Pepsi Co/Frito Lay, Permissibly Self-Insured, Administered By Sedgwick Claims Management Services Norman T. Williams WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIANORMAN T. WILLIAMS, Applicant,vs. PEPSI CO/FRITO LAY, Permissibly Self-Insured, Administered By SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, Defendant(s).Case No. BAK 0139458OPINION AND ORDERS DISMISSINGPETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONAND PETITION FOR REMOVAL Lien claimant Rx Pain Management (hereafter “lien claimant”), through its apparent representative Summit Collection Services (hereafter “lien claimant’s representative”), filed a petition entitled “Petition for Reconsideration” in which it objects to the “Notice of Intention to Dismiss Lien Claim” (Notice) signed by a workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on August 7, 2007. In that Notice, the WCJ stated that because lien claimant failed to appear or have a person with settlement authority available by telephone at the conference on August 7, 2007, its lien would be dismissed unless it made a showing of good cause to the contrary within ten days of service of the Notice. Defendant was designated to serve the Notice on lien claimant which it did, but the Notice was not deliverable as it was returned by the Post Office. On August 23, 2007, the WCJ issued an Order dismissing lien claimant’s lien.1 In its petition, lien claimant’s representative objects to the Notice because it states that23 neither it nor lien claimant received notice of the August 7, 2007 trial. Lien claimant also objects24 to the Notice arguing that it did not receive it until August 28, 2007, when timely response could25 not be made. 1 Reconsideration has not been sought from this final order, which was served on lien claimant at its address on the Official Address Record and has not been returned. , Initially we note that the August 7, 2007 Notice of the WCJ’s intent to dismiss the lien in the future is not a final order su
