Hearst Television Inc. v. Coroner of Cumberland County
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
No. 112 MAP 2011 • 8 A. 3d 420
October 17, 2012
The Supreme Court held that the requirement that coroners release cause and manner of death records under the Right to Know Law (“RTKL”) does not conflict with the Coroner’s Act. Consequently, coroners are required to release copies of cause and manner of death records within the time established by the RTKL and are permitted to charge the fees assessed under the Coroner’s Act.
Background
Daniel O’Donnell, a reporter for WGAL-TV, a Hearst television station, made a RTKL request to the Coroner of Cumberland County for records related to the cause and manner of death of a Shippensburg University student.
The request potentially implicated two statutes, the RTKL and the Coroner’s Act.
Under Section 1251 of the Coroner’s Act, a coroner must provide the local prothonotary with all of the coroner’s records from the previous year within thirty days after the end of that year, and those records are then available from the prothonotary for public inspection.
Section 1236 of the Coroner’s Act grants a coroner discretion to perform certain services and provides for fees that can be charged for copies of its records.
The RTKL provides that coroners’ records are exempt from disclosure with one caveat: “this exception shall not limit the reporting of the name of the deceased individual and the cause and manner of death.”
The RTKL also states that when any of its provisions conflict with other laws, the RTKL “shall not apply.” In this case, such a conflict arises.
The Cumberland County coroner rejected O’Donnell’s request, claiming that the exemption for cause and manner of death records in the RTKL conflicted with the Coroner’s Act, which, according to the coroner, provided him with discretion to release the records publicly since they had not yet been transferred to the prothonotary.
Hearst appealed to the OOR, which affirmed the coroner’s denial. The OOR’s decision was subsequently affirmed by the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas and the Commonwealth Court. Hearst then sought the Supreme Court’s review.
Supreme Court Decision
The Supreme Court ruled that the OOR and lower courts had erred. The court explained that two statutes should be interpreted in a way that gives effect to both statutes if possible.
In a prior decision, the court had held that Section 1236.1(c) of the Coroner’s Act provides “a rapid means of procuring” a coroner’s records if a person did not want to wait until those records were transferred to the prothonotary at the end of the year, so long as the person is “willing to pay the charges” set forth under the Coroner’s Act.
Because both the RTKL and Section 1236 of the Coroner’s Act call for the immediate disclosure of cause and manner of death records, the statutes are not in conflict. A requester is entitled to immediate access to those records, but needs to pay the appropriate fee under the Coroner’s Act.