Court Opinion

ID: 9408210
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-11 19:08:52.888945+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:42.778263
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Allegheny County                          :
                                          :
       v.                                 : No. 1469 C.D. 2021
                                          :
Brittany Hailer and Pittsburgh            :
Current,                                  :
                   Appellants             : Argued: May 10, 2023

BEFORE:       HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge
              HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge
              HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
              HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge
              HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge
              HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge
              HONORABLE STACY WALLACE, Judge

OPINION BY JUDGE CEISLER                                        FILED: July 11, 2023

       Brittany Hailer (Hailer) and Pittsburgh Current (collectively, Requesters),
appeal from the December 1, 2021 order of the Allegheny County (County) Court
of Common Pleas (trial court), which reversed a March 31, 2021 Final
Determination by the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records (OOR) that Requesters
were entitled to autopsy and toxicology records possessed by the County Office of
the Medical Examiner. The trial court held that, pursuant to Section 708(b)(20) of
the Right-to-Know Law (RTKL)1 and Section 1252-B of The County Code (Code),

       1
        Act of February 14, 2008, P.L. 6, 65 P.S. § 67.708(b)(20). Section 708(b)(20) of the
RTKL provides, in part, that the autopsy records of a coroner or medical examiner are exempt
from disclosure; however, Section 708(b)(20) permits the release of the deceased individual’s
name and the cause and manner of death.
in what is commonly known as the Coroner’s Act,2 the requested records were only
available to nongovernmental agencies seeking information for the purpose of
investigating an insurance claim or determining liability for the death of a decedent.
After review, we reverse the trial court and direct the County to produce the
requested records.

                                         I. Background
       Under Section 305 of the RTKL,3 records in possession of a Commonwealth
agency are presumed to be public unless they are exempt under Section 708 of the
RTKL,4 protected by a privilege, or exempt under any other federal or state law or
regulation or judicial order or decree. Section 708(b)(20) of the RTKL, 65 P.S. §
67.708(b)(20), exempts from disclosure a coroner’s autopsy records, including
audiotapes, photographs, and video recordings. The name of the deceased and the
cause and manner of his or her death may be reported. The RTKL “shall not
apply[,]” however, when any of its provisions regarding access conflict with any

       2
        Act of August 9, 1955, P.L. 323, as amended, added by the Act of October 24, 2018, P.L.
931, No. 154 (Act 154), 16 P.S. § 1252-B. Section 1252-B of the Coroner’s Act relevantly
mandates that

                [t]he coroner shall charge and collect a fee of $500 for an autopsy
                report, $100 for a toxicology report, $100 for an inquisition or
                coroner’s report, $50 for a cremation or disposition authorization
                and other fees as may be established from time to time for other
                reports or documents requested by nongovernmental agencies
                in order to investigate a claim asserted under a policy of
                insurance or to determine liability for the death of the deceased.
16 P.S. § 1252-B (emphasis added). The Coroner’s Act is found in Article XII-B of the Code.

       3
           65 P.S. § 67.305.

       4
           65 P.S. § 67.708.

                                                2
other federal or state law.5 Therefore, Section 708(b)(20) of the RTKL restricts
access to a coroner’s autopsy records, unless access is otherwise provided by law.
      Access to a coroner’s records is otherwise provided for under Section 1252-B
of the Coroner’s Act, which states that the coroner “shall charge and collect” a fee,
as specified, for providing an autopsy report, toxicology report, inquisition or
coroner’s report, and cremation or disposition authorization, as well as “other fees
as may be established from time to time for other reports or documents
requested by nongovernmental agencies in order to investigate a claim asserted
under a policy of insurance or to determine liability for the death of the
deceased . . . . 16 P.S. § 1252-B (emphasis added).
      On December 23, 2020, Requesters submitted a RTKL request (Request) to
the County, seeking “the Autopsy/External Examination and Toxicology Report for
Daniel A. Pastorek,” who died while in the custody of the County Jail. Reproduced
Record (R.R.) at 15a. Jerry Tyskiewicz, the County’s open records officer (ORO),
denied the Request, citing Section 708(b)(20) of the RTKL. Id. at 16a. As permitted
by Section 708(b)(20) of the RTKL, the County provided Requesters the cause and
manner of Mr. Pastorek’s death. Id. at 107a.
      Requesters appealed to the OOR, which granted their appeal after concluding
that the requested records were accessible upon payment of the appropriate fee, as
set forth in Section 1252-B of the Coroner’s Act. Id. at 5a. The OOR also relied on
Hearst Television, Inc. v. Norris, 54 A.3d 23 (Pa. 2012), in which our Supreme Court
held that the Coroner’s Act did not grant a coroner discretion over the release of

      5
          Section 3101.1 of the RTKL, 65 P.S. § 67.3101.1 (emphasis added).

                                               3
records.6 Accordingly, the OOR directed that the County produce the records sought
in the Request. Id. at 6a.
       The County filed a petition for review (PFR) with the trial court, arguing that
the requested records constituted coroner records that were exempt from disclosure
under Section 708(b)(20) of the RTKL.7 The County also argued that Section 1252-
B of the Coroner’s Act only permitted disclosure of coroner records if requested by
a nongovernmental agency seeking information for the purpose of investigating an
insurance claim or determining liability for the death of a decedent. Id. at 11a-12a.
In support of their position, Requesters submitted an affidavit from Hailer, an
investigative reporter, who advised that the Request was filed as part of her research

       6
        In rendering its decision, the Hearst Court reviewed former Sections 1236.1(c) and 1251
of the Coroner’s Act. Former Section 1236.1(c) of the Coroner’s Act, added by the Act of
November 29, 1990, P.L. 602, formerly 16 P.S. § 1236.1(c), which Act 154 repealed, relevantly
provided as follows:

                       (c) The coroner may charge and collect a fee of up to one
               hundred dollars ($100) for each autopsy report, up to fifty dollars
               ($50) for each toxicology report, up to fifty dollars ($50) for each
               inquisition or coroner's report and such other fees as may be
               established from time to time for other reports and documents
               requested by nongovernmental agencies.

        Former Section 1251 of the Coroner’s Act, also repealed by Act 154, required every
coroner to deposit all “official records and papers for the preceding year in the [O]ffice of the
[P]rothonotary for the inspection of all persons interested therein.” Formerly 16 P.S. § 1251. The
Hearst Court reasoned that former Section 1251 required the deposit of all official coroner records
and papers with the prothonotary within 30 days after the end of each year “for the interest of all
persons interested therein.” Hearst, 54 A.3d at 25. For those unwilling to wait until after the end
of the year, former Section 1236.1(c) established a fee schedule for obtaining the same records.
Id. at 33.

       7
         The County also argued the records were exempt under Section 708(b)(17) of the RTKL
as records relating to an agency’s non-criminal investigation. 65 P.S. § 67.708(b)(17). Disclosure
under Section 708(b)(17) is not an issue before the Court.

                                                4
into whether conditions at the County Jail contributed to Mr. Pastorek’s death. Id.
at 167a.
       The trial court reversed the OOR in an order and opinion issued on December
1, 2021. Original Record (O.R.), Item No. 1 at 6. The trial court disagreed that
Hearst controlled its disposition, as the Hearst Court analyzed statutory provisions
that were repealed when Section 1252-B of the Coroner’s Act was enacted by Act
154. Id. at 5. Instead, the trial court relied on Section 1252-B, which mandates that
               [t]he coroner shall charge and collect a fee of $500 for
               an autopsy report, $100 for a toxicology report, $100 for
               an inquisition or coroner’s report, $50 for a cremation or
               disposition authorization and other fees as may be
               established from time to time for other reports or
               documents requested by nongovernmental agencies in
               order to investigate a claim asserted under a policy of
               insurance or to determine liability for the death of the
               deceased.

16 P.S. § 1252-B (emphasis added).
       The trial court narrowly construed the bolded language above to require that
a coroner exercise discretion in determining whether anyone seeking coroner records
was a nongovernmental agency and whether the information sought was for the
purpose of investigating an insurance claim or determining liability for the death of
the deceased. O.R., Item No. 1 at 4. Therefore, Requesters were only entitled to the
records at issue if they qualified as a nongovernmental agency seeking to determine
liability for the death of the deceased; otherwise, the trial court reasoned that anyone
“with a good cause” would be entitled to access information about a death.8 Id. The
trial court opined that a determination of liability for an individual’s death was an
issue that was typically decided by a court. Id. Hailer’s work, although “a laudable

       8
        The trial court noted that Requesters had not asserted they were investigating an insurance
claim. O.R., Item No. 1 at 3.

                                                5
activity,” did not encompass such a “legal process[.]” Accordingly, the trial court
granted the County’s PFR. Id. at 6. This appeal followed.9
                                                 II. Issues
       On appeal, Requesters argue that the trial court misapplied Section 1252-B of
the Coroner’s Act and misconstrued the Supreme Court’s holding in Hearst.10
                                          III.     Discussion
       Requesters argue that the trial court erred in concluding that they were not
entitled to the coroner records for Mr. Pastorek because Hailer’s journalistic research
did not implicate the legal process of determining liability for his death. The trial
court further erred in concluding that Section 1252-B of the Coroner’s Act grants a
coroner the discretion to determine a nongovernmental agency’s entitlement to

       9
           Our review of the trial court’s decision is limited to whether the findings of fact are
supported by competent evidence, whether the trial court committed an error of law, or whether
the trial court abused its discretion in reaching a decision. In re Right to Know Law Request Served
on Venango Cnty.’s Tourism Promotion Agency & Lead Econ. Dev. Agency, 83 A.3d 1101, 1104
n.3 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014).

       10
           Amicus Pennsylvania State Coroner’s Association (PSCA) filed a brief in support of the
trial court’s decision, arguing that release of the requested records is governed by the Public Access
Policy of the Unified Judicial System (UJS Policy), found at 204 Pa. Code § 213.81. The PSCA
also argues that the records at issue implicate Section 1320d-6 of the Health Insurance Portability
and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), 42 U.S.C. § 1320d-6, and that Section 1236-B of the
Code, added by Act 154 does not require disclosure of all records maintained by a coroner. We
decline to address these contentions, as neither party raised an issue regarding the UJS Policy or
HIPAA, and the County expressly denied that Section 1236-B applied in the instant matter.
Amicus briefs cannot raise issues not set forth by the parties. Banfield v. Cortes, 110 A.3d 155,
172 n.14 (Pa. 2015).

        Amicus briefs were also filed in support of Requesters by the Abolitionist Law Center and
the Pennsylvania Institutional Law Project, and by the Pennsylvania Newsmedia Association and
the Cornell Law School First Amendment Clinic, which largely address the public policy
considerations favoring disclosure and which reject the trial court’s interpretation of Section 1252-
B of the Code. We will consider these arguments to the extent they address issues already raised
by the parties.

                                                   6
autopsy and toxicology reports. Requesters acknowledge that the language in
Section 1252-B of the Coroner’s Act differs from that of its precursor, former
Section 1236.1(c), which did not contain language regarding insurance claims or
determinations of liability for the death of a decedent.        Requesters maintain,
however, that inclusion of such language in Section 1252-B of the Coroner’s Act
does not reflect an intention by the General Assembly (GA) to limit the types of
requesters that may access coroner records, or the purposes for which requesters may
seek such records.
      “The object of all interpretation and construction of statutes is to ascertain and
effectuate the intention of the [GA].” 1 Pa.C.S. § 1921(a). In the absence of a
demonstrated constitutional infirmity, courts must generally apply the plain terms of
a statute, as written. Lower Swatara Twp. v. Pa. Lab. Rels. Bd., 208 A.3d 521, 530
(Pa. Cmwlth. 2019). Where the plain language in a statute is unambiguous, we must
apply that language “without employing familiar canons of construction and without
considering legislative intent.” Dubose v. Quinlan, 173 A.3d 634, 643 (Pa. 2017).
The plainness or ambiguity of statutory language is determined by reference to the
language itself, as well as the specific context in which the language is used and the
broader context of the statute as a whole. Roethlein v. Portnoff Law Assocs., Ltd.,
81 A.3d 816, 822 (Pa. 2013). We must not interpret statutory words in isolation but
must read them with reference to the context in which they appear. Id. Moreover,
we must presume that the GA “does not intend a result that is absurd, impossible of
execution[,] or unreasonable.” 1 Pa.C.S. § 1922(1).
      Having reviewed the language of Section 1252-B and having considered the
context in which Section 1252-B appears in the Coroner’s Act, we need not reach
beyond the plain text of the statute to dispose of Requesters’ appeal. Section 1252-

                                          7
B is, essentially, a fee schedule that establishes the costs to be collected for coroner
reports.11 The coroner “shall charge and collect” the fee designated for autopsy
reports, toxicology reports, inquisitions or coroner’s reports, and cremation or
disposition authorizations. The coroner “shall charge and collect” other fees, as
established, for “reports and documents requested by nongovernmental agencies in
order to investigate a claim asserted under a policy of insurance or to determine
liability for the death of the deceased.”12 Section 1252-B does not limit the receipt
of coroner records to nongovernmental agencies seeking records for the purpose of
investigating insurance claims or determining liability for the death of a decedent.
Rather, Section 1252-B requires that a coroner shall also “charge and collect” other
fees that have been established for nongovernmental agency requests relating to
those discrete types of inquiries.
       Our conclusion also finds support in the language of Section 1236-B of the
Coroner’s Act, as coroner records and papers in counties of the third through eighth
class are publicly accessible “within 30 days after the end of each year” following
the deposit of such records “in the Office of the Prothonotary for the inspection of
all persons interested therein.” 16 P.S. § 1236-B. Section 102(a) of the Code
relevantly provides that its provisions do not apply to counties of the first and second
class, “[e]xcept . . . as provided in . . . Article XII-B[, the Coroner’s Act.]” 16 P.S.
§ 102(a). Based on its population, the County is a second-class county, and the only

       11
         The subchapter in which Section 1252-B appears contains one other statutory provision,
Section 1251-B, which governs the right of a coroner to recover costs following the disposition of
a deceased at county expense. Added by Act 154, 16 P.S. § 1251-B.

       12
            16 P.S. § 1252-B.

                                                8
county classified as such.13 Philadelphia County is a first-class county.14 Accepting
the conclusions of the trial court would lead to the absurd result that a requester
could receive autopsy records located anywhere in the Commonwealth, unless those
records are located in the County or Philadelphia County. In the latter circumstance,
only a nongovernmental agency investigating an insurance claim or determining
liability for a decedent’s death is permitted access to coroner records. There is no
language in the RTKL or the Coroner’s Act to suggest that access to certain public
records depends on the county class in which the records are located.
       Indeed, a review of Section 1252-B’s legislative history, while unnecessary
given the plain language of the statute, lends further support to our conclusion that
access to coroner records is not limited to the circumstances delineated by the trial
court. The language of Section 1252-B of the Coroner’s Act was contained within
Section 22 of Senate Bill 1005 (SB 1005), which ultimately became Act 154. Earlier
drafts of SB 1005 would have explicitly provided that Section 1252-B did not
authorize disclosure of any record exempt from public access under the RTKL.15
This language was struck from subsequent versions of SB 1005,16 a strong indicator

       13
         Section 210(2) of the Code, 16 P.S. § 210(2); DeFazio v. Civ. Serv. Comm’n of Allegheny
Cnty., 756 A.2s 1103 (Pa. 2000).

       14
         Section 210(1) of the Code, 16 P.S. § 210(1); Lohr v. Saratoga Partners, L.P., 238 A.3d
1198, 1200 (Pa. 2020).

       15
           See Senate Bill 1005, Printer’s No. 1782, at 85-86, May 22, 2018.
        https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/PN/Public/btCheck.cfm?txtType=PDF&sessYr
=2017&sessInd=0&billBody=S&billTyp=B&billNbr=1005&pn=1782 (emphasis added) (last
visited July 10, 2023).

       16
         See Senate Bill No. 1005, Printer’s No. 2026, September 25, 2018.
      https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/PN/Public/btCheck.cfm?txtType=PDF&sessYr
=2017&sessInd=0&billBody=S&billTyp=B&billNbr=1005&pn=2026 (last visited July 10,
(Footnote continued on next page…)

                                               9
that the General Assembly intended that coroner records would be publicly
accessible, provided the appropriate fee was paid.
       Based on the above analysis, we conclude that the trial court erred in reversing
the OOR, as production of the records sought by Requesters only requires payment
of the fees set forth in Section 1252-B of the Coroner’s Act. Given our disposition
of this issue, we need not address the continued viability of Hearst. Accordingly,
we reverse the order of the trial court and direct that the County produce records
responsive to the Request.

                                               ____________________________
                                               ELLEN CEISLER, Judge

2023). Act 154 also enacted Section 1236-B of the Code, 16 P.S. § 1236-B. Earlier drafts of
Section 1236-B provided, in relevant part, that “[e]xcept as provided under this article, public
disclosure of a coroner record shall be in accordance with the [RTKL.]” See Senate Bill 1005,
Printer’s No. 1782, at 84, May 22, 2018.
        https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/PN/Public/btCheck.cfm?txtType=PDF&sessYr
=2017&sessInd=0&billBody=S&billTyp=B&billNbr=1005&pn=1782 (emphasis added) (last
viewed July 10, 2023). This language was deleted and replaced with the current text of Section
1236-B.

                                              10
            IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Allegheny County                             :
                                             :
      v.                                     : No. 1469 C.D. 2021
                                             :
Brittany Hailer and Pittsburgh               :
Current,                                     :
                   Appellants                :

                                          ORDER

      AND NOW, this 11th day of July, 2023, the December 1, 2021 order of the
Allegheny County (County) Court of Common Pleas is hereby REVERSED. The
County is directed to produce the records responsive to the December 23, 2020
request submitted by Brittany Hailer and Pittsburgh Current pursuant to the Right-
to-Know Law.1

                                                ____________________________
                                                ELLEN CEISLER, Judge

      1
          Act of February 14, 2008, P.L. 6, 65 P.S. §§ 67.101-67.3104.
             IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Allegheny County                     :
                                     :
             v.                      : No. 1469 C.D. 2021
                                     : Argued: May 10, 2023
Brittany Hailer and Pittsburgh       :
Current,                             :
                                     :
                          Appellants :

BEFORE:         HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge
                HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge
                HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
                HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge
                HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge
                HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge
                HONORABLE STACY WALLACE, Judge

DISSENTING OPINION
BY JUDGE WOJCIK                                                    FILED: July 11, 2023

                I respectfully dissent.
                There is simply no provision in the Coroner’s Act1 that requires the
Allegheny County Office of the Medical Examiner to disclose autopsy and
toxicology records to the general public at any time.2 As a result, there is no conflict

       1
           Act of August 9, 1955, P.L. 323, as amended, 16 P.S. §§1231–1260.

       2
         Contrary to the Majority’s assertion, treating the Allegheny County Medical Examiner’s
Office records differently from other Medical Examiner’s Offices in the Commonwealth based on
county classification does not lead to an absurd result. Indeed, the County Records Act of 1963,
Act of August 14, 1963 (County Records Act), P.L. 839, No. 407, as amended, 16 P.S. §§13001-
13006, also treats the records retained by the various county offices throughout the Commonwealth
(Footnote continued on next page…)
between Section 708(b)(20) of the Right-to-Know Law (RTKL)3 and the Coroner’s
Act, so Section 708(b)(20) controls and exempts the requested records herein from
disclosure under the RTKL.4

differently based on county classification. As the Official Note to Rule 507 of the Pennsylvania
Rules of Judicial Administration (Pa.R.J.A.) explains:

                        The record retention schedules promulgated by the County
                Records Committee [under the County Records Act] are only
                applicable to county offices of counties of the second through eighth
                classes, since the County Records Act, as amended, is only
                applicable to counties of the second through eighth classes.
                Accordingly, none of the county offices of the counties of the first
                class are governed by the County Records Act. Nonetheless, many
                of the county offices of the counties of the first class which support
                the Unified Judicial System unofficially utilize the record retention
                schedules promulgated by the County Records Committee in
                disposing official records within their control. In order to foster
                uniformity among these offices, [Pa.R.J.A. 507(a)(2)] was added,
                specifically listing the offices within the counties of the first class
                which must henceforth comply with the record retention schedules
                promulgated by the County Records Committee.

Pa.R.J.A. 507, Official Note. Likewise, it is patently within the purview of the General Assembly
to treat the records of the various Medical Examiner’s Offices throughout the Commonwealth
differently under the Coroner’s Act based on the differing county classifications. See, e.g., article
III, section 20 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, Pa. Const. art. III, §20 (“The Legislature shall
have power to classify counties . . . according to population, and all laws passed relating to each
class . . . shall be deemed general legislation within the meaning of this Constitution.”);
Commonwealth ex rel. Kelley v. Cantrell, 193 A. 655, 661 (Pa. 1937) (“Classification is primarily
a legislative question. For us now to hold invalid the classification adopted in the act before us
would be to disregard completely [article III, section 20], which was adopted in order to permit
the enactment of legislation such as this--framed to meet the exigencies peculiar to one of the
various classes of counties within the Commonwealth.”).

       3
           Act of February 14, 2008, P.L. 6, 65 P.S. §67.708(b)(20).

       4
         It is in this respect that the instant case may be distinguished from Hearst Television, Inc.
v. Norris, 54 A.3d 23 (Pa. 2012), and Penn Jersey Advance, Inc. v. Grim, 962 A.2d 632 (Pa. 2009).
                                              MHW-2
               Accordingly, unlike the Majority, I would affirm the order of the
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas in this case.5

                                               MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge

       5
          It is well settled that this Court may affirm the trial court’s order on any basis appearing
in the record. Feldman v. Lafayette Green Condominium Association, 806 A.2d 497, 502 n.3 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 2002).
                                             MHW-3