Josue Barrios filed a workers’ compensation claim at the Van Nuys WCAB against Nagatoshi Produce USA, Inc. and its insurer, Truck Insurance Exchange. Several medical lien claimants including Tri-County Medical Group, Inc., Tri-City Health Group, Inc., Komberg Chiropractic, and Edward Komberg, D.C. became involved as real parties in interest in the case.
Defendant Farmers Insurance Exchange (not originally part of Barrios’s case but acting on behalf of multiple carriers) filed a Petition for Consolidation and Stay of Liens, alleging that the lien claimants had engaged in improper practices, such as unlawful patient referrals in violation of Labor Code sections 139.3, 139.32, and 3215, and issuing bills or reports with material misrepresentations under section 3820. Multiple other insurance carriers joined this petition, leading to multiple hearings, however no evidence was formally admitted at these hearings, and issues were not explicitly framed for decision.
On October 24, 2025, PWCJ Jeffrey Marrone issued an Order of Consolidation, Designation of Master File, and Notice of Hearing (Consolidation Order), consolidating hundreds of cases for discovery purposes under California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 10396 (Rule 10396), staying the liens, and assigning WCJ Tammy Homen as the judge for the consolidated matter.
The lien claimants petitioned to disqualify WCJ Homen, alleging bias and an undisclosed conflict because her husband, Norman Homen, is a workers’ compensation attorney who had previously referred clients to the lien claimants and had social interactions with Komberg. They also sought reconsideration of the Consolidation Order, arguing it lacked factual findings, failed to show a causal connection between the consolidated cases and the allegations, and violated Rule 10396(a)(3) by not considering potential prejudice or delays. The carriers filed an answer opposing the petition, and both WCJ Homen and PWCJ Marrone submitted reports recommending denial.
In response to the disqualification petition, WCJ Homen filed a Report and Recommendation denying any conflict, stating she and her husband had no financial interest in or involvement with the lien claimants’ businesses, she lacked knowledge of his referrals or clients in these cases, and mere industry interactions did not constitute bias. She noted the small size of the workers’ compensation community and that she had not yet presided over any hearing or expressed opinions on the merits.
PWCJ Marrone’s report on the reconsideration petition affirmed that he had considered Rule 10396’s factors (e.g., common issues, complexity, prejudice, and efficiency) but provided only summary conclusions without detailed legal or factual support.
The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board issued a multifaceted decision. It denied the lien claimants’ Petition for Disqualification of WCJ Homen, adopting and incorporating her report. It dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration of the Consolidation Order, treating it instead as a Petition for Removal, which it granted. As its Decision After Removal, the WCAB rescinded the Consolidation Order and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings consistent with its opinion in the case of Barrios v Nagatoshi Produce -SAU9000031 (January 2026).
The WCAB first addressed the disqualification petition, finding no basis under Labor Code section 5311 or Code of Civil Procedure section 641. It agreed with WCJ Homen that neither she nor her husband had a financial interest, employment relationship, or other disqualifying ties to the lien claimants. The board emphasized that assumptions about bias were insufficient without detailed facts showing enmity or an unqualified opinion on the merits, and that social or industry interactions in the small workers’ compensation community could not broadly disqualify judges. The lien claimants’ subjective perceptions did not meet the standard for impartiality doubts.
For the Consolidation Order, the WCAB found the order violated due process and Labor Code section 5313, which requires a summary of evidence and reasons for determinations, as supported by en banc precedent like Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473 (requiring opinions based on admitted evidence and substantial evidence). Although PWCJ Marrone’s report attempted to cure this by summarizing common issues (e.g., referral violations and misrepresentations), it lacked specific citations to law or facts connecting the hundreds of cases to the allegations, rendering meaningful appellate review impossible.
The WCAB distinguished prior cases like Kenney v. Seguoyah, Inc. 2023 Cal.Wrk.Comp. P.D. LEXIS 37, *3 (where consolidation was for a narrow, specific issue) and Harvard Surgery Center v. WCAB (Yero) (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 1354 (emphasizing the need for good cause), noting that vague references to statutes were insufficient to justify broad discovery without risking abuse.