The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2009-5832 Civil IN THE MATTER OF HEARST : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF TELEVISION, INC., d/b/a WGAL- : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA TV and DANIEL O’DONNELL, : PLAINTIFFS : : V. : : MICHAEL L. NORRIS, in his : Official capacity as CORONER OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, and : THE PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF : OPEN RECORDS, : DEFENDANTS : 09-5832 CIVIL TERM IN RE: APPEAL FROM DENIAL OF REQUEST UNDER RIGHT-TO-KNOW LAW BEFORE BAYLEY, J. OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT Bayley, J., December 23, 2009:-- On April 16, 2009, Thomas Rainey, a student at Shippensburg University, was found dead in his Shippensburg apartment. The Cumberland County Coroner investigated the death. WGAL-TV sought the manner of death from the Coroner. The Coroner denied the request. Pursuant to the Pennsylvania Right-To-Know Law, 65 et seq. P.S. § 67.101 , WGAL-TV appealed to the Pennsylvania Office of Open 1 Records. On July 24, 2009, the Office of Open Records issued a final determination 2 denying the appeal. WGAL-TV appealed to this court. The parties agreed to proceed __________ 1 The Right-To-Know Law was effective on January 1, 2009. 2 There was an initial denial on May 27, 2009, followed by a request for reconsideration. 09-5832 CIVIL TERM pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 206.7 and C.C.R.P. 206.4(c), as if plaintiffs’ complaint had been a petition pursuant to Section 67.1302 of the Right-To-Know Law, and a Rule to show 3 cause had been issued. WGAL-TV maintains that the Office of Open Records made an error of law by denying its request for the Coroner to release the manner of death of Thomas Rainey. The issue was briefed and argued on December 1, 2009. Our scope of review on a Buehl v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, question of law is plenary. See 955 A.2d 488 (Pa. Commw. 2008). The responsibilities of coroners are set forth in The County Code and include authorization to investigate certain deaths for the purpose of determining “the cause of 4 any such death.” 16 P.S. § 1237(a) & (b). The provision in the Act for the release of a Section 1251 coroner’s records for public inspection is set forth in : Official records of Coroner. Every coroner, within thirty (30) days after the end of each year, shall __________ 3 Section 67.1302 provides: (a) General rule.— Within 30 days of the mailing date of the final determination of the appeals officer relating to a decision of a local agency issued under section 1101(b) or of the date a request for access is deemed denied, a requester or local agency may file a petition for review or other document as required by rule of court with the court of common pleas for the county where the local agency is located. The decision of the court shall contain findings of fact and conclusions of law based upon the evidence as a whole. The decision shall clearly and concisely explain the rationale for the decision. 4 The sections of The County Code at 16 P.S. §§ 1214 and 1231-1260, are commonly Penn Jersey Advance, Inc. v. Grim, referred to as the Coroner’s Act. 962 A.2d 632 (Pa. 2009). -2- 09-5832 CIVIL TERM deposit all of his official records and papers for the preceding year in the -3- 09-5832 CIVIL TERM office of the prothonotary for the inspection of all persons interested 5 therein. Section 1236.1 provides: Requests for examinations and reports. Requests for examinations or other professional services by (a) other counties or persons may be complied withat the discretion of the coroner pursuant to guidelines established by the county commissioners. A set of fees and charges for such examinations or professional (b) services shall be established by the coroner , subject to approval by the county commissioners, and shall be accounted for and paid to the county treasurer pursuant to section 1760. Payment for examinations or professional services shall be the responsibility of the county or person requesting such services. The coroner may charge and collect a fee (c) of up to one hundred for each autopsy report dollars ($100) , up to fifty dollars ($50) for each or coroner’s toxicology report, up to fifty dollars ($50) for each inquisition report and such other fees as may be established from time to time for other reports and documents requested by nongovernmental agencies. The fees collected shall be accounted for and paid to the county treasurer pursuant to section 1760 and shall be used to defray the expenses involved in the county complying with the provisions of the act of March 2, 1988 (P.L. 108, No. 22), referred to as the Coroners’ Education Board Law. (Emphasis added.) 65 P.S. Section 67.102 The Right-To-Know Law at defines a “public record” as: A record, including a 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 a privilege. Penn Jersey Autopsy reports are official records and papers of the coroner. __________ 5 Commonwealth v. Beaman, In 880 A.2d 578 (Pa. 2005), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that a court, to ensure the integrity of an on-going criminal investigation, may seal an autopsy report for a reasonable period beyond the thirty days after the end of each year in which the coroner shall deposit such a report with the -4- 09-5832 CIVIL TERM prothonotary under Section 1251 of the Coroner’s Act. -5- 09-5832 CIVIL TERM Advance, Inc. v. Grim, Section 67.708 962 A.2d 632 (Pa. 2009). of the Right-To- Know Law provides: (b) Exceptions.— Except as provided in subsection (c) and (d), the following are exempt from access by a requester under this act : . . . An autopsy record of a coroner (20) or medical examiner and any audiotape of a postmortem examination or 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 postmortem examination or autopsy taken or made by or accused to be taken or made by the coroner This exception shall not limit the or medical examiner. reporting of the name of the deceased individual and the cause and manner of death. (Emphasis added.) Section 67.3101.1 provides: Relation to other laws If the provisions of this act regarding access to records conflict with any other Federal or State law, the provisions of this act shall not apply. sub judice, In the case the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records concluded: [t]hat the mandate of the Coroner’s Act continues to govern public access to autopsy reports, which the [Supreme] Court has deemed to be an “official record”: of the Coroner’s Office. Thus, as official records of the coroner’s office autopsy reports are public record, as defined under the RTKL, as of the date of required filing – 30 days after the end of each year. If a citizen requests an autopsy report, and it has been filed with the prothonotary in accordance with the Coroner’s Act, the record is a public record and available under the RTKL. If the autopsy report has not yet been filed under the Coroner’s Act, the autopsy report may be protected under Section 708(b)(20) of the RTKL until made public as governed by the provisions of Coroner’s Act. Further, noting that “the ‘Manner and Cause of Death Record’ is a stand alone record that a coroner will produce when no autopsy is performed, or it may be part of -6- 09-5832 CIVIL TERM the Autopsy Report,” the Office of Open Records, citing 65 P.S. Section 67.3101.1, concluded that: The RTKL cannot require the immediate disclosure of the Manner and Cause of Death Record, as such disclosure would be in conflict with the Coroner’s Act. The Coroner is bound by the time and filing requirements set forth in the Coroner’s Act and is not required to file the record sought by the Citizen – the Manner and Cause of Death Record – until 30 days after the end of the year. ”[I]t is axiomatic that in determining legislative intent, all sections of a statute must be read together and in conjunction with each other, and construed with reference Housing Authority of Chester County v. Pennsylvania State to the entire statute.” Civil Service Commission, 730 A.2d 935 (Pa. 1999). WGAL-TV argues that while the exception to access by a requester in Section 67.708(b)(20) of the Right-To-Know Law “This exception shall includes “An autopsy record of the coroner,” the provision that not limit the reporting of the name of the deceased individual and the cause and manner of death,” requires access to a requester of such information. The Coroner argues that this provision does not mandate access by a requester to such information; rather, it does not limit it. The exceptions in Section 67.708(b) of the Right-To-Know Law are to the public records that a requester can obtain under that Law. If the intent of the legislature was to make the records of a coroner as to the name of a decedent and the cause and manner of death subject to access by a requester under the Right-To-Know Law, it could have clearly and explicitly done so. For example, it could have started Section -7- 09-5832 CIVIL TERM the following,except for the name of the deceased 67.708(b)(20) by providing: “ individual and the cause and manner of death, are exempt from access by a requester under this act.” Or it could have ended Section 67.708(b)(20) by providing: This exception shall not apply to the reporting of the name of the deceased “ individual and the cause and manner of death.” The last sentence of Section 67.708(b)(20) as written hardly reflects, as suggested by WGAL-TV in its brief, that “the took great pains General Assembly in Section 708(b)(20) of the RTKL to emphasis that Manner of Death Records must be publicly disclosed, notwithstanding language in the RTKL making autopsy records exempt from disclosure.” (Emphasis added.) Because the last sentence of Section 67.708(b)(20) is not clear and explicit we may resort to rules of statutory interpretation or look to the legislative history of the provision. See Commonwealth v. Bell, 512 Pa. 334 (1986). In attempting to ascertain the meaning of a statute, we are required to consider the intent of the legislature and are permitted to examine Commonwealth v. Stewart, the practical consequences of a particular interpretation. 375 Pa. Super. 585 (1988). We made a search of the legislative record in an effort to gain some insight as to the intent of the last sentence of Section 67.708(b)(20). The provision in the 6 original bill was as follows: This exception shall not limit the 8 reporting of the name of the deceased individual, the cause 9 of death and whether the death was caused by criminal __________ 6 We have retained the legislative line numbers that are on the document. -8- 09-5832 CIVIL TERM 10 activity or criminal negligence in accordance with section 11 1251 of the act of August 9, 1955 (P.L. 323, No.130), known as 12 The County Code. -9- 09-5832 CIVIL TERM This following amendment was added in the House of Representatives: This exception shall not limit the 8 reporting of the name of the deceased individual, the cause 9 of death and whether the death was caused by criminal 10 activity or criminal negligence and the cause and manner of death to all persons interested therein in accordance with section 11 1251 of the act of August 9, 1955 (P.L. 323, No.130), known as 12 The County Code. This final amendment, which became law, was added in the Senate: This exception shall not limit the 8 reporting of the name of the deceased individual and the cause and manner of death to all persons interested therein in accordance with section 11 1251 of the act of August 9, 1955 (P.L. 323, No.130), known as 12 The County Code. Thus, in the original bill and the first amendment passed in the House of Representatives, the last sentence in Section 708(b)(20) was specifically referenced to The County Code (Coroner’s Act). The final amendment in the Senate, which became law, changed the last sentence slightly and took out the specific reference to The County Code (Coroner’s Act). Notwithstanding, the way the last sentence of Section 708(b)(20) is written makes sense if it is a reference to not limiting information that a coroner may release under the Coroner’s Act. When the final amendment was passed we do not believe that it was the intent of the legislature at that point to make a wholesale change of purpose where as the last sentence was no longer intended to -10- 09-5832 CIVIL TERM reference the Coroner’s Act but instead was intended to act as an exception to the exception that autopsy reports and other related official records of a coroner are not public records that a requester can obtain under the Right-To-Know Law. If that was a new purpose, the legislature would have changed the “shall not limit” language to something clear and explicit. Accordingly, we conclude that the intent of the legislature in the last sentence of Section 708(b)(20), as maintained by the Coroner, is not to mandate access by a requester to the reporting of the name of the deceased individual and the cause and manner of death; rather, it does not limit it. That comports with the Penn Jersey Advance, Inc. v. Grim, supra, decision in in which the Supreme Court recognized that a coroner, pursuant to Section 1236.1(c) of the Coroner’s Act, may release autopsy records prior to filing them with the prothonotary within thirty days after the end of each year. The Court stated: By the terms of Section 1251, the records that a coroner must deposit with the prothonotary are not available until thirty days after the end of each year, at which time interested persons may “inspect” such records. Section 1236.1, which is entitled “Requests for examinations and reports,” authorizes a coroner to charge up to $100 for each autopsy report, without mention of any time requirements. 16 P.S. § 1236.1(c). Thus, Section 1236.1 merely provides a rapid means of an procuring autopsy report for those who do not wish to wait until after the end of the year, and who are also willing to pay the charges associated with procuring it. (Emphasis added.) Accordingly, there is nothing in the Coroner’s Act that prohibits the Coroner from releasing an autopsy report or related records before they are filed with a prothonotary pursuant to Section 1251. Section 708(b)(20) of the Right-To-Know Law -11- 09-5832 CIVIL TERM does not mandate it with respect to the name of the deceased individual and the cause 7 and manner of death. The Pennsylvania Office of Open Records was correct in concluding that the Coroner’s Act continues to govern public access to autopsy reports. For the foregoing reasons, the following order is entered. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of December, 2009, the decision of the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records that the manner of death of Thomas Rainey need not be disclosed by the Coroner of Cumberland County to WGAL-TV pursuant to the Right-To- IS SUSTAINED. Know Law, By the Court, Edgar B. Bayley, J. __________ 7 This resolution makes it unnecessary to address the Coroner’s alternative position that if the last sentence of Section 708(b)(20) requires that the name of the deceased individual and the cause and manner of death are subject to disclosure to a requester, that provision is in conflict with Section 1236.1 of the Coroner’s Act, and thus not subject to disclosure under Section 67.3101.1 of the Right-To-Know Law, which provides: Relation to other laws If the provisions of this actconflict regarding access to records with anyState law, the provisions of this act shall not other Federal or apply. (Emphasis added.) -12- 09-5832 CIVIL TERM Stephen H. Yuhan, Esquire thth 300 West 57 Street, 40 Floor New York, NY 10019 Michael Berry, Esquire 2112 Walnut Street, Third Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 For Plaintiffs Marlin McCaleb, Esquire 219 East Main Street PO box 230 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 For Michael L. Norris, Coroner of Cumberland County Corinna Vescey Wilson, Esquire Pennsylvania Office of Open Records Commonwealth Keystone Building 400 North Street, Fourth Floor Harrisburg, PA 17120 :sal -13- IN THE MATTER OF HEARST : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF TELEVISION, INC., d/b/a WGAL- : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA TV and DANIEL O’DONNELL, : PLAINTIFFS : : V. : : MICHAEL L. NORRIS, in his : Official capacity as CORONER OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, and : THE PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF : OPEN RECORDS, : DEFENDANTS : 09-5832 CIVIL TERM IN RE: APPEAL FROM DENIAL OF REQUEST UNDER RIGHT-TO-KNOW LAW BEFORE BAYLEY, J. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of December, 2009, the decision of the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records that the manner of death of Thomas Rainey need not be disclosed by the Coroner of Cumberland County to WGAL-TV pursuant to the Right-To- IS SUSTAINED. Know Law, By the Court, Edgar B. Bayley, J. 09-5832 CIVIL TERM Stephen H. Yuhan, Esquire thth 300 West 57 Street, 40 Floor New York, NY 10019 Michael Berry, Esquire 2112 Walnut Street, Third Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 For Plaintiffs Marlin McCaleb, Esquire 219 East Main Street PO box 230 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 For Michael L. Norris, Coroner of Cumberland County Corinna Vescey Wilson, Esquire Pennsylvania Office of Open Records Commonwealth Keystone Building 400 North Street, Fourth Floor Harrisburg, PA 17120 :sal -2-