ShareThis Page
Council may not go after settlement |

Council may not go after settlement

Forest Hills Council is considering backing off its decision to try to take a portion of the settlement money Officer Ed Limbacher received from the maker of a defective vest he wore when he was shot three years ago.

Councilman William Tomasic, a member of the public safety committee, has proposed rescinding a motion approved by the borough in April to intervene in the case. The motion to rescind will be on the agenda for the 7 p.m. meeting Tuesday at the borough building on Ardmore Boulevard.

Limbacher was shot in the stomach during a June 2003 drug bust. The bullet pierced his Second Chance Ultima vest and remains lodged in his abdomen. He sued the companies that manufacture the vest and its fibers, and settled his case for an undisclosed amount in January. Limbacher is permanently disabled and will not return to the job.

In its filing, the borough claimed it should receive the part of the settlement that covers Limbacher’s lost wages. The borough solicitor has said the motion was filed because the disability payments to Limbacher and two other officers are draining the police pension fund.

The borough’s decision to intervene in the case did not sit well with about 120 residents who packed a council meeting earlier this week.

“Most people felt it wasn’t the right thing to subjugate (reduce the amount of) money from a police officer who was injured in the line of duty,” said Tomasic, who was appointed to council last month. “I concur with that.”

Tomasic believes a majority of council will support the motion.

Resident Donald Neeper is pleased council is considering the reversal.

“I didn’t think the people of Forest Hills would put up with this,” Neeper said. “I think they have made a mistake, and they should rectify it.”

Tomasic said borough attorneys are meeting with an actuary to find a way to balance the pension fund. One option would be raising taxes, he said.

“We’re looking at the whole thing,” Tomasic said.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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 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.