Case Name: UNITED AIRLINES and Gallager Bassett Services, Inc., Appellants, v. Kazuo NEMOTO, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2011-04-15
Citations: 63 So. 3d 796
Docket Number: No. 1D10-2767
Parties: UNITED AIRLINES and Gallager Bassett Services, Inc., Appellants, v. Kazuo NEMOTO, Appellee.
Judges: DAVIS and HAWKES, JJ., concur; WOLF, J., dissents with opinion.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 63
Pages: 796–798

Head Matter:
UNITED AIRLINES and Gallager Bassett Services, Inc., Appellants, v. Kazuo NEMOTO, Appellee.
No. 1D10-2767.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
April 15, 2011.
Rehearing Denied June 22, 2011.
Patrick John McGinley of the Law Office of Patrick John McGinley, P.A., Winter Park, for Appellants.
Monte R. Shoemaker of Shoemaker & Shoemaker, P.A., Altamonte Springs, and Richard W. Ervin, III, of Fox & Loquasto, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
In this workers' compensation case, the Employer/Carrier (E/C) appeals two orders of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC). The first, a nonfinal order entered December 4, 2009, rejected the E/C's defense that the parties had settled the case. In the second order, entered May 11, 2010, the JCC awarded Claimant attorney's fees for prevailing on a claim filed prior to the settlement agreement; the JCC again rejected the E/C's defense that the parties had agreed to settle the case. In particular, the JCC found that a letter dated September 25, 2008, from Claimant's counsel to E/C's counsel, described "a condi tional agreement to settle . because of contingencies contained in the letter." A review of the plain language of the letter indicates, however, that it does not objectively create any contingencies. Accordingly, because the parties had indeed reached a settlement agreement, we quash the 2010 order, reverse the 2009 order, and remand for approval of fees associated with the settlement agreement.
REVERSED and REMANDED for proceedings in accord with this opinion.
DAVIS and HAWKES, JJ., concur; WOLF, J., dissents with opinion.