California WCABLaw firm

Law Offices of Joseph Lounsbury

Law Offices of Joseph Lounsbury is named in 11 released California WCAB decisions from 2022–2025. The disputes are Statute of limitations (1). They were heard most often at Santa Barbara, then San Luis Obispo. The firm it meets most often is Albert and Mackenzie (3).

Decisions: 11
Years: 2022–2025
Issues disputed: 1
District offices: 3

Applicant sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 8 of 8 agree. It is our reading of the record, not the firm’s description of itself.

What they litigate

Disputed issues across the decisions this firm is named in. Every row opens the decisions it counts.

Statute of limitations1

Who they face

3 more firms appear in the same decisions and are not listed: we could not read which side they were on.

Carriers and administrators

Where they appear

Santa Barbara 7
San Luis Obispo 3
Oxnard 1

How the appealed decisions came out

These are decisions that were appealed and published — the tail of a system that mostly settles. Most claims end in a compromise and release or a stipulation and never reach a panel, so nothing below describes how this firm does its work. It describes how a set of appealed disputes came out.

10 for the defense
1 for the applicant

Counted over 11 appealed decisions. Not this firm’s book of work.

Decisions

Newest decisions this firm is named in, each with the passage the panel turned on and a link to the official PDF.

ADJ13397189 · 2022-01-18 · Oxnard District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the November 9, 2021 Findings and Order wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge found that applicant's workers' compensation claim was barred by the statute of limitations.
The Board found that the employer did not provide the applicant with notice of the time limits for filing a claim, and the employer's conduct did not put the applicant on notice that additional steps were required, thus tolling the statute of limitations and allowing the claim to be timely filed.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ11624608 · 2025-07-16 · San Luis Obispo District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Reconsideration and/or Alternatively Removal of the decision issued on May 13, 2025 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.
Petition was withdrawn by petitioner and therefore dismissed.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ11506199 · 2025-06-24 · San Luis Obispo District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of applicant's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny removal.
Petitioner failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied and failed to show reconsideration would be inadequate remedy.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ12662897 · 2025-06-06 · Santa Barbara District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1On September 11, 2024, a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) issued an order setting this matter for trial. On September 23, 2024, defendant filed a petition for removal in response to the order. On December 23, 2024, the parties entered into a Compromise and Release (C&R), and the WCJ issued an order approving the C&R.
The parties entered into a Compromise and Release which was approved by the WCJ, rendering the petition for removal moot.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ11624608 · 2025-05-30 · San Luis Obispo District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record and based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny removal.
The Appeals Board found that the petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate, thus denying the petition.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ12092958 · 2025-02-07 · Santa Barbara District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record and based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny removal.
The Appeals Board found that the petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate, thus denying the petition.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ17614197 · 2024-05-14 · Santa Barbara District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Reconsideration of the decision issued on April 3, 2024 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.
The petition for reconsideration was withdrawn by the petitioner, leading to dismissal.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ17633031 · 2023-11-29 · Santa Barbara District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155]; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 280, fn. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133].) The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner shows that significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Also, the petitioner must demonstrate that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a).) Here, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of the petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy.
The Appeals Board found the petition did not show significant prejudice or irreparable harm to justify removal and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy, so the petition was denied.
Official decision · page 2 →
ADJ17299509 · 2023-08-07 · Santa Barbara District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and/or Alternatively Petition for Reconsideration and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of the petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny the Petition as one seeking reconsideration.
The petition was denied because the petitioner did not show significant prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied and reconsideration was an adequate remedy.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ15988298 · 2023-06-13 · Santa Barbara District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1A petition for reconsideration may properly be taken only from a "final" order, decision, or award. (Lab. Code, § 5900(a), 5902, 5903.) A "final" order has been defined as one that either "determines any substantive right or liability of those involved in the case" (Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171, 1180; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Pointer) (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 528, 534-535 [45 Cal.Comp.Cases 410]; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kramer) (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 39, 45 [43 Cal.Comp.Cases 661]) or determines a "threshold" issue that is fundamental to the claim for benefits. (Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1070, 1075 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 650].) Interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions, entered in the midst of the workers' compensation proceedings, are not considered "final" orders. (Id. at p. 1075 ["interim orders, which do not decide a threshold issue, such as intermediate procedural or evidentiary decisions,
The WCJ's March 27, 2023 order was not a final order, so reconsideration was dismissed; removal was denied because petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and reconsideration was an adequate remedy.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ13838607 · 2022-04-27 · Santa Barbara District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny removal.
The Appeals Board found that the petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate, thus denying the petition.
Official decision · page 1 →

Also recorded as

The same firm is printed several ways across the decisions, and all of them were counted as one. This is every spelling behind the figures above.

LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH E. LOUNSBURY
LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH LOUNSBURY
LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH LOUNSBURY, ESQ.
Law Offices of Joseph Lounsbury

Is this your firm and something here is wrong? Tell us and we will fix it. Every figure on this page is a count of released decisions this firm is named in, and the decisions themselves are listed above with the passage each turned on.

Also on this

Private workspace

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

Paste the dispute. The extractor builds the factors, the search finds the decisions the same facts won, and the matter stays saved. Free account.

Start a matter Search without an account →

Law Offices of Joseph Lounsbury

Decisions

Years

2022–2025

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

10 for the defense

1 for the applicant

Counted over 11 appealed decisions. Not this firm’s book of work.

Decisions

Newest decisions this firm is named in, each with the passage the panel turned on and a link to the official PDF.

ADJ13397189 · 2022-01-18 · Oxnard District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the November 9, 2021 Findings and Order wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge found that applicant's workers' compensation claim was barred by the statute of limitations.

The Board found that the employer did not provide the applicant with notice of the time limits for filing a claim, and the employer's conduct did not put the applicant on notice that additional steps were required, thus tolling the statute of limitations and allowing the claim to be timely filed.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ11624608 · 2025-07-16 · San Luis Obispo District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Reconsideration and/or Alternatively Removal of the decision issued on May 13, 2025 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.

Petition was withdrawn by petitioner and therefore dismissed.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ11506199 · 2025-06-24 · San Luis Obispo District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of applicant's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny removal.

Petitioner failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied and failed to show reconsideration would be inadequate remedy.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ12662897 · 2025-06-06 · Santa Barbara District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1On September 11, 2024, a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) issued an order setting this matter for trial. On September 23, 2024, defendant filed a petition for removal in response to the order. On December 23, 2024, the parties entered into a Compromise and Release (C&R), and the WCJ issued an order approving the C&R.

The parties entered into a Compromise and Release which was approved by the WCJ, rendering the petition for removal moot.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ11624608 · 2025-05-30 · San Luis Obispo District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record and based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny removal.

The Appeals Board found that the petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate, thus denying the petition.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ12092958 · 2025-02-07 · Santa Barbara District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record and based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny removal.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ17614197 · 2024-05-14 · Santa Barbara District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1The Petition for Reconsideration of the decision issued on April 3, 2024 has been withdrawn by petitioner. Therefore, it will be dismissed.

The petition for reconsideration was withdrawn by the petitioner, leading to dismissal.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ17633031 · 2023-11-29 · Santa Barbara District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.2Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155]; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 280, fn. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133].) The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner shows that significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Also, the petitioner must demonstrate that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a).) Here, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of the petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that significant prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy.

The Appeals Board found the petition did not show significant prejudice or irreparable harm to justify removal and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy, so the petition was denied.

Official decision · page 2 →

ADJ17299509 · 2023-08-07 · Santa Barbara District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and/or Alternatively Petition for Reconsideration and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of the petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny the Petition as one seeking reconsideration.

The petition was denied because the petitioner did not show significant prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied and reconsideration was an adequate remedy.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ15988298 · 2023-06-13 · Santa Barbara District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1A petition for reconsideration may properly be taken only from a "final" order, decision, or award. (Lab. Code, § 5900(a), 5902, 5903.) A "final" order has been defined as one that either "determines any substantive right or liability of those involved in the case" (Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171, 1180; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Pointer) (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 528, 534-535 [45 Cal.Comp.Cases 410]; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kramer) (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 39, 45 [43 Cal.Comp.Cases 661]) or determines a "threshold" issue that is fundamental to the claim for benefits. (Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1070, 1075 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 650].) Interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions, entered in the midst of the workers' compensation proceedings, are not considered "final" orders. (Id. at p. 1075 ["interim orders, which do not decide a threshold issue, such as intermediate procedural or evidentiary decisions,

The WCJ's March 27, 2023 order was not a final order, so reconsideration was dismissed; removal was denied because petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and reconsideration was an adequate remedy.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ13838607 · 2022-04-27 · Santa Barbara District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny removal.

Official decision · page 1 →