County Of Sacramento Dina Messier WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIADINA MESSIER, Applicant,vs.COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, Defendant.Case No. ADJ2639881(Sacramento District Office)OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING RECONSIDERATION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION Access Mediquip, represented by Pinnacle Lien Services (lien claimant) seeks reconsideration of the March 21, 2013 Order Dismissing Lien1 Lien claimant contends that the WCJ erred in dismissing its lien, arguing that defendant’s Petition to Dismiss Mediquip’s lien did not comply with California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 10582.5. Lien claimant also contends that it was not provided with an opportunity to present arguments regarding whether its lien was barred by the statute of limitations. We have received an Answer from defendant, and the WCJ has filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report) recommending that lien claimant’s petition be denied, or, in the alternative granted to allow for further proceedings. For the reasons discussed below, we will grant reconsideration, rescind the Order, and return this matter to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision. In this case, lien claimant did not have an opportunity to present evidence that its lien is not barred by the statute of limitations. Determining an issue without providing a party notice and a fair opportunity to be heard is a denial of due process. (See, Gangwish v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 1284 [66 Cal.Comp.Cases 584] (due process violated when case decided on new rationale not addressed at trial); 1 Although lien claimant filed the Petition for Reconsideration in ADJ2639881, ADJ442491, ADJ896465, and ADJ4235663, the Order Dismissing Lien issued only in ADJ2639881. , Rucker v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 151 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 805] (same).) All parties are entitled to due proc
