Clinkscale v. Department of Public Welfare, 101 A.3d 137

Cecilia Clinkscale filed an RTKL request (Aug 28, 2013) for her DPW case file held at Philadelphia County Assistance Office, West District; DPW denied the request citing Section 708(b)(28) (social services records) and other laws.
Requestor appealed to the Office of Open Records (OOR); OOR denied the appeal on Nov. 19, 2013; Requestor then appealed to this Court.
DPW asserted the appeal was moot because Requestor obtained her file on Sept. 16 and 26, 2013; the Court considered the mootness question first.
The Court found the case fell within the “capable of repetition yet evading review” exception because Requestor faced repeated administrative hearings where timely access to the file before hearing was unlikely.
On the merits, Requestor argued the RTKL denial violated her due process and right to appeal because she sought her own records and urged recognition of a common-law right to inspect one’s own records.
The Court held the RTKL governs public-record access, Section 708(b)(28) exempts social-services records regardless of who requests them, and the RTKL supplants any separate common-law access claim; it affirmed the OOR.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Mootness	Requestor: dispute remains because access timing affected her ability to use records in hearings.	DPW: appeal moot because Requestor obtained the records before appellate decision.	Court: Not moot — fits "capable of repetition yet evading review" exception.
Applicability of RTKL exemption (Section 708(b)(28))	Requestor: Exemption shouldn't apply because records contain her personal information and she seeks her own file.	DPW/OOR: Exemption focuses on type of record (social-services) not requester identity; thus exemption bars disclosure.	Court: Exemption applies; DPW file is not a public record under RTKL.
Constitutional due process / right to appeal	Requestor: Denial impaired her due process and appellate rights by preventing file access for hearings.	DPW/OOR: RTKL's framework governs access; it does not violate constitutional rights because it governs public-record disclosure scope.	Court: RTKL does not infringe Requestor's rights; denial under exemption lawful.
Common-law right to inspect one’s own records	Requestor: Courts have recognized a common-law right to inspect one’s records; that right should allow access.	DPW/OOR: RTKL codified and clarified the common-law right and provides the exclusive statutory route.	Court: No independent common-law remedy; RTKL is the governing statute.

Pap’s A.M. v. City of Erie, 812 A.2d 591 (Pa. 2002) (mootness and actual case-or-controversy principles)
Mistich v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 863 A.2d 116 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (requirements for an actual case or controversy)
Phila. Pub. Sch. Notebook v. Sch. Dist. of Phila., 49 A.3d 445 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (exceptions to mootness, including repetition that evades review)
Office of Open Records v. Center Twp., 96 A.3d 354 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (RTKL objective and presumption of access)
SWB Yankees LLC v. Wintermantel, 45 A.3d 1029 (Pa. 2012) (RTKL purpose quoted regarding public access)
Bowling v. Office of Open Records, 990 A.2d 813 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (RTKL’s remedial nature and narrow construction of exemptions)
Office of the Governor v. Scolforo, 65 A.3d 1095 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (procedural provisions of RTKL and presumption of public records)
Hunsicker v. Pa. State Police, 93 A.3d 911 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (requestor identity and motives irrelevant to exemption analysis)
Uniontown Newspapers, Inc. v. Roberts, 839 A.2d 185 (Pa. 2003) (RTKL codified and clarified common-law right of access)
Weaver v. Dep’t of Corr., 702 A.2d 370 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997) (disclosure rights under prior public-records law and requester irrelevance to access determination)