becker, Kline & Specter Over the past year, John and Charles were opposing counsel in many of the highest-profile civil appeals in Pennsylvania. John is renowned as a preeminent appellate lawyer on the defense side, and Chip on the plaintiff's side. They have opposed each other repeatedly, exhibiting peerless professionalism and exceptional civility, while zealously litigating under the unremitting pressure of high-profile litigation and record-setting verdicts totaling more than $3.5 billion. They have also collaborated, outside of litigation, on many commissions, committees, and projects of importance to the Pennsylvania judiciary and legal community. Litigation Department of the Year – Appellate Law, Winner (previous winner, 2025 and 2024) 2025 was another standout year for the firm’s Appellate Advocacy & Post‑Trial Practice Group, led by John J. Hare, which was retained to challenge many of Pennsylvania’s “nuclear” verdicts—awards exceeding $10 million. Notably, the department persuaded the Pennsylvania Superior Court to reverse a Philadelphia judgment of $1.09 billion, the largest judgment ever overturned by a Pennsylvania appellate court. The group’s 11 full‑time Pennsylvania‑based appellate lawyers are at the center of Pennsylvania’s most high-profile matters, bringing more than 150 years of combined appellate experience. They routinely handle post‑trial and appellate matters and are frequently engaged to participate in and monitor trials in high‑exposure cases to ensure that critical legal issues are properly raised and preserved for appeal. Litigation Department of the Year – Product Liability/Mass Torts, Winner This marks the first win for the firm’s Pennsylvania Product Liability and Mass Torts practices, which operate within our Casualty Department, managed by Matthew Schorr and Jeff Rapattoni. For almost five decades, Fortune 500 product manufacturers/distributors and their insurers have turned to these groups to defend their litigation. Led by Bradley D. Remick and Vlada Tasich, our Product Liability group’s success can be attributed to its commitment to keeping abreast of ever-changing legal theories, judicial viewpoints, and evolving technology impacting the product liability landscape. Our attorneys have successfully handled thousands of product liability matters in all jurisdictions across the state. Likewise, our mass tort litigation practice – divided into Asbestos & Mass Tort, and Environmental & Toxic Tort Litigation –  has defended manufacturers, distributors, contractors, and premises owners in thousands of personal injury and other claims. Led by Kevin E. Hexstall and Patrick T. Reilly, most attorneys in these groups have more than 20 years of experience, and our seasoned trial team has tried hundreds of cases to verdict, consistently achieving strong results through both trials and settlements. In addition to these awards, Marshall Dennehey was a Litigation Department of the Year finalist for Professional Liability.

Thought Leadership

Unanimous New Jersey Supreme Court Holds That Personal Emails of Public Employees and Officials are Subject to OPRA

In Rosetti v. Ramapo-Indian Hills Regional High School Board of Education, the New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously held that government-related emails, which are contained within personal email accounts, are government records under the Open Public Records Act (OPRA), and a log of those emails must be produced when requested. In reaching this decision, the court conducted an analysis of the OPRA and cited previous cases that held that emails do in fact fall within OPRA’s definition of a record and must be produced when requested pursuant to the Act. The court in Rosetti then had to answer the question as to whether public officials’ personal email accounts that are used for government purposes are subject to OPRA, and found that they are. Rosetti made an OPRA request to the Board of Education seeking email logs from Board members’ personal email accounts. The Board refused to produce the logs and indicated that it was not under any obligation to produce personal email account logs, only from government-related email accounts. The issue was whether a log had to be produced for Board members’ personal email accounts, which they used to conduct Board business. The Board argued that while it was possible to create a log for government-related email accounts through its IT Department, it was not possible to do so for personal email accounts. The court rejected this argument and ruled that Board members are required to search their personal email accounts and create a log of government-related emails housed in those accounts. Once completed, each Board member then must submit a certification detailing the searches that were conducted. The court went one step further with a suggestion to government employees and officials, stating, “[g]overnment agencies should strongly advise their employees, elected officials, and others engaged in government-related business to refrain from using their personal email accounts when conducting government-related business.”  Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions regarding this case and others pertaining to the OPRA. 

Thought Leadership

Perlmutter Provides Predictability for Punitive Damages Claims in Florida

In a much anticipated decision, the Florida Supreme Court provided clarity for the standards of proof for punitive damages claims in Perlmutter v. Federal Insurance Company, SC2024-0058 (Fla. June 11, 2026). Litigants and trial judges must be mindful of the standards laid out by the Court. And, defense practitioners must be prepared to alter their strategies to defend against such claims. Perlmutter came to the Court from the Fourth District, based on conflict jurisdiction with decisions from the Second and Fifth District and on certification of a question of great public importance as to the standard of proof for punitive damages claims at the pleading stage. Fed. Ins. Co. v. Perlmutter, 376 So. 3d 24, 29 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023). In the underlying case, the Fourth District made two conclusions. First, it held that a “trial court must consider the evidentiary showing by all parties at the hearing on the motion to amend, that is, evidence ‘in the record’ and evidence ‘proffered by the claimant.’”  376 So. 3d at 33. Second, the Fourth held that it “interpreted section 768.72(1) and (2) to require the trial court to make a preliminary determination of whether a reasonable jury, viewing the totality of proffered evidence in the light most favorable to the movant, could find by clear and convincing evidence that punitive damages are warranted.  Id. at 34 (underscoring in the original). In making these conclusions, the court cautioned trial courts that the “preliminary determination” analysis did not entitle the trial court to decide whether the evidence is clear and convincing and noted that the trial court should not weigh evidence and should not determine witness credibility. Id. The Florida Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction and answered the certified question in the negative. It quashed the decision below and remanded the case for application of the following standards: The trial court should consider only the evidence identified or proffered by the claimant; it should not entertain an evidentiary counter-submission from the opponent. The trial court should consider whether a reasonable person could conclude based on the claimant’s evidence, that the defendant committed “intentional misconduct” or “gross negligence” as defined in section 768.72(2) or section 768.72(3). The trial court must review the request for punitive damages in the context of the underlying claims. The trial court should not apply the clear and convincing standard of proof in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence at the pleading stage. The trial court does not act as a fact-finder; the trial court must not weigh the claimant’s evidence—it cannot decide the truth of the matter. The trial court must consider the record evidence and the proffered evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, but the allegations in the proposed amended complaint are not themselves evidence. Perlmutter, SC2024-0058 at 13-15 (emphasis added). In explaining these standards, the Court interpreted the text of the statute and compared it to a related statute which governs punitive damages in the nursing home context. The nursing home statute expressly calls for evidentiary submissions by “the parties” and expressly tells the trial court to determine whether there is a reasonable basis to believe the claimant could satisfy the “clear and convincing evidence” standard at trial. Id. at 17-18 (comparing the text of section 768.72(1), Florida Statutes, with section 400.0237, Florida Statutes). Without that express language in section 768.72, the statute could not be applied in the same manner. With these standards specially delineated for the trial courts, the Court is “confident that its interpretation of section 768.72(1) will not frustrate the effectiveness of the statute in accomplishing the Legislature’s textually evident purposes.” Id.  at 22 (cleaned up). This remains to be seen. While Perlmutter provides predictability and clarity for trial courts when reviewing the evidentiary submissions in support of a punitive damages claim, the decision will not likely impact the numbers of punitive damages motions filed. Rather, these new parameters will change the way claims are defended, reminiscent of a time when rulings on punitive damages were only subject to certiorari review and appellate courts were limited in reviewing procedural errors. This decision will likely deflate the level-playing field that Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(G) addressed by allowing appeals of orders granting and denying punitive damages amendments. Further, Perlmutter may have impliedly created a call to action for the Legislature to amend section 768.72(1) in the same manner it amended section 400.0237 to allow the courts to analyze “admissible evidence submitted by the parties” and determine at a hearing whether there is a reasonable basis to believe the claimant at trial would be able to demonstrate by “clear and convincing evidence” that the recovery of punitive damages is warranted. Until then, defendants must adjust their strategies. To adapt to these new standards, defense practitioners will need to tailor their strategy for defending punitive damages claims since they can no longer submit a counter-proffer or urge a court to apply the clear and convincing standard at the pleading phase. Instead, defendants will need to attack the deficiencies in the claimant’s pleadings and proffer. If the trial court fails to serve as a gatekeeper, and does not apply the above standards, then defendants can pursue an interlocutory appeal under Rule 9.130(a)(3)(G). If a nonfinal appeal is taken, then defendants should move to stay any intrusive financial discovery while the appellate court analyzes the issues on appeal. Finally, defendants should utilize Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510 to serve as a screening device to allow the trial court to analyze all evidence and prevent nonmeritorious punitive damages claims from proceeding to a jury.