Peterson Family And State Compensation Insurance Fund Jose Acosta, Et Al., WORKERS-COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAJOSE ACOSTA, et al., Applicant,vs.PETERSON FAMILY AND STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Defendant(s).Case Nos. ADJ1480264OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND DENYING PETITION FOR REMOVAL Lien claimant Sierra Pacifie Surgical Center seeks reconsideration anchor removal of the June 24, 2010 order,” wherein the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) noted in th^- minutes of hearing that he would be appointing an independent bill reviewer and gave the parties until July 16, 2010, for each party lo strike two names out of five on a list of proposed bill reviewers Lien claimant contends the WCJ’s decision to appoint an independent bill reviewer violates lien claimant’s due process rights because it denies lien claimant’s right to a fair hearing and becuusc the proposed bill reviewers arc biased. Lien claimant further contends that the bill reviewers are not competent to decide legal issues, and that the WCJ’s ordcT fails to take into consideration the factors described in Kunz v. Patterson Floor Coverings, Inc. (2002) 67 Cal.Comp.Cases 1588 (Appeals Board en banc) and Tapia v. Skill Master Staffing (2008) 73 Cal.Comp.Cases 1338 (Appeals Board en banc). Lien claimant also contends that Dykes v. Robinson’s May Federated Retail (ADJ3254447), relied on for authority by the WCJ. is distinguishable from the present case. We have considered the Petition for Reconsideration and defendant’s Answer, and we have reviewed the record in this matter. The WCJ prepared a Report and Recommendation on Petition , for Reconsideration and or Removal (Report), recommending that the petition for reconsideration he dismissed and that the petition for removal be denied. We have not considered lien claimant’s supplemental reply, as we neither requested nor approved submission of supplemental plead
