Allegheny County v. B. Hailer and Pittsburgh Current ( 2023 )


Menu:
  •             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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 1469 C.D. 2021

Judges: Ceisler, J. ~ Dissenting Opinion by Wojcik, J.

Filed Date: 7/11/2023

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 7/11/2023