LINZER PRODUCTS; RISK ENTERPRISE L2314 BREA; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, INSURED PLEASANTON, BERTA GUILLEN, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIABERTA GUILLEN, Applicant,vs.LINZER PRODUCTS; RISK ENTERPRISE L2314 BREA; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, INSURED PLEASANTON, Defendant(s).Case No. ADJ3110837 (VNO 0457309)ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration and the contents of the report of the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record: and for the reasons stated in said report which we adopt and incorporate, we will deny reconsideration. The WCJ accepted as credible the testimony of defendant’s witness, Griff Stelzner. We give this credibility determination the great weight to which it is entitled. (Garza v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 319 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500, 505].) Moreover, as the WCJ’s Report points out, lien claimant had the burden of proof on its lien. (Lab. Code, §§ 5705, 3202.5; Tapia v. Skill Master Staffing, et al. (2008) 73 Cal.Comp.Cases 1338 (Appeals Board en banc); Kunz v. Patterson Floor Covering, Inc. (2002) 67 Cal.Comp.Cases 1588 (Appeals Board en banc).) Yet, lien claimant presented no testimonial evidence of its own to support its lien or to explain the documentary evidence it offered. Finally, although lien claimant correctly argues that it did not need a fictitious business name, this argument is irrelevant because there is no indication in the WCJ’s Report or underlying Opinion that the lien was disallowed in whole or in part on this basis. , For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that said Petition for Reconsideration be, and it hereby is, DENIED. WORKERS’COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD _______________________________ NEIL P. SULLIVANI CONCUR,
