IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

C.S., :

Petitioner :

: No. 440 M.D. 2017

v. :

: Submitted: December 13 , 2018 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, : Department of Human Services, : Bureau of Hearings and Appeals, : CASE SEALED

Respondent :

BEFORE: HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge

HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE McCULLOUGH FILED: January 7 , 2019

Before the Court in our original jurisdiction is the motion for judgment

on the pleadings filed by C.S. (Petitioner) , which we treat as an application for

summary relief

. 1 The facts and procedural history of this case are set forth in C.S. v.

1 Rule 1532(b) of the Pennsylvania Rules of App ellate Procedure provides that “ [a]t any time after the filing of a petition for review in an appellate or original jurisdiction matter the court may on application enter jud gment if the right of the applicant thereto is clear.” Pa. R.A.P. 1532(b ). “Both an application for summary relief under Rule 1532 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure and a motion for judg ment on the pleadings under [Pa.R.C.P. No.] 1034 of th e Pennsylvania Rules of Civi l Procedure seek similar relief .” Pennsylvania Independent Oil and Gas Association v. Department of Environmental Protection , 146 A.3d 820, 821 n.3 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016), aff’d , 161 A.3d 949 (Pa. 2017)

.2

Department of Human Services, Bureau of Hearings and Appeals

, 184 A.3d 600 ( Pa.

Cmwlth. 2018) :

On September 29, 2017, Petitioner filed a petition for review, stylized as a “Petition for Declaratory Judgment” (Petition), averring as follows. Petitioner is certified in Pennsylvania as a professional educator. He was indicated as a perpetrator of child abuse in two separate reports filed by the Count y Children and Youth Services (CYS) and placed on the ChildL ine and Abuse Registry. Petitioner then filed petitions to expunge the indicated reports and, on appeal, the [ Department of Human Services, Burea u of Hearings and Appeals (BHA)] sustained one indicated report and dismissed the other as unfounded

. . . .
Meanwhile, the Department of Education, Professional Standa rds and Practices Commission (Commission), commenced a disciplinary proceeding against Petitioner’s professional license

. Based upon pre

- hearing statements filed with the Commission, Petitioner discovered that “persons who testified i n the two separate ch ild abuse expunction proceedings before the [BHA] are expected to testify.” (Petition, ¶9.) In filing the Petition, Petitioner desires “ to use the transcripts of the prior testimony taken from such persons in the child abuse expunction proceeding in cros s

- examining them at the upcoming hearing on the action before the . . . Commission. ” (Petition, ¶ 10 .)

According to Petitioner, the transcripts are designated as confidential information under statutory law and counsel for the Commission objects to the ir disclosure during the licensing matter. Petitioner seeks a declaration authorizing him to utilize the transcripts for the stated purpose, asserting that the theory of fundamental fairness inherent in the Due Process Clause

, [ U.S. Const. amend. XIV, §1]

, mandates this result.

On November 1, 2017, the BHA filed preliminary objections, contending that the Petition failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The BHA further3

asserts that the Petition does not conform to law or rule of

co urt.

Thereafter, Petitioner filed an answer and, i n proper course, both parties submitted briefs in support of their respective positions.

C.S.

, 184 A.3d at 603 (footnotes omitted).

In an opinion and order dated April 10, 2018, this Court overruled the

preliminary objections of the BHA. We concluded that, although the transcripts of
the witnesses’ testimony in the expungement proceedings are deemed confidential

information under the Child Protective Services Law (CPSL)

, 2 this fact must be

considered in light of the fact that Petitioner possesses a protected property interest in

the practice of his profession and a fundamental liberty interest in his reputation

. This Court in C.S. then traced and analyzed the con fidentiality provisions and

exceptions in the CPSL

, discussed the basic right to cross

- examine adverse witnesses

with prior inconsistent statements

, and e xplained that use of the transcripts by

Petitioner in the licensing matter would not likely compromise the CPSL’ s
confidential reporting system or the privacy interests of the parties involved. Noting

that “ [p]lacement on a registry for alleged child abuse causes damage to the alleged

abuser, primarily in the form of reputational har m and employment reper cussions,”

C.S. , 184 A.3d at 607, we explained that Petitioner has a “fundamental right to defend

[his] reputational interests in the face of peril,” id. at 611

- 12, and an analogous r ight
to protect himself against “ the loss of [his] professional standing, professional
reputation, and of livelihood.” Id. at 612.

In C.S. , this Court reiterated, “ It is beyond cavil that all legislative acts

have to abide by the constitution, and a statutory privilege may have to be narrowed

2 23 Pa.C.S. §§6301

- 6386.4

or yielded if it unreasonably interferes with the guarantee of due process and the right

to impeach a witness with prior inconsistent statements. ” 184 A.3d at 614 . We

concluded that due process superseded the confidentiality provisions of the CPSL :

After considering the factors enunciated in [ Mathews v. Eldridge , 424 U.S. 319 (1976)] , we conclude that, based on the allegations in the Petition, Petitioner has stated a claim upon which relief may be granted. On balance, Petitioner’s constitutional rig hts and the risk of erroneous deprivation, when compared to the Commonwealth’s interest in confidentiality, tilt toward the conclusion that Petitioner may use the transcripts on cross

- examination in the licensing matter. Given the unique circumstances of this case, we conclude that the principles comprising the due
process clause demand this outcome and that cross

examination is necessary to protect the fundamental right of reputation guaranteed to the citizens of this Commonwealth. We therefore overrule the BHA’s preliminary objection in the nature of a demurrer.

C.S. , 184 A.3d at 614 (internal quotation marks omitted).

In addition, this Court found no merit in the BHA’s preliminary

objection asserting that the Petition failed to conform to law or rule o f court. Having

overruled the BH A ’s preliminary objections, we directed the BHA to file an answer

to the Petition within 30 days.

On May 10, 2018, the BHA filed an answer in which it admitted the

essential material facts alleged in the Petition. ( BHA ’s Answer, ¶¶1

- 15.) On June

11, 2018, Petitioner filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, asserting that the

BHA did not raise an issue of disputed fact in its answer and that the case there fore

presents a pure question of law that was already decide d by this Court in C.S.

(Motion, ¶¶ 1

- 7.)

On June 18, 2018, the Commission filed a n amended petition to

intervene , which this Court granted by order dated June 21, 2018. On July 3, 2018,5

the Commission filed an answer to the motion for judgment on the p leadings in which

it admitted the essential material facts alleged in that motion. In th is answer, the

Commission asserted that it “does not take a position on whether or not Petitioner’s
request should be granted.” (Commission’ s Answer, at 2.) The Commission

, however, requested that the BHA provide it with copies of the entire transcripts of the

expungement hearings in the event this Court grants Petitioner judgment on the

pleadings.

On August 13, 2018, Petitioner filed a brief in support. In essence,

Petitioner contends that our decision in C.S. is controlling and that there are no

factual d isputes that need to be resolved or further developed.

On September 5, 2018, the Commission filed correspondence with this

Court , restating that it does not have a legal position in this matter

. As such, t he

Commission represented that it will not file a brief in support or in opposition to the

motion for the judgment on the pleadings.

On September 25, 2018, the BHA filed a brief in opposition. In th is

brief, the BHA did not contend that there are outstanding issues of factual dispute that

would preclude entry of judgment in favor of Petitioner. Instead, the BHA

incorporated by reference the arguments it advanced in its preliminary objections and

sup porting brief. Notably, the BHA “recognizes that this Court [in C.S. ] has already

considered these arguments in its order ov erruling preliminary objections. ” (BHA’s

brief at 4.) Nonetheless, the BHA stated that it is “compe lled to advocate in this

matte r ” and expresses its desire to “ act further .

. . upon issuance of a final order.” Id.6 Discussion

When ruling on a motion for judgment on the pleadings in our original

jurisdiction, we must view all of the opposing party’ s allegations as true, and only

those facts that the opposing party has specifically admitted may be considered

against the opposing party. Tulio v. Beard , 858 A.2d 156, 158 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004).

A party’ s motion for judgment on the pleadings will only be granted when there is no

issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Montgomery County v. Department of Corrections , 879 A.2d 843, 846 n. 5 (Pa.

Cmwlth. 2005).

Here, as mentioned above, there are no issues of mat erial fact t hat need

to be decided

, and the only issue presented in the motion for judgment on the

plea dings is whether Petitioner is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In C.S. , we
concluded that Petitioner ple a d ed a valid cause of action, one upon which relief could

be granted. N othing has changed since then

. Therefore, t his Court

, being bound by

C.S.

, now grants relief based upon C.S.

Accordingly, we grant the application for summary relief filed by

Petitioner in the form of a motion for judgment on the pleadings . For relief, the Court

order s that the BHA release and provide to Petitioner the transcripts of the pertinent

witness es ’ testimony in the expunction proceeding s; declares that Petitioner may

utilize t he transcripts at the licensing matter solely for purposes of cross

- examination
in a manner consistent with evidentiary rules and the Commission’s practices; and

orders that the BHA release and provide to the Commission copies of all the

transcripts, un

- re dacted and in their entirety, of the expunction proceedings. We

further order Petitioner, the BHA, and the Commission to maintain the confidential

nature of the transcripts , consistent with our observations in C.S. and to take the7

appropriate measures to ensure that all the individuals involved in the licensing

matter do so as well. See 184 A.3d at 613

- 14 (“[P]roceedings before the Commission

are closed to the public, and the transcripts of the expungement proceedings, if made

part of the record, cannot e ver be disclosed to the public

. ”); id. at 614 n.24
(“Pennsylvania law dictates that the proceedings before the Commission be closed

and conducted in a confidential manner . . . . Afterward, when the records before the

Commission become public, the Commissi on must ensure the nondisclosure of those
records that are privileged or otherwise protected from release.”) (internal quotation

marks omitted).

________________________________ PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, JudgeIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

C.S., :

Petitioner :

: No. 440 M.D. 2017

v. :

: Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, : Department of Human Services, : Bureau of Hearings and Appeals, : CASE SEALED

Respondent :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 7 th day of January , 2019

, upon consideration of the

application for special relief in the form of a motion for judgment on the pleadings

filed by C.S. (Petitioner) and the responses filed by the Department of Human

Services, Bureau of Hearings and Appeals (BHA) and the Department of

Education, Professional Standards and Practices Commission (Commission)

, said

application for special relief is hereby GRANTED.

The Court DECREES and ORDERS the following:

1. The BHA shall release and provide to Petitioner the transcripts

of the pertinent witness es ’ testimony in the expunction proceedings

.

2. Petitioner may utilize the transcripts from the expunction

proceedings in the licensing matter commenced by the Commission for purposes of

cross

- examination in a manner consistent with evidentiary rules and the

Commission’ s practices.3. The BHA shall release and pr ovide to the Commission copies

of all transcripts, un

- redacted and in their entirety, of the expunction proceedings.

4. Petitioner, the BHA, and the Commission shall maintain the

confidential nature of the transcripts, as stated in this opinion, and take the

appropriate measures to ensure that all the individuals involved in the licensing

matter do so as well.

________________________________ PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge