Chet Lukaszewski, P.C.

CONTACT US

General Inquiries:
inquiries@chetlaw.com

Application for Representation:
View / Complete Application

Please note that we offer :

• Free consultations
• The most competitive   disability pension rates
• Transfer clients accepted
• Credit cards accepted
• Pension work billed on
  work performed basis,
  not flat rate.


 

In January 2008, after four years of working as an Accident Disability Pension and Social Security Disability litigator (plus three years performing said work as a law clerk while in law school), and over three years as an insurance defense litigator, Chet Lukaszewski formed Chet Lukaszewski, P.C. The mission of the firm is to use the extensive experience and knowledge base gained by Mr. Lukaszewski thus far in his career, and to parlay an exemplary level of litigation success, into an aggressive and highly personal level of representation for a client base that will never exceed the firm’s capabilities. Mr. Lukaszewski has learned the value of client contact and interaction, and refuses to compromise the firm’s ability to ensure its clients the utmost in personal service. At Chet Lukaszewski, P.C., Mr. Lukaszewski himself will return your call, write your legal papers, and appear with or for you in Court or elsewhere, if need be.

  

During his final three years at his former firm, Chet Lukaszewski successfully litigated 50(+) disability pension Article 78's, and also won 2 Appellate Division disability pension matters. Since early 2009, when the first cases litigated by Chet Lukaszewski P.C. were decided, Mr. Lukaszewski has won close to 20 more disability pension Article 78’s, along two first of their kind Appellate Division decisions, including: in the Appellate Division, First Department, a 'disability versus no disability' matter’, for an injured police officer; and in the Second Department, the first 9/11-World Trade Center disability pension decision in favor of a petitioner, for the widow of an FDNY Lieutenant.* To the firm's knowledge, no other law office or individual has had as much success in this area of law during this time.

While working at both the Long Island and New York City offices of the top insurance defense firm, Ahmuty, Demers & McManus, Mr. Lukaszewski worked under the firm’s highest level of partners, including well renowned attorneys such as Mr. William Ahmuty, Mr. Fred Simpson and Mr. James Edwards. During this time he handled a variety of cases, including auto accident, premises liability, construction site litigation and insurance coverage matters. This experience allows Chet Lukaszewski, P.C. to provide top rate representation to its personal injury clients. In addition, for the firm’s personal injury work, Mr. Lukaszewski has enlisted the assistance of renowned veteran New York trial lawyer Harvey Lockhart, Esq., as special litigation counsel. Mr. Lockhart’s 40 years of experience, including 600(+) trials, provides clients with a level of experience and expertise that is rare and invaluable. Chet Lukaszewski, P.C., has handled personal injury cases since the firms inception, and is currently involved in an ever growing collection of such actions which involve a variety of issues and litigants, which includes non civil servants as well as uniformed civil servants injured in the line of duty.

Mr. Lukaszewski has handled Social Security Disability matters all across New York State, and possesses a Social Security Disability record which exceeds the average national success rate. During his final two years with his former firm, Mr. Lukaszewski appeared at the majority of the office’s Social Security hearings. Since forming Chet Lukaszewski, P.C., Mr. Lukaszewski’s success in ‘SSD’ cases has increased, with the ability to choose his clients and fully control the representation. In addition, Mr. Lukaszewski has experience in Agency Disqualifications, and continues to handle such cases.

It is Mr. Lukaszewski’s intent to utilize his diverse and extensive litigation background and experience, in all areas of his practice.  He believes his disability pension clients will greatly benefit from his pension litigation success.  It is the firm’s opinion, that without proven Court success, a ‘3/4’s pension lawyer’ is essentially only a pension consultant. It is Mr. Lukaszewski’s belief that based on his proven litigation track record, the City and the Pension Funds will be more hesitant to force his clients into the Courts, thereby presenting them with the greatest chance of success within the pension system. Note also, Mr. Lukaszewski’s pension and agency disqualification billing rates are not set flat fees like most competitors; but instead charge on a work performed basis. He feels this is just one more way to provide clients with the most fair and equitable representation possible.

 

 

RECENT ITEMS

December 2011 - Chet Lukaszewski, Esq., is recognized by Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney, along with a select group of New York attorneys, as a lawyer who has reputably and successfully advocated on behalf of victim’s of ‘September 11th’.

Wednesday July 27, 2011 - El Diario la Prensa the largest and oldest Spanish-language daily newspaper in New York City, and the oldest Spanish-language daily in the United States; publishes a story on the continued fight by Chet Lukaszewski, P.C., on behalf of client Jackie Fernandez, in seeking line of duty death benefits from the FDNY Pension Fund,  following the Appellate Division Second Department ruling in March of 2011, which overturned the denial by Fund of Ms. Fernandez’s application for the same under the World Trade Center Law (which she submitted prior to hiring Chet lukaszewski, P.C.), in connection with the death of her husband, a FDNY Lieutenant who had run 9 marathons during his career, and spent hundreds of hours at the World Trade Center site, and retired in good health in 2002, but thereafter began to suffer various health issues, and eventually died in July 2006 at the age of 52, as a result of a complex cardiac event while playing in shallow water with his young nephew in full view of his family while on vacation, where Ms. Fernandez’s multiple medical experts found her husband to have died as a result of his toxic 9/11 exposures, as evidenced by coal dust found throughout his body during an autopsy, including his lungs, and other scientific indicators that demonstrated that his body, particularly his heart, had been weakened by the toxins, which lead to the cardiac event that caused his death. The Pension Fund found the death to simply be a drowning, and then in Court the Fund and City argued that even if the Lt. Fernandez was caused to drown by a cardiac event, it was a standard heart attack, with no WTC exposure connection.  The Appellate Court remanded the case to the Pension Fund with strong instructions, but the Fund continues to withhold the pension sought, and Chet lukaszewski P.C. continues its efforts on Mrs. Fernandez behalf, with the hope of a successful outcome.
(click HERE for the full story)

June 2011 - The Court found that the NYPD Pension Fund's denial of the petitioner's application for Accident Disability Retirement and award of Ordinary Disability Retirement was arbitrary and capricious and found that the Pension Fund had failed to consider key evidence, and failed to put forth any discussions of key issues and elements of the case. The petitioner was a 15 year NYPD veteran when she was assaulted in the line of duty while effectuating an arrest and sustained spinal injuries. She immediately thereafter sought medical treatment for spinal pain and symptomology and was shortly thereafter placed on light duty. After being kept on light duty for an extended period, the NYPD eventually submitted her disability retirement papers for her. All of her medical care for her spinal condition, which continued to deteriorate following her injury, was paid for by the NYPD as line of duty related. Nevertheless, it was the finding of the Police Pension Fund that while she did have a disability of the spine, it had absolutely no causal connection to her line of duty spinal injury, and was simply the result of a preexisting condition. The Court remanded the case for further consideration based on its conclusion that there was a total failure to consider whether, if petitioner did in fact have a pre-existing condition, if petitioner's line of duty injury exacerbated the condition which was formally non-symptomatic, to the point of disability.

May 2011 - The Court found that the NYPD Pension Fund’s denial of the petitioner’s application for Accident Disability Retirement benefits for her fall on loose wires strewn across the doorway of the women’s locker room in her police command, was legally deficient, and remanded the case for further consideration in keeping with the strongly worded decision. The Court found that the Fund’s Board of Trustees had applied an improper standard of an “accident” for disability pension purposes, versus an “incident”, in deeming the petitioner’s fall to be an incident rather than an accident and thereby retiring her on an Ordinary Disability pension rather than an Accident Disability pension, for the disabling injuries she sustained in the fall. It was the finding of the Court that the Pension Fund Board of Trustees “used an improper standard for determining whether the incident that resulted in petitioner’s disability was an accident.” The Court went on to state that “there is no evidence in the record to suggest petitioner’s injury was the result of her own willful negligence…her fall was sudden, unexpected, out of the ordinary”, which is the legal definition of an accident for pension purposes; and that “exposed loose wires are not ordinarily strung across the floor of a locker room, and one does not ordinarily fall to the floor upon leaving the bathroom.” The Court concluded by stating that the petitioner was entitled to an ADR pension on remand if her disability was found to be the proximate result of an accident that was not caused by her own willful negligence, and that a review of the case was to be done by the Board of Trustees in accordance with the decision.

May 2011 - The Court found that the NYPD Pension Fund's denial of the petitioner's World Trade Center disability pension application for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder was arbitrary and capricious and was not based on substantial or credible evidence. The petitioner had been in World Trade Center 1 on September 11, 2001, when the first plane hit Tower 2. He and his partner evacuated the 20th-29th floors and were descending an interior staircase when the second plane hit Tower 1 and sent debris and soot down through the stairwell which shook as a result of the impact and explosion. They then gave aid to the injured on the ground floor and escorted civilians from the building to a triage which they helped set up in the Millenium Hotel. Petitioner entered 2 World Trade Center three more times during his evacuation efforts and narrowly escaped the collapse. He was caught up in the soot and debris cloud when the first building fell; at which time he rushed himself and 20 other evacuees to a refuge on Vesey Street. Petitioner's police car was crushed by the falling towers. He received accommodations for his heroism on 9/11. During his 32 years as a police officer, he had been awarded numerous awards and accommodations. Petitioner spent almost 2,000 hours at the World Trade Center site doing rescue, recovery and clean-up work thereafter. After retiring in 2002, he began showing signs of, and first sought treatment for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder with the World Trade Center Medical Monitoring Program in 2003, and the again in 2005. In support of his disability pension application, petitioner submitted an abundance of evidence from numerous psychological doctors with whom he had a long standing treatment relationship; included in which were numerous psychological diagnostic tests which demonstrated his Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. He also submitted his Social Security Disability approval which was based on his 9/11 psychological disorders, which included major depression and panic disorder, in addition to his Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Nevertheless, the Police Pension Fund Medical Board found him not disabled for full duty police work on four separate occasions [prior to retaining an attorney]. It was pointed out to the Police Pension Fund's Board of Trustees [by counsel] that none of the Medical Board exams lasted more than 10 minutes, as petitioner offered to verify via sign in and sign out sheets. Moreover, petitioner indicated to the Board of Trustees that the Medical Board essentially presented no questions to him regarding his actual psychological conditions. The Court found that the Medical Board had ignored extensive credible evidence and had disregarded the fact that said evidence did include psychological diagnostic testing. Moreover, the Court found the Medical Board offered no explanation or reasoning for its denial and concluded that the Medical Board's findings did not reflect that they had considered all relevant evidence. In addition, the Court found that the Pension Fund's Board of Trustees had also acted arbitrarily and capriciously and without an evidentiary basis, in adopting the Medical Board's recommendation for denial. The Court remanded the matter to the Police Pension Fund for a legally sufficient review in keeping with its decision.

March 2011 - The Court found that the NYPD Pension Fund had ignored evidence, not discussed key evidence on the record, and not “fully” or “fairly” reviewed the application of a police officer whom they found to be disabled by a neurogenic bladder, but whom they denied a line of duty disability retirement pension, based on the conclusion that said condition had no causal connection to her line of duty lower back injuries; where the primary cause of said condition is lower back injuries. The Court found the Fund had ignored the reports of petitioner’s doctors and the medical realities of neurogenic bladders; including the fact that the only recognized cause of a neurogenic bladder from which petitioner suffered, was a disc herniation in the lower back which affected the nerves. The Court pointed out that petitioner had in fact submitted reports which showed she suffered a disc herniation in the lower back with nerve involvement, as a result of her line of duty injures, including a serious rear end collision; and that her doctors, including a urologist, indicated the cause of her neurogenic bladder was her line of duty spinal injuries. The Court found the respondents’ denial to be legally deficient, and held that the review which was performed was not “full” or “fair”, and indicated that the Fund’s “Board of Trustees reached its determination that there was no casual connection between petitioner’s back condition and her neurogenic bladder without any discussion on the record regarding the evidence before it.” The Court remanded the case for a legally sufficient evaluation. 

March 2011 – City Law, published by the New York Law School, publishes story on case won by Chet Lukaszewski, P.C., entitled: “Cop can amend application after denial”.  Piece discusses case won by firm in December 2010, where New York Supreme Court found the NYPD Pension Fund had acted arbitrarily and capriciously in refusing an NYPD Detective's request to re-open his disability pension application, which had been closed one month before, while he was still in the hospital recovering from a major heart attack and the placement of 5 stents, to include his heart condition; where the heart attack occurred less than 6 months after his retirement, following a 24.5 year career, and where the heart condition was previously undiagnosed  because of improper heart testing.

March 9, 2011 - Chet Lukaszewski appears on Good Day New York, on Fox 5, with client Jackie Kaht Fernandez, to discuss recent Appellate Division Second Department decision in favor of his client, who is the widow of an FDNY 9/11 first responder.
(click HERE for video and story)

(As publicized in NEW YORK LAW JOURNAL, as cover story, as well the NEW YORK POST and THE CHIEF LEADER)
APPELLATE DIVISION SECOND DEPARTMENT - March 2011 - The Appellate Division Second Department overturned the denial by the FDNY Pension Fund of a petition for line of duty death benefits brought under the World Trade Center Law, which had been upheld by the lower Court, and remand the application for further consideration. The application was brought by the widow of an FDNY Lieutenant who had run 9 marathons during his career, and spent hundreds of hours at the World Trade Center site, and retired in good health in 2002, but thereafter began to suffer various health issues, and eventually died in July 2006 as a result of a complex cardiac event while playing in shallow water with his young nephew in full view of his family while on vacation. Petitioner’s multiple medical experts found the decedent to have died as a result of his toxic 9/11 exposures, as evidenced by coal dust found throughout his body during an autopsy, including his lungs, and other scientific indicators that demonstrated that his body, particularly his heart, had been weakened by the toxins, which lead to the cardiac event that caused his death. The Pension Fund Medical Board found the death to simply be a drowning, which was adopted by the Fund’s Board of Trustees; and in Court the respondents argued that even if the petitioner was caused to drown by a cardiac event, it was a standard heart attack, with no WTC exposure connection. The petitioner argues the black coal dust in the decedent’s body and lungs, known as anthracosis (coal miners’ disease), which was the primary factor in his death, was both a “disease of the lower respiratory tract” as well as “heavy metal poisoning”, which are both “qualifying conditions” under the under the WTC Law, and thus the death was WTC related. The Court held in reversing the lower Court and the Fund: "Although the Board of Trustees [of the pension fund] is entitled to rely on the report and recommendation of the Medical Board, the proceedings should disclose the reason for the denial, and the determination must be set forth in such manner as to permit adequate judicial review… Under the circumstances of this case, the explanation by the Medical Board was insufficient." The Court ordered that the Pension Fund Trustees to send the case back to its Medical Board to specifically address medical evidence indicating that Mr. Fernandez's drowning was precipitated by his heart condition, which was the result of respiratory distress caused by responding to the 9/11 attacks.
(click HERE for full LAW JOURNAL story) (click HERE for full N.Y. POST story) (click HERE for full CHIEF LEADER story)
 
 

* Disclaimer as per disciplinary rules : "prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome."

  

Site maintained by NST Web Solutions, Inc.
å