S. Pressley v. PA DOC, et al. (Majority Opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Sean Pressley, : Appellant : : v. : : Pennsylvania Department of : Corrections, Jeffery A. Beard, : Secretary of Corrections, : Edward Martin, Release of Information : Coordinator, and Carey Risko, : Medical Records Supervisor : BEFORE: No. 1509 C.D. 2007 Submitted: January 18, 2008 HONORABLE BERNARD L. McGINLEY, Judge HONORABLE ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Judge HONORABLE JOSEPH F. McCLOSKEY, Senior Judge OPINION NOT REPORTED MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE McGINLEY FILED: February 25, 2008 Sean Pressley (Pressley) appeals the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County (common pleas court) which denied Pressley s request to proceed in forma pauperis on the ground his complaint was frivolous.1 Pressley was incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution at Mahanoy (SCI-Mahanoy) April 1, 2007, when Pressley submitted his first 1 Pa.R.C.P. No. 240(j) provides: If, simultaneous with the commencement of an action or proceeding or the taking of an appeal, a party has filed a petition for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the court prior to acting upon the petition may dismiss the action, proceeding or appeal if the allegation of poverty is untrue or if it is satisfied that the action, proceeding or appeal is frivolous. Inmate s Request to Staff Member (Inmate s Request) to review physicians progress notes and medication orders in his file for 1997 and from April 2006, forward. He also sought the records of all his physicals conducted from 1997 forward.2 Carrie Ritsko (Ritsko),3 the medical records supervisor for SCI- Mahanoy, responded Mr. Pressley, I will call you up on a day + time that is convenient. Inmate s Request to Staff Member, April 1, 2007, at 1; Supplemental Reproduced Record (S.R.R.) at 3b. On April 8, 2007, Pressley submitted a second Inmate s Request and requested a date and time to view his medical records. Ritsko reiterated that she would schedule a date and time that was convenient for both security and her. On May 9, 2007, Pressley submitted a third Inmate s Request and requested that the records be made available to him to take notes by May 15, 2007. Ritsko responded, Mr. Pressley, I have many inmates ahead of you. I will schedule you on a day + time that is convenient with my schedule and security as time permits. Inmate s Request to Staff Member, May 9, 2007, at 1; S.R.R. at 5b. On May 20, 2007, Pressley submitted a fourth Inmate s Request and requested that Edward Martin (Martin), Superintendent s Assistant, intervene to provide the medical records. Martin responded, The medical records must be reviewed in the Medical Records Department. As a general rule, RHU [Restricted 2 Pressley also requested that he view an earlier grievance he filed. The record does not contain the subject of the grievance. Nothing concerning the grievance is before this Court. 3 Ritsko is called Risko in the caption. 2 Housing Unit] inmates are not taken to the Medical Records Offices based on security concerns. You will be permitted to review your medical records upon return to general population. Inmate s Request to Staff Member, May 20, 2007, at 1; S.R.R. at 6b. On July 3, 2007, Pressley commenced an action in the common pleas court against the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (DOC); Jeffrey A. Beard, Secretary of DOC; Martin; and Ritsko (collectively, Defendants). In the complaint, Pressley alleged: 13. There are no legitimate security concerns that the Defendants could have in taking Petitioner [Pressley] to medical to review the documents in question when Petitioner [Pressley] was just taken to medical for an eye examination in the beginning of May. 14. Additionally, the Defendants have allowed other inmates to go over to medical to review their medical records while housed in the Restricted Housing Unit. And Defendent [sic] Risko [sic] and Defendent [sic] Martin in their intial [sic] responses to Petitioners [sic] [Pressley] requests make no mention otherwhise [sic] as they knew or should have known that Petitioner [Pressley] was in the Restricted Housing Unit. 15. There is no garuantee [sic] that the Petitioner [Pressley] will be released to the general prison population in the near future as he has disciplinary custody time extending to approximately September 27 2007 and the Respondents [Defendants] could under their discretion place him on administrative custody status keeping him in the RHU [Restricted Housing Unit] indefinately [sic] 3 16. At present the Plantiff [sic] [Pressley] has currently been in the RHU [Restricted Housing Unit] for 7 straight years. Occording [sic] to the Defendents [sic] he is the restricted release list. 17. Further Petitioner [Pressley] has an immediate need to take notes from his medical records to petition the courts to force the Respondents [Defendants] to provide him with medicalk [sic] treatment for ailments that cause him severe pain and suffering. 18. Without this Courts [sic] intervention the Petitioner [Pressley] will continue to suffer unnecessary pain and suffering. Complaint, July 3, 2007, Paragraph Nos. 13-18 at 2; S.R.R. at 2b. Pressley requested that the common pleas court order Pressley s medical records be made available to him to take notes and order that DOC and the other defendants pay the costs of the litigation. Pressley also petitioned to proceed in forma pauperis. On July 17, 2007, the common pleas court determined that Pressley s cause of action was frivolous pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No. 240(j), and denied the petition to proceed in forma pauperis as moot. Pressley contends that the common pleas court erred when it determined his action was frivolous and that SCI-Mahanoy s refusal to provide access to his medical records was not just and proper.4 4 When reviewing a common pleas court s denial of an in forma pauperis petition, this Court is limited to a review of whether constitutional rights were violated or whether the common pleas court abused its discretion or committed an error of law. Thomas v. Holtz, 707 A.2d 569 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998). 4 Under Pa.R.C.P. No. 240(j), if a party files a petition for leave to proceed in forma pauperis simultaneous with the commencement of an action, the common pleas court has the authority to dismiss the action if the allegation of poverty is untrue or the action is frivolous. According to the note to Pa.R.C.P. No. 240(j), an action is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis either in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1990). Pressley asserts that he has a right to view his medical records under the act popularly known as the Right to Know Law (Law).5 Pressley asserts that his medical records are, without exception, public records under the Law. Under Section One of the Law, 65 P.S. §66.1, a public record is defined as: Any account, voucher or contract dealing with the receipt or disbursement of funds by an agency or its acquisition, use or disposal of services or of supplies, materials, equipment or other property and any minute, order or decision by an agency fixing the personal or property rights, privileges, immunities, duties or obligations of any person or group of persons: Provided, That the term public records shall not mean any report, communication or other paper, the publication of which would disclose the institution, progress or result of an investigation undertaken by an agency in the performance of its official duties, except those reports filed by agencies pertaining to safety and health in industrial plants; it shall not include any record, document, material, exhibit, pleading, report, memorandum or other paper, access to or the publication of which is prohibited, restricted or forbidden by statute law or order or decree of court, or which would operate 5 Act of June 21, 1957, P.L. 390, as amended, 65 P.S. §§66.1-66.9. 5 to the prejudice or impairment of a person s reputation or personal security, or which would result in the loss by the Commonwealth or any of its political subdivisions or commissions or State or municipal authorities of Federal funds, excepting therefrom however the record of any conviction for any criminal act. Under Section Two of the Law, 65 P.S. §66.2, [u]nless otherwise provided by law, a public record shall be accessible for inspection and duplication by a requester in accordance with this act. A requester at a state correctional institution who makes a request under the Law is not entitled to any special access. Rather, the right to access an inmate s personal records is neither more nor less than any citizen of Pennsylvania. When an inmate is a requester under the Law, the issue is whether any citizen of Pennsylvania has the right to view the inmate s records at a state correctional institution. Nanayakkara v. Casella, 681 A.2d 857 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996). In Heicklen v. Department of Corrections, 769 A.2d 1239 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001), this Court determined that an inmate s medical records were protected from disclosure as an exception to the Law because it would reveal confidential information. Julian Heicklen (Heicklen) requested that DOC permit him to inspect a document entitled, Protocol for Hepatitis C Identification and Treatment , to examine and review a survey completed regarding the number of inmates housed in state correctional facilities who at the time had Hepatitis C, and to review or copy medical documentation of inmates under DOC s care. DOC denied the request. Heicklen, 769 A.2d at 1240-1241. 6 Heicklen petitioned for review with this Court. With respect to the Protocol and the survey, this Court reversed. With respect to the medical records of the inmates, this Court held: However, petitioner [Heicklen] also seeks to review or copy medical documentation of inmates under the care of the Department [DOC]. Such information may not be disseminated to petitioner [Heicklen] since it would reveal confidential information in the inmate s medical record; thus, it is protected from disclosure as an exception to the Act. . . . Therefore, the Department properly denied Petitioner [Heicklen] access to medical documentation of inmates under the Department s care. (Citations omitted). Heicklen, 769 A.2d at 1242-1243. Here, Pressley requests access to his medical records, which are the medical records of an inmate. Given that an inmate is not treated any differently from any Pennsylvania citizen under the Law, Nanayakkara, and that medical records of inmates are not subject to review by a citizen, Heicklen, Pressley is not entitled to review his medical records under the Law. Consequently, the common pleas court did not err when it determined that Pressley s complaint was frivolous.6 Accordingly, this Court affirms. ____________________________ BERNARD L. McGINLEY, Judge 6 This Court notes that DOC has not forbidden Pressley from viewing his medical records but has not allowed him to do so while he is lodged in the Restrictive Housing Unit. Whether Pressley has a right or the ability to access his medical records, at all, was not before this Court. The issue here was whether he had a right under the Law. 7 IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Sean Pressley, : Appellant : : v. : : Pennsylvania Department of : Corrections, Jeffery A. Beard, : Secretary of Corrections, : Edward Martin, Release of Information : Coordinator, and Carey Risko, : Medical Records Supervisor : No. 1509 C.D. 2007 ORDER AND NOW, this 25th day of February, 2008, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County in the above-captioned matter is affirmed. ____________________________ BERNARD L. McGINLEY, Judge
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
