Crafton police officer's pension appeal denied by court
A former Crafton police officer's battle over his pension denial appears to be over.
Former Patrolman Donnie L. Breeden was fired after his 2009 arrest for leaving the scene of a fatal 2007 accident on the South Side. His application for a vested pension benefit was denied by the borough's pension plan administrator because he was fired for cause.
The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, in a Dec. 4, 2012, opinion, upheld the pension denial because he was fired for cause. Breeden had 30 days to file an appeal to the state Supreme Court, but the court had no record of an appeal after the 30-day period expired Jan. 3.
“As of right now, it would appear that he hasn't made any further appeal,” Crafton solicitor John Daley said.
The Supreme Court said if Breeden's appeal got caught up in the mail system, it still would be honored if it was sent before the 30-day period expired.
Crafton officials fired Breeden on Aug. 3, 2009, about a month after he was arrested on charges he hit David Hall, 24, on West Carson Street in July 2007 and left the scene. Hall, who was hit by two other cars, later died.
Breeden later pleaded guilty to leaving the scene of a fatal accident and no contest to involuntary manslaughter and was sentenced to one to two years in state prison. He was off duty at the time of the crash.
Breeden appealed his termination and his pension denial separately. He stopped the termination appeal after the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas upheld the borough's decision, and Daley said it looks as though Breeden has dropped his other appeal.
“It would appear the denial of his appeal is final,” Daley said.
Doug Gulasy is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-380-8527 or email@example.com.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.