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 Appellate 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 judgment 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 judgment on the pleadings under [Pa.R.C.P. No.] 1034 of the 

Pennsylvania Rules of Civil 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 County Children and Youth Services (CYS) and 

placed on the ChildLine and Abuse Registry. Petitioner 

then filed petitions to expunge the indicated reports and, on 

appeal, the [Department of Human Services, Bureau of 

Hearings and Appeals (BHA)] sustained one indicated 

report and dismissed the other as unfounded . . . .

Meanwhile, the Department of Education, Professional 

Standards 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 in the two separate child 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 cross-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 their 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 further 
3

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

court. 

Thereafter, Petitioner filed an answer and, in 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 confidentiality provisions and 

exceptions in the CPSL, discussed the basic right to cross-examine adverse witnesses 

with prior inconsistent statements, and explained 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 harm and employment repercussions,” 

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 right 

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 rights 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 crossexamination 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 of court. Having 

overruled the BHA’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 therefore

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

(Motion, ¶¶1-7.) 

On June 18, 2018, the Commission filed an 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 pleadings in which 

it admitted the essential material facts alleged in that motion. In this 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 disputes 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, the 

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 this

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 

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

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

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

matter” 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 material fact that need 

to be decided, and the only issue presented in the motion for judgment on the 

pleadings is whether Petitioner is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In C.S., we

concluded that Petitioner pleaded a valid cause of action, one upon which relief could 

be granted. Nothing has changed since then. Therefore, this 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

orders that the BHA release and provide to Petitioner the transcripts of the pertinent 

witnesses’ testimony in the expunction proceedings; declares that Petitioner may 

utilize the 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-redacted 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 the 
7

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 ever 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 Commission must ensure the nondisclosure of those 

records that are privileged or otherwise protected from release.”) (internal quotation 

marks omitted). 

 

________________________________

PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge
IN 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 witnesses’ 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 provide 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