M. Fetterman v. Westmoreland County Children's Bureau; ~ Appeal of: Westmoreland County Children's Bureau, 1201 C.D. 2023

The case involves the death of three-year-old Mikel Fetterman, whose estate is represented by Michael Fetterman (Administrator).
Administrator brought a wrongful death and survival action against Westmoreland County Children’s Bureau (the Bureau), agents/employees, the child's mother, and her boyfriend, alleging the Bureau failed to act on reports of abuse.
Medical reports indicated long-term physical and sexual abuse preceding the child’s death, and criminal charges were brought against the mother and boyfriend.
Administrator requested records from the Bureau relating to investigations of abuse; the Bureau sought a protective order, citing confidentiality under the Child Protective Services Law (CPSL).
The trial court denied the Bureau's motion for a protective order, finding the Administrator was entitled to discovery as a legal representative of the deceased child; the Bureau appealed.
The appellate court considered both the appealability of the discovery order as a collateral order and whether the Administrator is entitled to confidential records as the decedent's legal representative.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the discovery order appealable as a collateral order?	Disclosure would be irreparably lost if review is delayed.	Order is not separable; not immediately appealable.	Order is appealable as a collateral order.
Is the Administrator entitled to confidential CPSL records?	Administrator stands in the shoes of the decedent; entitled to disclosure.	Confidentiality under CPSL precludes release to Administrator.	Administrator is entitled to the records as Decedent’s personal representative.
Does the existence of a signed authorization matter?	Alternative authority for release, but not necessary.	Authorization by Mother is not enough to override statutory protections.	Court did not reach this issue due to Administrator’s independent entitlement.
Does disclosure serve the public policy purpose of the CPSL?	Disclosure is necessary for accountability and CPSL’s remedial goals.	Confidentiality serves child and agency interests, not third parties.	Allowing agency to hide behind confidentiality would defeat CPSL’s purpose; disclosure serves legislative intent.

Ben v. Schwartz, 729 A.2d 547 (Pa. 1999) (Collaterality of discovery orders involving claimed privilege)
Geniviva v. Frisk, 725 A.2d 1209 (Pa. 1999) (Public policy interests required for collateral order status)
In re Kilpatrick’s Est., 84 A.2d 339 (Pa. 1951) (Personal representative stands in the decedent’s legal shoes)
V.B.T. v. Fam. Servs. of W. Pa., 705 A.2d 1325 (Pa. Super. 1998), aff'd, 728 A.2d 953 (Pa. 1999) (Purpose and confidentiality of CPSL records)