A judge on Friday dismissed a former Scranton police officer’s appeal to get back his disability pension that was revoked because he was convicted of theft of $17,831 from bogus extra-duty shifts.
The city’s Police Pension Board a year ago revoked the disability pension of former officer Paul Helring pursuant to both the Pennsylvania Public Employee Forfeiture Act and a city of Scranton ordinance.
The revocation came in response to Helring pleading guilty in January 2024 in federal court to one felony count of theft concerning programs receiving federal funds. He had been charged on Nov. 27, 2023, regarding the following: From approximately March 2021 to May 2022, while serving as the coordinator of the Scranton Police Department’s extra duty overtime program, Helring fraudulently obtained pay for 526 extra duty patrol hours at lower-income housing projects, which he did not work, federal authorities had said. Helring inflated or fabricated hours he said he worked patrolling Skyview Apartments, Village Park Apartments, Midtown Apartments, Hilltop Manor and Valley View Terrace.
Helring was sentenced on June 4, 2024, to six months in jail and two years of supervised release.
Former Scranton Police Officer Paul Helring
Previously, the pension board had approved a disability pension for Helring on Aug. 17, 2022, and he retired effective that day, with 23 years and five months of service. At the time of his retirement, Helring had made $56,448 in contributions to the pension fund. As of Jan. 31, 2024, he had received pension payments totaling $61,832, constituting a return of his member contributions.
Soon after the pension board revoked his pension based on his guilty plea, Helring sued in November 2024 to get the pension restored. This appeal lawsuit cited a board-appointed hearing officer’s recommendation against revoking the disability pension because elements of federal law on the matter were not identical to the state forfeiture law upon which the board relied. But the pension board did not follow that recommendation and revoked the pension.
Helring’s appeal lawsuit also claimed the pension board violated his due process rights and that a 1936 city ordinance underlying pension revocation was “unconstitutionally vague” and also conflicted with the state Public Employee Pension Forfeiture Act. The city also had joined the case on the side of the pension board in opposing a restoration of the pension.
Lackawanna County Judge Terrence Nealon heard arguments in the lawsuit in August. In a ruling Friday, Nealon affirmed the pension board’s revocation of Helring’s pension. Nealon determined that constitutionality was not at issue because the case was decided on nonconstitutional grounds, and the board did not violate Helring’s due process rights. State law also makes a pension subject to revocation if a recipient pleads guilty to any criminal offense classified as a felony or punishable by a prison term of over five years, and Helring’s federal felony was punishable by up to 10 years’ incarceration, the ruling said.
“In sum, Helring has not demonstrated that the board committed an error of law in revoking his pension” on any of the various grounds raised, Nealon’s ruling said in dismissing the appeal.