J-S14027-17

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN RE: ESTATE OF JUSTIN JON 

BREZOVSKY, DECEASED,

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

v.

AMANDA BREZOVSKY,

APPEAL OF: CHARLOTTE ST. JOHN

No. 1665 MDA 2016

Appeal from the Order Entered September 12, 2016

In the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County

Orphans' Court at No(s): 4016-1335

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., SHOGAN and STRASSBURGER,*JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY SHOGAN, J.: FILED APRIL 26, 2017

Charlotte St. John (“Appellant”), purportedly on behalf of the Estate of 

Justin Jon Brezovsky, appeals from the order of September 12, 2016, 

denying Appellant’s Petition for Rule to Show Cause.1 We affirm.

____________________________________________

*

 Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1

 We note that, despite the caption of this case, the entity, “Estate of Justin 

Jon Brezovsky,” does not technically exist. The surviving spouse of Justin 

Jon Brezovsky, Amanda Brezovsky, did not request the Luzerne County 

Register of Wills to issue letters of administration. See 20 P.S. § 3155(b) 

(outlining order in which letters of administration shall be granted by 

register of wills and dictating that the surviving spouse’s right is second only 

to “[t]hose entitled to the residuary estate under the will”). Appellant does 

not contend that she has a right to be issued letters of administration under 

the statute.
J-S14027-17

- 2 -

The trial court recounted the relevant factual and procedural history, 

as follows:

On March 24th, 2016, Justin [Jon] Brezovsky (hereinafter 

“decedent”) died unexpectedly at home at the age of thirty-four. 

On August 11th, 2016, [Appellant], the decedent’s natural 

mother filed a Petition for Rule to Show Cause “why decedent’s 

wife, Amanda Brezovsky should not give permission to the 

Luzerne County Coroner to release the Coroner’s Report, the 

Toxicology Report, the Autopsy Report and any and all notes, 

records and reports, prepared regarding the late Justin Jon 

Brezovsky, Deceased.” [2]

* * *

A hearing was held on the Petition before this [court] on 

September 8th, 2016. The matter was taken under advisement, 

and finding no factual or legal basis upon which to grant the 

relief requested, on September 12th, 2016, this [c]ourt entered 

an Order denying and dismissing the Petition. Subsequently, on 

October 6th, 2016, [Appellant], through counsel, filed a Notice of 

Appeal of this [c]ourt’s Order of September 12th, 2016. 

Trial Court Opinion, 11/2/16, at 1–2. 

Appellant raises the following issues for review:

A. Whether the trial court erred in denying Appellant’s 

petition for rule to show cause[.] 

____________________________________________

2

 We note that Appellant’s use of the rule to show cause procedure to 

effectuate the result she sought was incorrect. A rule to show cause is not 

original process with which to initiate resolution of a dispute. See Cooney v. 

Pennsylvania Osteopathic Association, 253 A.2d 256 (Pa. 1969) (a rule 

to show cause is not properly original process in most cases). However, in 

instances where the parties and the court treat the action as a substitute for 

some other recognized proceeding, the court may decide cases so 

commenced on the merits. Id. at 257. The trial court herein adjudicated 

this matter as a properly filed action without objection from the parties. We 

shall consider the appeal similarly.
J-S14027-17

- 3 -

B. Whether the trial court erred in not ordering 

Respondent/Appellee[] to give permission to the Luzerne County 

Coroner to release the Coron[e]r’s report, toxicology report, the 

autopsy report and any and all notes, records and reports 

prepared regarding the late Justin Jon Brezovsky to his Mother, 

Appellant.

C. Whether the trial court erred in not questioning Appellee 

as to why she refuses to relinquish any information on Justin Jon 

Brezovsky’s death to his Mother and family.

D. Whether the trial court erred in not ordering Appellee to 

provide to Appellant a copy of a death certificate, along with the 

Coroner’s report, autopsy report and toxicology report.

Appellant’s Brief at unnumbered 3 (full capitalization omitted).

Initially, we must determine if we have jurisdiction to address the 

merits of Appellant’s issues. When Appellant filed her notice of appeal, she 

did not provide a copy of the full trial court docket; thus, it was unclear 

whether the September 12, 2016 order denying her petition for rule to show 

cause was a final appealable order. On November 3, 2016, this Court 

directed Appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be quashed and 

to provide a copy of the full trial court docket for the underlying matter. 

Although Appellant did not respond to the order, in the interim, the trial 

court transmitted the record to this Court. Since it appeared that Appellant’s 

petition was the only matter pending before the trial court, by per curiam

order of November 23, 2016, the appealability issue was referred to this 

merits panel, and the November 3, 2016 show cause order was discharged.

In O'Neill v. Gioffre, 559 A.2d 588 (Pa. Super. 1989), we were asked 

to adjudicate an appeal stemming from a trial court order discharging a rule 
J-S14027-17

- 4 -

to show cause why a child support judgment should not be reopened. 

Therein, we observed that the discharge constituted a final, appealable order 

because the trial court’s order was clear that it was denying the appellant’s 

petition to open the judgment. Id. at 589 n.3. 

Here, the trial court docket reveals that Appellant’s petition was the 

sole matter before the trial court. Furthermore, the trial court did not 

discharge the rule; rather, its order specifically denied the petition for rule to 

show cause and dismissed the petition. Order, 9/12/16. Accordingly, 

because the trial court’s order disposed of all claims and terminated the 

litigation for all parties, we will address the substantive issues before us. 

See Pa.R.A.P. 341(b)(1) (a final order is any order that disposes of all claims 

and of all parties).

As aptly noted by the trial court, Appellant’s first, second, and fourth 

issues restate the same argument, namely, that the trial court erred in not 

ordering Amanda Brezovsky (“Wife”) to either provide Appellant with a copy 

of the coroner’s report, the autopsy report, and the toxicology report or give 

permission to the coroner to release those reports.3 The trial court 

____________________________________________

3

 In Appellant’s fourth issue, she also asserted that the trial court erred in 

not ordering Wife to provide her with a copy of the death certificate. 

However, as noted in the trial court’s opinion, cited infra, Wife averred that 

she did provide Appellant with a copy of the death certificate on May 28, 

2016 and counsel for Appellant acknowledged Appellant’s receipt of two 

death certificates. N.T., 9/18/16, at 3. Furthermore, Appellant did not 

present any argument regarding the death certificate in her brief. 
J-S14027-17

explained its rationale for denying Appellant’s petition as follows:

Pursuant to the Pennsylvania Right to Know Law, “public 

record” is defined as “a record, including financial record, of a 

Commonwealth or local agency that: 1) is not exempt under 

section 708, 2) is not exempt from being disclosed under any 

other Federal or State law or regulation or judicial order or 

decree; or 3) is not protected by privilege.” 65 P.S. § 67.102. 

Section 708 details a wide variety of categories of information 

that are exempt from access by a requester of information under 

the Pennsylvania Right to Know Act. Relative to the requests in 

this Petition, 65 P.S. § 67.708(20) specifically exempts the 

following:

“[a]n autopsy record of a coroner or medical 

examiner and any audiotape or a postmortem 

examination of an autopsy, or a copy, reproduction 

or facsimile of an autopsy report, a photograph, 

negative or print, including a photograph or 

videotape of the body or any portion of the body of a 

deceased person at the scene of death or in the 

course of a post mortem examination or autopsy 

taken or made by or caused to be taken or made by 

the coroner or medical examiner. This exception 

shall not limit the reporting of the name of the 

deceased individual and the cause and manner 

of death.”

65 P.S. § 67.708(b)(20). Therefore, all of the records relating to 

the coroner’s records that were requested by [Appellant] are 

exempt under this section, and only records of a decedent’s 

name, and cause and manner of death are information that 

[Appellant] is entitled to under the law.1 Id. Additionally, in her 

Answer to the Petition, [Wife] avers that this information was 

provided to [Appellant] by the decedent’s death certificate, on 

May 28th, 2016.

1 Additionally, the Luzerne County Coroner 

sets forth the following information on its webpage: 

coroner records “. . . with the exception of cause 

and manner of death are not public records. 

Therefore these records are not available for review 

by the general public. In accordance with existing 

law, it is the policy of the Luzerne County Coroner’s 
J-S14027-17

- 6 -

office to only release the cause and manner of death 

concerning any deceased individual unless otherwise 

specifically authorized by the Coroner’s Act and 

Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas via 

subpoena.” See About the Coroner’s Office, 

http://www.luzernecounty.org/county/row_offices/co

roner /about-the coroners-office (emphasis in 

original).

Section 1251 of the Coroner’s Act provides that “[e]very 

coroner, within thirty (30) days at the end of each year, shall 

deposit all of his official records and papers for the preceding 

year in the office of the prothonotary for the inspection of all 

persons interested therein.” 16 P.S. § 1251. In Penn Jersey 

Advance, Inc. v. Grim, 599 Pa. 534, 540 (2009), the 

Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that autopsy reports are 

“official records and papers” under Section 1251. In the Brief in 

Support of Petition filed by [Appellant] on September 6th, 2016, 

counsel for [Appellant] cites only one piece of legal authority to 

support the Petition. The case cited by [Appellant] is, 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, ex. rel. District Attorney of Blair 

County In re Randy Buchanan, 583 Pa. 620 (2005), wherein the 

Supreme Court held that the Coroner’s Act requires a Coroner to 

make public autopsy reports. Notably, the Court in [that] case 

held only that the coroner was required to file the autopsy report 

within thirty (30) days at the end of each year, pursuant to 

Section 1251. The Buchanan Court did not discuss, and did not 

make any holdings, about a decedent’s spouse being required to 

provide access to the coroner’s information to a third party, as is 

at issue in this case. . . .

[Appellant] has the ability to file a request under the Right 

to Know Law, and advised the [c]ourt at the September 8th, 

2016 hearing that such a request had been filed on July 11, 

2016. Pursuant to the Right to Know Law, [Appellant] is entitled 

to the name of the deceased individual, and cause and manner 

of death from the Luzerne County Coroner. [Appellant] is also 

entitled to view any official records and papers, including the 

autopsy report as discussed above, that the Coroner files with 

the Luzerne County Prothonotary within thirty (30) days of the 

year’s end, pursuant to 16 P.S. § 1251. However, there is no 

legal basis to direct [Wife] to provide any of the requested 

information to [Appellant], or to direct [Wife] to grant 

permission to the coroner to release any other information to 
J-S14027-17

- 7 -

[Appellant]. Accordingly, upon consideration of the foregoing, 

the Order issued by this Court denying the relief requested in the 

Petition was appropriate.

Trial Court Opinion, 11/2/16, at 3–5 (emphasis in original).

In reviewing a final order of the orphans’ court, sitting without a jury, 

we accord its findings the same weight and effect as a jury verdict, and we 

will not disturb those findings absent manifest error. In re Ciaffoni, 787 

A.2d 971, 973 (Pa. Super. 2001). We shall modify an orphans’ court order 

only if the findings upon which the order relies are not supported by 

competent evidence or if the court committed an error of law, abused its 

discretion, or capriciously disregarded the evidence. Id. 

In her brief, Appellant does not challenge any of the trial court’s 

findings or aver that the trial court’s legal conclusions were erroneous. 

Appellant offers only that this Court’s decision in Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania, ex. rel. District Attorney of Blair County In re Randy 

Buchanan, 823 A.2d 147 (Pa. Super. 2003), affirmed, 880 A.2d 568 (Pa. 

2005), mandates that Wife give permission to the Luzerne County Coroner 

to release the coroner’s report, the autopsy report, and the toxicology report 

to Appellant. Appellant’s claim is unavailing. 

In Buchanan, after a local paper sought autopsy reports of a homicide 

victim, the Commonwealth sought to seal the reports. The trial court entered 

a judgment denying the request and the Commonwealth appealed. While 

noting generally that autopsy reports must be released within thirty days 
J-S14027-17

- 8 -

after end of the year pursuant to Coroner’s Act, 16 P.S. § 1251, we 

nonetheless determined that an autopsy report may remain sealed beyond 

the statutory period if the Commonwealth demonstrates that the release of 

the report would substantially hinder an ongoing criminal investigation. 

Buchanan, 823 A.2d at 151. We, therefore, reversed and remanded for the 

trial court “to conduct an in camera review of the documents involved and 

determine whether the Commonwealth has established that the release of 

the autopsy report would substantially hinder its investigation.” Id. at 153. 

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted allocator and affirmed the decision 

of this Court. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, ex. rel. District 

Attorney of Blair County In re Randy Buchanan, 880 A.2d 568 (Pa. 

2005). Notably, neither this Court nor the Pennsylvania Supreme Court 

considered whether the Coroner’s Act or the version in effect of the 

Pennsylvania Right to Know Law obligated a private person, such as Wife, to 

provide access to certain information.4 Accordingly, Appellant has failed to 

identify any legal basis compelling Wife to either produce the requested 

reports or give permission to the Luzerne County Coroner to release the 

____________________________________________

4

 Other than an incomplete citation to the current version of the 

Pennsylvania Right to Know Law, Appellant does not present any argument 

as to its applicability in this matter. 
J-S14027-17

reports. No relief is warranted.5 

Order affirmed. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 4/26/2017

____________________________________________

5

 Appellant’s brief does not address her third argument concerning the trial 

court’s responsibility to question a witness. Therefore, this issue is waived. 

See Commonwealth v. B.D.G., 959 A.2d 362, 371–372 (Pa. Super. 2008) 

(when an appellant fails to develop his issue in an argument and does not 

cite any legal authority, the abandoned issue is waived).