Court Opinion

ID: 9780434
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 01:57:16.345515+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:34:04.776226
License: Public Domain

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*797tional 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.