SKIP’S AUTO PARTS; CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for SUPERIOR NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, in liquidation; SENTRY INSURANCE COMPANY DAVID TANNAHILL WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIADAVID TANNAHILL, Applicant,vs.SKIP’S AUTO PARTS; CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for SUPERIOR NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, in liquidation; SENTRY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants.Case Nos. ADJ3133627 (SAL 0114355)ADJ1802214 (SAL 0110847)ADJ3324036 (SAL 0111146)OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION Defendant Sentry Insurance Company (Sentry) seeks reconsideration of our earlier August 7, 2012 Opinion And Order Granting Petition For Reconsideration And Decision After Reconsideration (Decision) wherein we rescinded the May 17, 2012 Findings and Order of the workers’ compensation administrative law judge who found that CIGA was not entitled to reimbursement of bill review costs in the amount of $35,152.88, and entered a new finding that CIGA is entitled to reimbursement of “reasonable bill review costs reasonably incurred, in an amount to be determined by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge if they are unable to adjust the matter between themselves.” Sentry contends that CIGA failed to prove its claim for reimbursement of bill review costs in the amount of $35,152.88 at trial, that the amount claimed is excessive, and the WCJ’s August 7, 2012 decision denying any reimbursement should have been affirmed. We have carefully re-reviewed the record, Sentry’s Petition For Reconsideration and our earlier August 7, 2012 Decision. For the reasons expressed in our earlier August 7, 2012 Decision, which is incorporated by this reference, and for the reasons below, we deny Sentry’s Petition For Reconsideration. Sentry complains that it should not be liable for the $35,152.88 in bill review costs claimed by CIGA. However, in our August 7, 2012 Decision we did not find that Sentry was obligat
