created, at which time the attorney can proceed to enforce the lien. See id. The suggestion that a prior attorney has the ability to put a case on hold indefinitely ignores the discussion of laches in Zaldivar. Once a case settles, and the prior attorney is notified of the settlement, the attorney’s failure to institute an action in a timely fashion can result in dismissal of the lien. See id. Because this case had not settled, the JCC erred in dismissing the lien. Although the JCC endeavored to distinguish Gillislee, the result of the order eludes the teaching of that case — a JCC does not have the authority to require a claimant’s attorney to file a verified petition. See Gillislee, 929 So.2d at 717; see also Villazano v. Horace Bell Honey Co., 928 So.2d 515, 516 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (<HOLDING>). The amount of a claimant’s attorney’s fee can
holding the jcc did not have the authority pursuant to either statute or rule to set a time limitation for filing the verified petition for fees holding that prevailing party to contract dispute may recover attorneys fees either pursuant to contract or pursuant to statute holding under a prior immigration statute that rule 26c did not enlarge the period for filing a petition for review of the bias decision because rule 26c refers to service while the time for filing under the statute at issue commenced upon the date of the issuance of the final deportation order holding that time limit for filing petition for review is mandatory and jurisdictional holding that the circuit judge did not have the authority to extend the thirtyday time limit for filing a notice of appeal