IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Department of Corrections, :

Petitioner :

: No. 556 C.D. 2015

v. :

: Submitted: August 28, 2015

Amanda St. Hilaire and :

ABC 27 News, :

Respondents :

BEFORE: HONORABLE BERNARD L. McGINLEY, Judge

HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge

HONORABLE JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Senior Judge

OPINION BY 

JUDGE McCULLOUGH FILED: November 25, 2015

The Department of Corrections (DOC) petitions for review from the 

March 17, 2015 final determination of the Office of Open Records (OOR), granting 

in part and dismissing as moot in part the request of Amanda St. Hilaire (Requestor) 

under the Right-to-Know Law (RTKL).1

On December 8, 2014, Requestor, a reporter with ABC27 News, filed a 

request with DOC seeking “all records that document inmate injuries/deaths from 

January 2009 through December 2014. I would also like all records that document 

employee injuries/deaths while on the job from January 2009 through December 

2014.” (Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 1.)2 After invoking a thirty-day extension, on 

 

1 Act of February 14, 2008, P.L. 6, 65 P.S. §§67.101-67.3104.

2 DOC’s reproduced record does not include the lower case “a” as required by Pa.R.A.P. 

2173.
2

January 12, 2015, DOC’s open records officer provided a substantive response, 

granting in part and denying in part the request. DOC granted the request insofar as it 

requested records documenting inmate deaths during the specified time period, but 

redacted the cause of death on the basis of the medical records exemption found in 

section 708(b)(5) of the RTKL, 65 P.S. §67.708(b)(5). However, DOC denied the 

remainder of Requestor’s request. Regarding inmate injuries, DOC alleged that the 

request was insufficiently specific under section 703 of the RTKL, 65 P.S. §67.703. 

(R.R. at 4.) DOC further denied this request on the basis of several exemptions, 

including the personal security exemption under section 708(b)(1)(ii) of the RTKL, 

65 P.S. §67.708(b)(1)(ii); the law enforcement/public safety exemption under section 

708(b)(2) of the RTKL, 65 P.S. §67.708(b)(2); the criminal investigation exemption 

under section 708(b)(16) of the RTKL, 65 P.S. §67.708(b)(16); the noncriminal 

investigation exemption under section 708(b)(17) of the RTKL, 65 P.S. 

§67.708(b)(17); and the medical records exemption under section 708(b)(5) of the 

RTKL.

To the extent that Requestor sought records relating to employee deaths, 

DOC alleged that such records did not exist and that it did not have a duty to create 

the same consistent with section 705 of the RTKL, 65 P.S. §67.705.3 Regarding 

employee injuries, DOC again alleged insufficient specificity under section 703 of the 

RTKL. DOC also alleged that personnel records are not public records under the 

RTKL. DOC further denied this request on the basis of the exemptions identified 

above. 

 

3

Section 705 provides that “[w]hen responding to a request for access, an agency shall not 

be required to create a record which does not currently exist or to compile, maintain, format or 

organize a record in a manner in which the agency does not currently compile, maintain, format or 

organize the record.” 
3

Requestor appealed to the OOR. Requestor alleged that her request was 

sufficiently specific as it set forth “specific dates and record qualifications.” (R.R. at 

32.) Requestor noted that, to the extent her request was granted, DOC redacted the

cause of death but did not redact the names of the inmates. Inasmuch as her request 

sought documentation of the actual injuries and deaths, Requestor averred that 

redacting the names and listing the nature of the injuries/deaths would have been 

more responsive and would not have compromised any patient privacy concerns. 

Requestor noted that DOC relied upon the medical records exemption in redacting the 

cause of death, but asserted that simply providing the cause of death “does not 

disclose individually identifiable health information.” Id. Requestor further asserted 

that cause of death does not fall under the categories sought to be protected by the 

medical records exemption, such as “prescription, evaluation, diagnosis or treatment, 

drug tests, enrollment in health care programs or vocation rehabilitation.” Id.

DOC thereafter submitted correspondence to the OOR, noting that under 

the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), Pub. L. 

104-191, 110 Stat. 1936 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 18, 26, 29 and 

42 U.S.C.), it was precluded from providing identifiable medical information about 

an inmate, but could provide “de-identified health information.” (R.R. at 38, 41.) 

DOC also submitted declarations from Andrew Filkosky, DOC’s open records 

officer, and Christopher Oppman, the director of DOC’s Bureau of Health Care 

Services. Filkosky stated that, upon review of Requestor’s appeal, he generated a 

record which redacted everything but the inmates’ cause of death and reordered the 

names such that the newly redacted record could not be compared to the previously 

redacted record. A copy of this newly-redacted record was attached as an exhibit to 
4

DOC’s correspondence. Filkosky also noted that there had been no employee deaths 

on the job during the Requestor’s specified time period. 

Oppman stated that his office maintains a medical file for each inmate

but it does not have a tracking system for injured inmates. Oppman noted that his 

office does maintain a list of inmate deaths, which includes, inter alia, an inmate’s 

name, date of death, and the name of the institution where the death occurred. 

Oppman also noted that his office does not maintain a list documenting employee 

injuries. Oppman stated that, if an employee is injured on the job and evaluated by 

on-site medical personnel, a notation would be made in a medical file for that 

individual employee. Oppman further noted that a review of every inmate and 

employee medical file to determine the number of injuries sustained in a specific time 

period would be unduly burdensome. 

OOR thereafter requested additional information regarding DOC’s 

record-keeping procedures with respect to inmate injuries. In response, Oppman 

submitted an additional declaration stating that inmate medical records are 

maintained primarily in paper format, with some information, such as medication 

order and delivery and consultations and clinics, maintained in electronic format. 

Oppman stressed that neither the medication order and delivery tracking system, 

known as “e-Sapphire,” nor the consultation and clinic tracking system, known as “PTrax,” contain information about inmate injuries. (R.R. at 76.) Oppman also stated 

that his office maintains inmate medical incident/injury reports by month and year in 

paper format that are separate from inmate medical records. 

Oppman noted that compiling a list of injuries from these reports would 

be time consuming because each month’s file would need to be reviewed. Oppman

also stated that these reports do not always document inmate injuries, explaining that 
5

a report is created each time an inmate is extracted from a cell, even if the inmate is 

not injured. Oppman acknowledged that, in the course of reviewing the OOR’s 

request for additional information, he learned that DOC’s Office of Human Resources 

maintains a database for employees injured on the job. DOC attached a list of injured 

employees compiled from this database to its correspondence. 

By final determination dated March 17, 2015, the OOR granted in part 

and dismissed as moot in part Requestor’s appeal. The OOR noted that, given the 

additional documentation submitted by DOC, Requestor’s request for information 

relating to the cause of inmate deaths was moot. The OOR also noted that because 

Requestor only appealed DOC’s denial of documentation with respect to inmate 

deaths and injuries, she waived any challenge with respect to the denial of 

documentation relating to employee deaths and injuries. The OOR granted

Requestor’s appeal insofar as she requested documentation relating to inmate injuries, 

noting that the medical incident/injury reports maintained by DOC could be deidentified and, hence, were not subject to the protections of either section 708(b)(5)

of the RTKL, the medical records exemption, or HIPAA. The OOR rejected DOC’s 

argument that responding to this request would be burdensome, noting that the 

burden on DOC “does not come from the number of records requested, but from how 

the records are organized and maintained.” (R.R. at 85.) The OOR directed DOC to 

provide the responsive records relating to inmate injuries within thirty days.

DOC thereafter filed a petition for reconsideration with the OOR, 

asserting that the medical incident/injury reports constituted an exempt medical 

record under section 708(b)(5) of the RTKL. DOC noted that records that are exempt 

under section 708 are not considered public records and, hence, are not subject to the 

redaction requirement of section 706 of the RTKL, 65 P.S. §67.706, which only 
6

applies to public records that contain information not subject to access. DOC also 

included a prior case wherein the OOR, without a declaration from DOC, found 

DOC’s medical incident/injury report to be exempt from public access under section 

708(b)(5). See Davila v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, OOR Dkt. AP 

2009-0656, 2009 Pa. O.O.R.D. Lexis 86 (filed August 12, 2009). DOC also included 

a blank medical incident/injury report form to show that it includes medical 

information relating to the particular inmate, including areas describing an initial 

impression of the illness/injury, the type of injury, and the treatment rendered. 

Finally, DOC noted that the OOR had not ruled on its allegation that Requestor’s 

request was not sufficiently specific. However, the OOR denied DOC’s petition.

Discussion

On appeal,4 DOC argues that the OOR erred as a matter of law in failing 

to conclude that Requestor’s request was not sufficiently specific because the request 

seeks “all” records and the OOR’s final determination would require DOC to review 

thousands of reports and make judgments as to whether an inmate injury exists. We 

disagree.

Sufficient Specificity

The RTKL addresses written requests for records in section 703 as 

follows:

 

4

In a RTKL appeal involving a Commonwealth agency, this Court has the discretion to rely 

upon the record created below or to create its own. Department of Labor & Industry v. Heltzel, 90 

A.3d 823 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (en banc); see also Bowling v. Office of Open Records, 990 A.2d 813 

(Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (en banc), affirmed, 75 A.3d 453 (Pa. 2013). 
7

A written request for access to records may be submitted in 

person, by mail, by e-mail, by facsimile or, to the extent 

provided by agency rules, by any other electronic means. A 

written request must be addressed to the open-records 

officer designated pursuant to section 502. Employees of an 

agency shall be directed to forward requests for records to 

the open-records officer. A written request should identify 

or describe the records sought with sufficient specificity to 

enable the agency to ascertain which records are being 

requested and shall include the name and address to which 

the agency should address its response. A written request 

need not include any explanation of the requestor's reason 

for requesting or intended use of the records unless 

otherwise required by law. 

65 P.S. §67.703 (emphasis added). Hence, in pertinent part, the RTKL provides that 

a “written request should identify or describe the records sought with sufficient 

specificity to enable the agency to ascertain which records are being requested.” Id.

To determine whether section 703 is satisfied, “the specificity of a request must be 

construed in the request’s context, rather than envisioning everything the request 

might conceivably encompass.” Montgomery County v. Iverson, 50 A.3d 281, 283 

(Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (en banc). The central question in evaluating the adequacy of a 

request is whether the request “sufficiently informs an agency of the records 

requested.” Id. at 284 n.4.

DOC contends that that Requestor’s request was not sufficiently specific 

because it sought “all records” of inmate injuries and would require DOC to “guess at 

[the records that would satisfy] the request.” (DOC Brief at 9-10.) Indeed, this Court 

has previously held that a request seeking “all” records regarding any “business 

and/or activities for the past one and five years” was insufficiently specific. Mollick 

v. Township of Worcester, 32 A.3d 859, 871 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011). In Mollick, the 

requestor sought “(1) all emails between the Supervisors regarding any Township 
8

business and/or activities for the past one and five years; and (2) all emails between 

the Supervisors and the Township employees regarding any Township business 

and/or activities for the past one and five years.” Id. The OOR found this request 

sufficiently specific under section 703, but directed the township to provide a 

sampling of the requested emails “to enable the requestor to craft a specific request 

more limited in type, subject-matter, time-frame and scope.” Id. at 870. 

The common pleas court held that the OOR erred because the request 

was overbroad and vague and the OOR had no authority to unilaterally narrow the 

scope of a request. This Court affirmed, noting that the requestor failed “to specify 

what category or type of Township business or activity for which he is seeking 

information” and that the request “would place an unreasonable burden on an agency 

to examine all its emails for an extended time period without knowing, with sufficient 

specificity, what Township business or activity the request is related.” Id. at 871. 

However, we distinguished Mollick in Department of Environmental 

Protection v. Legere, 50 A.3d 260 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012). In Legere, the requestor

sought “[a]ll Act 223, Section 208 determination letters issued by the Department of 

Environmental Protection [DEP] since January 1, 2008, as well as the orders issued 

by [DEP] to well operators in relation to those determination letters, as described in 

Section 208 of the Oil and Gas Act.” Id. at 262. DEP partially granted the request 

and provided some responsive records, but denied the remainder of the request as 

insufficiently specific because it did not identify specific names, geographic 

locations, well or permit numbers, or complaint numbers. The OOR held that the 

request was sufficiently specific and directed DEP to provide all responsive records 

within thirty days. This Court affirmed the OOR’s final determination. We began by 

reviewing Mollick. We noted that the request in Mollick was “clearly 
9

distinguishable” and required “files to be reviewed and judgments made as to the 

relation of the documents to the specific request.” Legere, 50 A.3d at 264 (emphasis 

in original). To the contrary, we held that the request to DEP was for “a clearlydefined universe of documents. There are no judgments to be made as to whether the 

documents are ‘related’ to the request.” Id. at 265. 

The present case is similar to Legere in that Requestor here sought a 

clearly-defined set of documents, i.e., records that document inmate injuries, a 

specific subject, for the period from January 2009 through December 2014, a specific 

time period. Contrary to DOC’s argument, this request does not require that DOC 

“guess at the request.” (DOC’s Brief at 10.) While DOC correctly notes that 

Requestor did not state that the request was for de-identified information regarding 

inmate injuries, the lack of this language does not cause the request to lack 

specificity. Requestor merely sought records documenting inmate injuries/deaths 

during a limited time period, she did not seek any medical records or any other 

“individually identifiable health information” exempted by section 708(b)(5) of the 

RTKL. 

Additionally, DOC’s assertions of insufficient specificity are belied by 

Oppman’s declarations, wherein he first stated that inmate injury information could 

be located in an inmate’s individual medical file, and later stated that DOC maintains 

medical incident/injury reports at each correctional institution, separate from an 

inmate’s individual medical file, arranged by month and year. To the extent that 

DOC asserts that these reports “will not accurately reflect inmate injuries” because a 

report is “often generated where no injury is alleged,” DOC’s Brief at 11, we note 

that, in such a case, the report would not be responsive to Requestor’s request. 
10

Further, DOC contends that responding to Requestor’s request will be 

burdensome and require it to review every medical incident/injury report to determine 

whether the report identifies an inmate injury or not. However, this Court in Legere

stated that “[t]he fact that a request is burdensome does not deem it overbroad, 

although it may be considered as a factor in such a determination.” Id. at 265. We 

reiterated that Requestor’s request sought “a clearly delineated group of documents” 

and stressed that “[t]he fact that DEP does not catalogue or otherwise organize 

Section 208 determination letters or corresponding orders in a way that permits them 

to be easily located, does not render the request overbroad.” Id.

As the OOR noted, similar to Legere, the burden on DOC “does not 

come from the number of records requested, but from how the records are organized 

and maintained.” (R.R. at 85.) Indeed, we noted in Legere that “[a] requestor cannot 

control how an agency catalogues or organizes such files. As such, an agency’s 

failure to maintain the files in a way necessary to meet its obligations under the 

RTKL should not be held against the requestor. To so hold would permit an agency 

to avoid its obligations under the RTKL simply by failing to orderly maintain its 

records.” Id.

Medical Records Exemption

Next, DOC argues that the OOR erred as a matter of law in failing to 

conclude that the medical incident/injury reports were not exempt records under 

section 708(b)(5) of the RTKL. Again, we disagree.

Section 305(a) of the RTKL provides that “[a] record in the possession 

of a Commonwealth agency is presumed to be a public record,” unless “(1) the record 

is exempt under section 708; (2) the record is protected by a privilege; or (3) the 

record is exempt from disclosure under any other Federal or State law or regulation or 
11

judicial order or decree.” 65 P.S. §67.305(a). Section 708(a)(1) of the RTKL, 65 

P.S. §67.708(a)(1), imposes the burden on the Commonwealth agency to prove that a 

record is exempt from public access. Section 708(b)(5) specifically exempts the 

following:

A record of an individual’s medical, psychiatric or 

psychological history or disability status, including an 

evaluation, consultation, prescription, diagnosis or 

treatment; results of tests, including drug tests; enrollment 

in a health care program or program designed for 

participation by persons with disabilities, including 

vocation rehabilitation, workers’ compensation and 

unemployment compensation; or related information that 

would disclose individually identifiable health information. 

65 P.S. §67.708(b)(5). If a record is exempt, it is not a public record and, thus, need 

not be redacted in accordance with section 706 of the RTKL.5 Heavens v. 

 

5

Section 706 states that:

If an agency determines that a public record, legislative record or 

financial record contains information which is subject to access as 

well as information which is not subject to access, the agency's 

response shall grant access to the information which is subject to 

access and deny access to the information which is not subject to 

access. If the information which is not subject to access is an integral 

part of the public record, legislative record or financial record and 

cannot be separated, the agency shall redact from the record the 

information which is not subject to access, and the response shall 

grant access to the information which is subject to access. The agency 

may not deny access to the record if the information which is not 

subject to access is able to be redacted. Information which an agency 

redacts in accordance with this subsection shall be deemed a denial 

under Chapter 9.

65 P.S. §67.706.
12

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, 65 A.3d 1069, 1077 (Pa. 

Cmwlth. 2013) (records that are exempt under section 708 are not public records and 

are not subject to the redaction requirement contained in section 706). 

While DOC notes that the medical incident/injury reports may contain 

medical information, that possibility does not transform the reports into exempt 

medical records. Indeed, Oppman stated in his second declaration that DOC 

maintains these reports separate from an inmate’s medical file and that if an inmate 

receives clinical treatment as a result of an incident/injury, the treatment is 

documented in the inmate’s individual medical file. Oppman further stated that the 

reports are generated not only to record inmate injuries, but also for other purposes, 

including documenting inmate cell extractions even where no injury is claimed. 

Additionally, Requestor only sought non-identifiable injury information; she did not 

seek medical records, the identity of inmates, or any other identifiable health 

information. As the OOR noted, to the extent that the reports do contain such 

information, they can be redacted/de-identified in accordance with section 706 of the 

RTKL.

Accordingly, because Requestor’s RTKL request was sufficiently 

specific and the responsive records, namely the medical incident/injury reports, were 

not exempt under section 708(b)(5) of the RTKL, the final determination of the OOR 

is affirmed.

 

________________________________

PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Department of Corrections, :

Petitioner :

: No. 556 C.D. 2015

v. :

:

Amanda St. Hilaire and :

ABC 27 News, :

Respondents :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 25th day of November, 2015, the final determination 

of the Office of Open Records, dated March 17, 2015, is hereby affirmed.

________________________________

PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge