J-S14027-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN RE: ESTATE OF JUSTIN JON IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
BREZOVSKY, DECEASED, PENNSYLVANIA
v.
AMANDA BREZOVSKY,
APPEAL OF: CHARLOTTE ST. JOHN
No. 1665 MDA 2016
Appeal from the Order Entered September 12, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County
Orphans' Court at No(s): 4016-1335
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., SHOGAN and STRASSBURGER,* JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY SHOGAN, J.: FILED APRIL 26, 2017
Charlotte St. John (“Appellant”), purportedly on behalf of the Estate of
Justin Jon Brezovsky, appeals from the order of September 12, 2016,
denying Appellant’s Petition for Rule to Show Cause.1 We affirm.
____________________________________________
*
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1
We note that, despite the caption of this case, the entity, “Estate of Justin
Jon Brezovsky,” does not technically exist. The surviving spouse of Justin
Jon Brezovsky, Amanda Brezovsky, did not request the Luzerne County
Register of Wills to issue letters of administration. See 20 P.S. § 3155(b)
(outlining order in which letters of administration shall be granted by
register of wills and dictating that the surviving spouse’s right is second only
to “[t]hose entitled to the residuary estate under the will”). Appellant does
not contend that she has a right to be issued letters of administration under
the statute.
J-S14027-17
The trial court recounted the relevant factual and procedural history,
as follows:
On March 24th, 2016, Justin [Jon] Brezovsky (hereinafter
“decedent”) died unexpectedly at home at the age of thirty-four.
On August 11th, 2016, [Appellant], the decedent’s natural
mother filed a Petition for Rule to Show Cause “why decedent’s
wife, Amanda Brezovsky should not give permission to the
Luzerne County Coroner to release the Coroner’s Report, the
Toxicology Report, the Autopsy Report and any and all notes,
records and reports, prepared regarding the late Justin Jon
Brezovsky, Deceased.” [2]
* * *
A hearing was held on the Petition before this [court] on
September 8th, 2016. The matter was taken under advisement,
and finding no factual or legal basis upon which to grant the
relief requested, on September 12th, 2016, this [c]ourt entered
an Order denying and dismissing the Petition. Subsequently, on
October 6th, 2016, [Appellant], through counsel, filed a Notice of
Appeal of this [c]ourt’s Order of September 12th, 2016.
Trial Court Opinion, 11/2/16, at 1–2.
Appellant raises the following issues for review:
A. Whether the trial court erred in denying Appellant’s
petition for rule to show cause[.]
____________________________________________
2
We note that Appellant’s use of the rule to show cause procedure to
effectuate the result she sought was incorrect. A rule to show cause is not
original process with which to initiate resolution of a dispute. See Cooney v.
Pennsylvania Osteopathic Association, 253 A.2d 256 (Pa. 1969) (a rule
to show cause is not properly original process in most cases). However, in
instances where the parties and the court treat the action as a substitute for
some other recognized proceeding, the court may decide cases so
commenced on the merits. Id. at 257. The trial court herein adjudicated
this matter as a properly filed action without objection from the parties. We
shall consider the appeal similarly.
-2-
J-S14027-17
B. Whether the trial court erred in not ordering
Respondent/Appellee[] to give permission to the Luzerne County
Coroner to release the Coron[e]r’s report, toxicology report, the
autopsy report and any and all notes, records and reports
prepared regarding the late Justin Jon Brezovsky to his Mother,
Appellant.
C. Whether the trial court erred in not questioning Appellee
as to why she refuses to relinquish any information on Justin Jon
Brezovsky’s death to his Mother and family.
D. Whether the trial court erred in not ordering Appellee to
provide to Appellant a copy of a death certificate, along with the
Coroner’s report, autopsy report and toxicology report.
Appellant’s Brief at unnumbered 3 (full capitalization omitted).
Initially, we must determine if we have jurisdiction to address the
merits of Appellant’s issues. When Appellant filed her notice of appeal, she
did not provide a copy of the full trial court docket; thus, it was unclear
whether the September 12, 2016 order denying her petition for rule to show
cause was a final appealable order. On November 3, 2016, this Court
directed Appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be quashed and
to provide a copy of the full trial court docket for the underlying matter.
Although Appellant did not respond to the order, in the interim, the trial
court transmitted the record to this Court. Since it appeared that Appellant’s
petition was the only matter pending before the trial court, by per curiam
order of November 23, 2016, the appealability issue was referred to this
merits panel, and the November 3, 2016 show cause order was discharged.
In O'Neill v. Gioffre, 559 A.2d 588 (Pa. Super. 1989), we were asked
to adjudicate an appeal stemming from a trial court order discharging a rule
-3-
J-S14027-17
to show cause why a child support judgment should not be reopened.
Therein, we observed that the discharge constituted a final, appealable order
because the trial court’s order was clear that it was denying the appellant’s
petition to open the judgment. Id. at 589 n.3.
Here, the trial court docket reveals that Appellant’s petition was the
sole matter before the trial court. Furthermore, the trial court did not
discharge the rule; rather, its order specifically denied the petition for rule to
show cause and dismissed the petition. Order, 9/12/16. Accordingly,
because the trial court’s order disposed of all claims and terminated the
litigation for all parties, we will address the substantive issues before us.
See Pa.R.A.P. 341(b)(1) (a final order is any order that disposes of all claims
and of all parties).
As aptly noted by the trial court, Appellant’s first, second, and fourth
issues restate the same argument, namely, that the trial court erred in not
ordering Amanda Brezovsky (“Wife”) to either provide Appellant with a copy
of the coroner’s report, the autopsy report, and the toxicology report or give
permission to the coroner to release those reports.3 The trial court
____________________________________________
3
In Appellant’s fourth issue, she also asserted that the trial court erred in
not ordering Wife to provide her with a copy of the death certificate.
However, as noted in the trial court’s opinion, cited infra, Wife averred that
she did provide Appellant with a copy of the death certificate on May 28,
2016 and counsel for Appellant acknowledged Appellant’s receipt of two
death certificates. N.T., 9/18/16, at 3. Furthermore, Appellant did not
present any argument regarding the death certificate in her brief.
-4-
J-S14027-17
explained its rationale for denying Appellant’s petition as follows:
Pursuant to the Pennsylvania Right to Know Law, “public
record” is defined as “a record, including 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 privilege.” 65 P.S. § 67.102.
Section 708 details a wide variety of categories of information
that are exempt from access by a requester of information under
the Pennsylvania Right to Know Act. Relative to the requests in
this Petition, 65 P.S. § 67.708(20) specifically exempts the
following:
“[a]n autopsy record of a coroner or medical
examiner and any audiotape or a postmortem
examination of an 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 post mortem examination or autopsy
taken or made by or caused to be taken or made by
the coroner or medical examiner. This exception
shall not limit the reporting of the name of the
deceased individual and the cause and manner
of death.”
65 P.S. § 67.708(b)(20). Therefore, all of the records relating to
the coroner’s records that were requested by [Appellant] are
exempt under this section, and only records of a decedent’s
name, and cause and manner of death are information that
[Appellant] is entitled to under the law.1 Id. Additionally, in her
Answer to the Petition, [Wife] avers that this information was
provided to [Appellant] by the decedent’s death certificate, on
May 28th, 2016.
1
Additionally, the Luzerne County Coroner
sets forth the following information on its webpage:
coroner records “. . . with the exception of cause
and manner of death are not public records.
Therefore these records are not available for review
by the general public. In accordance with existing
law, it is the policy of the Luzerne County Coroner’s
J-S14027-17
office to only release the cause and manner of death
concerning any deceased individual unless otherwise
specifically authorized by the Coroner’s Act and
Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas via
subpoena.” See About the Coroner’s Office,
http://www.luzernecounty.org/county/row_offices/co
roner /about-the coroners-office (emphasis in
original).
Section 1251 of the Coroner’s Act provides that “[e]very
coroner, within thirty (30) days at the end of each year, shall
deposit all of his official records and papers for the preceding
year in the office of the prothonotary for the inspection of all
persons interested therein.” 16 P.S. § 1251. In Penn Jersey
Advance, Inc. v. Grim, 599 Pa. 534, 540 (2009), the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that autopsy reports are
“official records and papers” under Section 1251. In the Brief in
Support of Petition filed by [Appellant] on September 6th, 2016,
counsel for [Appellant] cites only one piece of legal authority to
support the Petition. The case cited by [Appellant] is,
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, ex. rel. District Attorney of Blair
County In re Randy Buchanan, 583 Pa. 620 (2005), wherein the
Supreme Court held that the Coroner’s Act requires a Coroner to
make public autopsy reports. Notably, the Court in [that] case
held only that the coroner was required to file the autopsy report
within thirty (30) days at the end of each year, pursuant to
Section 1251. The Buchanan Court did not discuss, and did not
make any holdings, about a decedent’s spouse being required to
provide access to the coroner’s information to a third party, as is
at issue in this case. . . .
[Appellant] has the ability to file a request under the Right
to Know Law, and advised the [c]ourt at the September 8th,
2016 hearing that such a request had been filed on July 11,
2016. Pursuant to the Right to Know Law, [Appellant] is entitled
to the name of the deceased individual, and cause and manner
of death from the Luzerne County Coroner. [Appellant] is also
entitled to view any official records and papers, including the
autopsy report as discussed above, that the Coroner files with
the Luzerne County Prothonotary within thirty (30) days of the
year’s end, pursuant to 16 P.S. § 1251. However, there is no
legal basis to direct [Wife] to provide any of the requested
information to [Appellant], or to direct [Wife] to grant
permission to the coroner to release any other information to
-6-
J-S14027-17
[Appellant]. Accordingly, upon consideration of the foregoing,
the Order issued by this Court denying the relief requested in the
Petition was appropriate.
Trial Court Opinion, 11/2/16, at 3–5 (emphasis in original).
In reviewing a final order of the orphans’ court, sitting without a jury,
we accord its findings the same weight and effect as a jury verdict, and we
will not disturb those findings absent manifest error. In re Ciaffoni, 787
A.2d 971, 973 (Pa. Super. 2001). We shall modify an orphans’ court order
only if the findings upon which the order relies are not supported by
competent evidence or if the court committed an error of law, abused its
discretion, or capriciously disregarded the evidence. Id.
In her brief, Appellant does not challenge any of the trial court’s
findings or aver that the trial court’s legal conclusions were erroneous.
Appellant offers only that this Court’s decision in Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, ex. rel. District Attorney of Blair County In re Randy
Buchanan, 823 A.2d 147 (Pa. Super. 2003), affirmed, 880 A.2d 568 (Pa.
2005), mandates that Wife give permission to the Luzerne County Coroner
to release the coroner’s report, the autopsy report, and the toxicology report
to Appellant. Appellant’s claim is unavailing.
In Buchanan, after a local paper sought autopsy reports of a homicide
victim, the Commonwealth sought to seal the reports. The trial court entered
a judgment denying the request and the Commonwealth appealed. While
noting generally that autopsy reports must be released within thirty days
-7-
J-S14027-17
after end of the year pursuant to Coroner’s Act, 16 P.S. § 1251, we
nonetheless determined that an autopsy report may remain sealed beyond
the statutory period if the Commonwealth demonstrates that the release of
the report would substantially hinder an ongoing criminal investigation.
Buchanan, 823 A.2d at 151. We, therefore, reversed and remanded for the
trial court “to conduct an in camera review of the documents involved and
determine whether the Commonwealth has established that the release of
the autopsy report would substantially hinder its investigation.” Id. at 153.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted allocator and affirmed the decision
of this Court. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, ex. rel. District
Attorney of Blair County In re Randy Buchanan, 880 A.2d 568 (Pa.
2005). Notably, neither this Court nor the Pennsylvania Supreme Court
considered whether the Coroner’s Act or the version in effect of the
Pennsylvania Right to Know Law obligated a private person, such as Wife, to
provide access to certain information.4 Accordingly, Appellant has failed to
identify any legal basis compelling Wife to either produce the requested
reports or give permission to the Luzerne County Coroner to release the
____________________________________________
4
Other than an incomplete citation to the current version of the
Pennsylvania Right to Know Law, Appellant does not present any argument
as to its applicability in this matter.
-8-
J-S14027-17
reports. No relief is warranted.5
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 4/26/2017
____________________________________________
5
Appellant’s brief does not address her third argument concerning the trial
court’s responsibility to question a witness. Therefore, this issue is waived.
See Commonwealth v. B.D.G., 959 A.2d 362, 371–372 (Pa. Super. 2008)
(when an appellant fails to develop his issue in an argument and does not
cite any legal authority, the abandoned issue is waived).