Steiny & Company; Zurich North America William Hansen WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAWILLIAM HANSEN, Applicant,vs.STEINY & COMPANY; ZURICH NORTH AMERICA, Defendant(s).Case No. SFO 0453338OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION Lien claimant Recovery Resources, Inc. (hereafter “petitioner” or “lien claimant”) seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order issued by a workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on May 25, 2007. In his decision, the WCJ found that the underlying case involving applicant, an electrician who injured his right shoulder, right rotator cuff, neck and spine in an industrial injury on February 7, 2001 settled his case by way of Compromise and Release (C&R), approved on September 7, 2005. The WCJ further found, as relevant here, that petitioners lien for Mills Peninsula Hospital was based on a bill received on August 27, 2003 for which payment was received on October 23, 2003. The WCJ further found that the lien was filed after the time period set forth in Labor Code section 4903.5 and ordered that lien claimant take nothing on its lien. In its timely, but unverified Petition for Reconsideration, lien claimant contends, in essence, that the WCJ erred in ordering that it take nothing on its lien claim. The petitioner also argues that it has newly discovered evidence which should be considered, while acknowledging that it did not have all the necessary evidence at the trial. An Answer was filed by defendant. Initially, we note that lien claimant has not verified its Petition for Reconsideration as required by Labor Code section 5902, which specifically provides that “[t]hc petition shall be , verified upon oath ….” (Emphasis added.) Moreover, even after notice by the WCJ in hisReport and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (“Report”), dated June 28, 2007 (at pp. 1,4) and by defendant in its Answer (at pp. 3, 4, 5, 7, 8), lien claimant has made no e
