Opinion ID: 1725454
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: presumption of correctness

Text: Although the Arbitration Board's decision is admissible in a trial de novo, we conclude that the decision is not to be given a presumption of correctness. The district court below held that [t]he arbitration board decision is introduced in the de novo trial and is presumed to be correct. Pitsirelos, 689 So.2d at 1133 (citing Aguiar; Mason ). Section 681.1095(10), Florida Statutes (1989), states that [i]n any civil action arising under this chapter and relating to a dispute arbitrated before the board, any decision by the board is admissible in evidence. It is important to emphasize that this statute makes no reference to the weight which should be assigned to the Arbitration Board's decision in the trial de novo. The Arbitration Board was created as a mandatory alternative dispute resolution procedure under the auspices of the Department of Legal Affairs of the Attorney General's Office of the State of Florida. Proceedings before the Arbitration Board are informal and exempt from the provisions of chapter 120. The rules of evidence and civil procedure do not apply. To interpret section 681.1095(10), Florida Statutes (1989), as mandating that the decision of the Arbitration Board be presumed correct in the trial de novo appeal would raise a serious issue as to whether it would violate article I, section 9, and article II, section 3, of the Florida Constitution because it would diminish the right to have the ultimate decision in a case made by a court. We believe that the intent of the statute is achieved by requiring the party that petitions for a trial de novo appeal to have the burden of going forward with the evidence but treating the Arbitration Board's decision only as evidence with its weight to be determined by the fact-finder. The statute says that the decision is to be admitted into evidence and does not say that it is to be afforded a presumption of correctness. We conclude that the statute should be applied as written. To the limited extent the decisions in Mason, Sheehan, and Aguiar conflict with this opinion on this issue, we disapprove those decisions. We quash the decision of the district court in this case as to this issue.