Jump To

Top Caption [Lead Opinion

                  by Dumas](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10808389/rm-heiligman-v-pa-dept-of-ag-oor/about:blank#o1)

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 13, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

R.M. Heiligman v. PA Dept. of Ag. (OOR)

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 165 C.D. 2025
• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Judges: Dumas

• Opinion

• Authorities (7)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (594)

• PDF

Lead Opinion

                        by Dumas

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Robert M. Heiligman, :
Petitioner :
: No. 165 C.D. 2025
v. :
: Submitted: February 4, 2026
Pennsylvania Department of :
Agriculture (Office of Open Records), :
Respondent :

BEFORE: HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge
HONORABLE LORI A. DUMAS, Judge
HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY
JUDGE DUMAS FILED: March 13, 2026

Robert M. Heiligman (Heiligman) has petitioned this Court to review a
Final Determination issued by the Office of Open Records (OOR) on January 31,
2025. Through that Final Determination, the OOR denied Heiligman’s appeal
regarding the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture’s (Department) denial of his
Right-to-Know Law (RTKL)1 request, which pertained to necropsies performed in
Pennsylvania on two deceased animals from the Brandywine Zoo in Wilmington,
Delaware. We affirm.

1
Act of February 14, 2008, P.L. 6, 65 P.S. §§ 67.101-67.3104.
I. BACKGROUND2
In order to properly contextualize the matter currently before us, we
must first recount what transpired regarding a previous, similar RTKL request made
by Heiligman. On June 13, 2024, the Department received an RTKL request from
Heiligman, through which he made the following request for records that pertained
to an animal that had died at the Brandywine Zoo:
Complete pathology records pertaining to the necropsy of
Haechan, a pudu (very small deer). Necropsy was
performed through the Pennsylvania Animal Diagnostic
Laboratory System (PADLS) New Bolton Center (NBC).
Accession Number N2222607. Date of (final) report
07/25/2022. Case Coordinator Dr. Susan Bender. Please
include the Final Report AND all other notes and
correspondence regarding the necropsy (including
correspondence between the NBC and the Associated
Parties listed in the report, such as Samantha King,
DVM[,] and the Brandywine Zoo). Please include
measured physical data[,] such as the weight and
dimensions of the corpse[,] and please also include any
photographs that were taken of the intact corpse, parts[,]
or organs of the corpse[,] and photos of histopathological
specimens including the major organs (such as the
kidneys). I would appreciate delivery of the documents in
an electronic form (e.g. .pdf or .jpg files). Thank you very
much.
Final Determination, 10/29/24, at 1. On July 22, 2024, the Department granted this
request in part, “asserting that to the extent that the [r]equest sought records in the
possession of the Department, it was providing a responsive final necropsy report,
and record of the submission request to the [NBC] from the Brandywine Zoo to have
the subject necropsy done [on Haechan].” Dep’t’s Resp. to Heiligman’s Haechan

2
We draw the bulk of this section’s substance from the OOR’s Final Determination in this
matter, as well as the OOR’s Final Determination regarding Heiligman’s RTKL request for similar
information relating to the death of another animal at the Brandywine Zoo. See generally Final
Determination, 1/31/25; Final Determination, 10/29/24.

2
RTKL Request, 7/22/24, at 1. The Department also denied this request in part,
asserting that it did not have the sought-after photographs in its possession, custody,
or control. Id.
Heiligman replied on July 22, 2024, with what amounted to a
reconsideration request. The Department then issued an amended response on July
24, 2024, through which it clarified its original response by explaining that the
Haechan necropsy had not been conducted at the Department’s behest, as well as
that NBC was not a Department appendage. Dep’t’s Am. Resp. to Heiligman’s
Haechan RTKL Request, 7/24/24, at 2. Accordingly, the Department took the
position that the requested materials did not constitute Department records for
purposes of the RTKL and that it had divulged the final necropsy report and
submission request to Heiligman as a matter of grace, despite not being legally
obligated to do so under the RTKL. Id.
Heiligman then appealed the Department’s partial denial of his RTKL
request for Haechan-related records to the OOR on July 25, 2025. The OOR
subsequently dismissed the appeal as moot in part and denied it in part on October
29, 2024. Specifically, the OOR ruled that the appeal had been rendered partially
moot, because the Department had divulged some additional materials during the
pendency of Heiligman’s OOR appeal, as well as that the remaining requested
materials did not constitute Department records or, alternatively, were not in the
Department’s possession, custody, or control. Heiligman did not appeal the OOR’s
disposition of his Haechan-related RTKL request.
On January 3, 2025, the Department received a second, similar RTKL
request from Heiligman, through which he sought the following materials regarding

3
two additional pudus from the Brandywine Zoo upon whom necropsies had been
performed at NBC:
[1.] Complete records of a necropsy performed on Clover,
a female southern pudu (very small deer), who was a
resident of the Brandywine Zoo (in Wilmington,
Delaware) and who died on or about October 24, 2024.
This necropsy was likely performed at [NBC], University
of Pennsylvania, one of three institutions comprising the
. . . PADLS[], which is administered by the . . .
Department . . . . Please include any and all records,
communications, documents and files regarding this
necropsy that were uploaded to the PADLS shared
database known as USALIMS (or as PADLS Online).
[2.] Complete records of a necropsy performed on an un-
named southern pudu fawn, delivered by Caesarian
Section, from the above mentioned Clover, as a stillborn
on or about October 24, 2024. Please include any and all
records, communications, documents and files regarding
this necropsy that were uploaded to the PADLS shared
database known as USALIMS (or as PADLS Online).
Final Determination, 1/31/25, at 1. The Department denied this request on January
10, 2025, because these necropsies had not been performed at the Department’s
behest and, in the Department’s view, the related materials were therefore not its
records for purposes of the RTKL.
Heiligman then appealed this denial to the OOR on January 17, 2025.
The OOR subsequently denied Heiligman’s appeal, on the basis that the Department
had established by a preponderance of the evidence that the requested material did
not qualify as Department records under the RTKL, because the material did not
pertain to a Department transaction or activity. This appeal to our Court followed
shortly thereafter.

4
II. DISCUSSION
A. Issues on Appeal
Heiligman offers four arguments for our consideration, which we
summarize as follows. First, Heiligman asserts that the Department could not deny
his request for records pertaining to the necropsies performed upon Clover and her
fawn because the Department had deemed analogous materials regarding the
Haechan necropsy to be its records pursuant to the RTKL and had consequently
disclosed them to Heiligman. Heiligman’s Br. at 18-31. Second, Heiligman
maintains that the requested materials documented a Department transaction,
business, or activity, and should therefore be considered public records under the
RTKL, because NBC is part of PADLS. Id. at 31-45. Third, Heiligman states that
the necropsies of Clover and her fawn triggered a duty to report the deaths to
Department’s Bureau of Animal Health and Diagnostic Services (BAHDS) because
the necropsies revealed that their deaths were caused by a disease; Heiligman further
posits that the resultant materials document a Department transaction or activity and,
thus, are public records that must be disclosed by the Department pursuant to the
RTKL. Id. at 45-59. Finally, Heiligman contends that he should be awarded
reasonable costs of litigation, pursuant to Section 1304 of the RTKL, 65 P.S. §
67.1304, due to the Department’s handling of his RTKL request in this matter. Id.
at 60-65.
B. Standard of Review and Relevant Legal Considerations
The RTKL is designed “to promote access to official government
information in order to prohibit secrets, scrutinize the actions of public officials[,]
and make public officials accountable for their actions.” Off. of Governor v. Raffle,
65 A.3d 1105, 1107 n.1 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013). Accordingly, Commonwealth agencies

5
are statutorily required to “provide public records [to individuals who request them]
in accordance with [the RTKL].” Section 301(a) of the RTKL, 65 P.S. § 67.301(a).
The RTKL mandates that our Court constitutes the ultimate finder-of-fact in an
appeal that pertains to an RTKL request that was submitted to a Commonwealth
agency and, consequently, that we must conduct a de novo, plenary review of an
OOR final determination regarding such a request. See Bowling v. Off. of Open
Recs., 75 A.3d 453, 467-74 (Pa. 2013). When performing this duty, we are allowed
to consider evidence beyond that which was submitted to the OOR. Id. at 476-77.
By the same token, however, we are permitted to “adopt[] . . . the [OOR’s] factual
findings and legal conclusions when appropriate.” Id. at 474.
In relevant part, the RTKL defines “record” as “[i]nformation,
regardless of physical form or characteristics, that documents a transaction or
activity of an agency and that is created, received or retained pursuant to law or in
connection with a transaction, business or activity of the agency.” Section 102 of
the RTKL, 65 P.S. § 67.102. “Whether a record is ‘of an agency’ is a fact-specific
inquiry[.]” Penncrest Sch. Dist. v. Cagle, 341 A.3d 720, 735 (Pa. 2025). “In
discerning whether records qualify as records ‘of’ a particular agency, we consider
the subject-matter of the records.” Grine v. Cnty. of Centre, 138 A.3d 88, 95 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 2016) (cleaned up). Furthermore, “[t]he location of the record or an
agency’s possession does not guarantee that a record is accessible to the public;
rather, the character of the record controls. A record does not need to be generated
by the agency receiving a RTKL request to qualify as ‘of’ that agency.” Id. (cleaned
up).

6
C. Analysis
Heiligman’s first argument appears to be predicated upon a
misunderstanding of the RTKL framework. As discussed, this Court is the ultimate
finder-of-fact in appeals such as this one, which emanates from an RTKL request
that was lodged with a Commonwealth agency. See Bowling, 75 A.3d 453, 467-74.
We are not bound in this kind of appeal by the Department’s or the OOR’s factual
determinations regarding whether the requested materials constitute its records for
purposes of the RTKL; instead, we must make our own findings on that point, as we
do not accord any deference to those determinations under the RTKL framework.
See id. at 472-74. In other words, the Department’s conclusion that the requested
materials are not its records, despite providing Heiligman with substantially similar
materials in another RTKL matter, has no bearing on the outcome of this appeal.
Next, we conclude that the record does not support Heiligman’s
assertion that NBC is a Department subsidiary. In the Department’s OOR position
statement, it described NBC as “a laboratory of the University of Pennsylvania,
School of Veterinary Medicine.” Dep’t’s OOR Position Statement at 3. The
Department also explained therein that “NBC is one of three laboratories that make
up . . . PADLS. Each of the PADLS laboratories perform both (1) regulatory testing
for [the Department’s] BAHDS and (2) diagnostic testing at the request of private
parties for a fee.” Id. at 2 (cleaned up). The Department then went on to aver that
the only “parties involved in the necrops[ies of Clover and her fawn] were (1) the
Brandywine Zoo . . . and (2) NBC,” who were both acting in exclusively private,
nongovernmental capacities. See id. at 3. In a footnote, the Department cited to the
website that pertains to NBC’s diagnostic laboratories. See id. at 3 n.2 (citing New
Bolton Center Diagnostic Laboratories, PENNVET, UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA,

7
https://www.vet.upenn.edu/veterinary-hospitals/NBC-hospital/diagnostic-
laboratories). This website mentions that NBC is affiliated with PADLS but also
makes clear that NBC is part of the University of Pennsylvania’s School of
Veterinary Medicine and offers a variety of services beyond those undertaken on
behalf of or in relation to PADLS.3
The Department largely reiterates these assertions in the brief that it
submitted to this Court. See Dep’t’s Br. at 9-11, 15-16. Therein, the Department
also cites to the page on NBC’s website that specifically discusses PADLS. See id.
at 10 n.4 (citing New Bolton Center PADLS, PENNVET, UNIVERSITY OF
PENNSYLVANIA, https://www.vet.upenn.edu/veterinary-hospitals/NBC-
hospital/diagnostic-laboratories/new-bolton-center-padls). That page describes
PADLS as “a tripartite system which joins together the University of Pennsylvania,
the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, and the Pennsylvania State University,
and is dedicated to the health, safety and welfare of families here and abroad.” This
page also states that NBC is “affiliated with the University of Pennsylvania School
of Veterinary Medicine in Kennett Square[,]” as well as that “[t]he partnership of
the university laboratories in the PADLS mission provides a unique opportunity to
integrate research and teaching.”4
Additionally, the Department has offered an attestation from Susan
West, in which she identified herself as the Department’s “Annuitant Agency Open
Records Officer[.]” West Attestation at 16. Of particular relevance, Ms. West

3
See New Bolton Center Diagnostic Laboratories, PENNVET, UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA,
https://www.vet.upenn.edu/veterinary-hospitals/NBC-hospital/diagnostic-laboratories (last
accessed Mar. 12, 2026).
4
New Bolton Center PADLS, PENNVET, UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA,
https://www.vet.upenn.edu/veterinary-hospitals/NBC-hospital/diagnostic-laboratories/new-
bolton-center-padls (last accessed Mar. 12, 2026).

8
attested that she had conducted a good faith search of the Department’s records,
conferred with BAHDS’ staff, and had concluded on the bases of that search and
those discussions that “it was evident that the necropsies were not done at the request
of [the Department]; rather, they were requested by a private non-Commonwealth
entity. . . . Therefore, the requested documents were not records of the [Department,]
but were that of a private transaction between the NBC lab and the Brandywine
Zoo.” Id.
As for Heiligman, he counters the Department’s position on this point
by offering a number of legal and factual arguments. First, he asserts that NBC is a
subsidiary of PADLS, because all of the Haechan-related necropsy materials he
received were printed on PADLS letterhead. Heiligman’s Br. at 33-34. Second,
Heiligman references various sections of the Animal Health and Diagnostic Act
(Diagnostic Act);5 in doing so, he posits that the Diagnostic Act establishes that “the
coordination of ‘animal health, animal research and animal diagnostic programs in
this Commonwealth’ is a core mission of the [Animal Health and Diagnostic
Commission (Diagnostic Commission)],”6 as well as of BAHDS and of the broader
Department. See id. at 35-37 (cleaned up). Third, Heiligman cites to a litany of
Department webpages that pertain to the operation and administration of PADLS, as
well as to how PADLS’ services are offered to the general public. See id. at 37-41.

5
Act of Dec. 14, 1988, P.L. 1198, 3 P.S. §§ 430.1-.8.
6
The Diagnostic Act created the Diagnostic Commission and placed it within the Department.
3 P.S. § 430.3. It also vested the Diagnostic Commission with the following duties and
responsibilities: (1) administrative rulemaking; (2) grant issuance; (3) receipt, management, and
expenditure of operational funding; (4) coordination of animal health, animal research[,] and
animal diagnostic programs in the Commonwealth, in a manner that does not interfere with the
Department’s performance of its statutory duties; (5) acquisition of data regarding animal disease
diagnosis and animal health research; and (6) “mak[ing] recommendations to the General
Assembly and to the Department . . . regarding animal health research, animal disease diagnosis[,]
and indemnification for losses caused by animal disease.” 3 P.S. § 430.5.

9
Fourth, he states that an organization known as the American Association of
Laboratory Veterinary Diagnosticians has accredited PADLS’ laboratories as a unit,
rather than individually. Id. at 41-43. Finally, he asserts that NBC likely billed
Brandywine Zoo through PADLS for Clover and her fawn’s necropsies, Brandywine
Zoo probably paid these invoices directly to PADLS, and that those payment funds
were possibly commingled with other Department funds in an account established
pursuant to the Diagnostic Act. See id. at 43-44.
We conclude that the preponderance of the evidence is in favor of the
Department’s position. As recounted above, NBC holds itself out as part of the
University of Pennsylvania’s School of Veterinary Medicine, while also making
clear that, though it is affiliated with PADLS for certain purposes, it also provides
services to private parties independent of any Department-related responsibilities.
This position squares with Ms. West’s testimonial assertion that the necropsies of
Clover and her fawn were done as private transactions between the Brandywine Zoo
and NBC. See Off. of the Dist. Att’y of Phila. v. Bagwell, 155 A.3d 1119, 1130 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 2017) (agencies may justify nondisclosure of requested materials via
credible, relevant, and sufficiently specific testimonial affidavits). By contrast,
Heiligman’s assertions are largely based upon evidence dehors the record (regarding
the necropsy of Haechan),7 a complete misreading of the Diagnostic Act (which, by
its plain terms, did not create NBC or cause the Department to take full control of

7
Heiligman asserts that numerous items from the OOR’s Haechan proceeding have been
“incorporated by reference” into the record for this matter. See Heiligman’s Br. at 33-34; id. at 33
nn.27-28, 37 n.29, 41 n.30. These assertions ignore the fact that we do not have access to the
materials from the OOR’s Haechan docket. Accordingly, we have disregarded the materials that
Heiligman has sought to incorporate by reference into this matter’s record, to the extent that those
materials are not readily available to us (e.g., via hyperlink). See Galloway v. Off. of Pa. Atty.
Gen., 63 A.3d 485, 487 n.3 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (this Court will not consider any materials in an
RTKL matter that are dehors the record).

10
that laboratory),8 and pure speculation (regarding billing and payment for the
necropsies of Clover and her fawn). Consequently, we conclude that NBC is not a
Department subsidiary and, thus, that the requested materials did not document a
Department transaction, business, or activity simply because the necropsies of
Clover and her fawn were performed at NBC.
Next, there is no merit to Heiligman’s assertion that the deaths of
Clover and her fawn were caused by a disease and thus transmutes their necropsies
into Department records. Per Section 2327(b) of the Domestic Animal Law (Law),
in relevant part, “[i]t shall be the duty of every practitioner of veterinary medicine
and every diagnostic laboratory in this Commonwealth, immediately upon receiving
information thereof, to report to the [D]epartment each case of any dangerous
transmissible disease[.]” 3 Pa.C.S. § 2327(b). “Dangerous transmissible disease”
is defined in Section 2303 of the Law as
[a] transmissible disease of domestic animals that has been
designated [through the Law] or by order of the
Department . . . as presenting a danger to public health, to
domestic animal health, to the safety or quality of the food
supply[,] or to the economic well-being of the domestic
animal industries. This term shall be construed to mean
and include the disease agent.
Id. § 2303.9 In addition, Section 2321 of the Law specifically designates 40 different
transmissible diseases as “dangerous” and provides the Department with
discretionary authority to designate other transmissible diseases in this manner,
which the Department may do via regulation or temporary order. Id. § 2321.

8
See 3 P.S. §§ 430.1-.8.
9
“Domestic animal” is defined in Section 2303 of the Law as “[a]n animal maintained in
captivity. The term also includes the germ plasm, embryos[,] and fertile ova of such animals.” 3
Pa.C.S. § 2303. Both Clover and her stillborn fawn therefore constituted domestic animals for
purposes of the Law.

11
With these legal precepts in mind, we conclude that there is no record
evidence that the necropsies of Clover and her fawn revealed any such dangerous
transmissible disease. As stated by the Brandywine Zoo in its announcement of the
pudus’ deaths, the “[n]ecropsy results showed that Clover died of a systemic
infection of unknown origin. The infection had spread to her heart, stomach, uterus,
and placenta despite showing no outward sign of infection. It was this infection that
also led to the fawn being stillborn.” Heiligman’s OOR Appeal, 1/17/25, at 16
(screenshot of Brandywine Zoo webpage announcement regarding deaths of Clover
and her fawn). Absent evidence that these necropsies revealed a specific
transmissible disease that both caused the pudus’ deaths and had been declared
“dangerous” under the law by either the Department or the General Assembly, these
necropsies did not trigger any duty for NBC or its staff to report the pudus’ deaths
to the Department.10
Finally, we disagree with Heiligman’s assertion that he should be
awarded reasonable costs of litigation pursuant to Section 1304 of the RTKL. In the
context of the RTKL, “bad faith” does not require a showing of fraud or corruption.
Uniontown Newspapers, Inc. v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 185 A.3d 1161, 1170 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 2018) (Simpson, J., single judge op.).11 Rather, a requester need only show

10
Much of Heiligman’s argument regarding this specific issue appears to be predicated upon
his belief that the Department should have issued regulations and temporary orders that designate
a far wider swath of transmissible diseases as “dangerous” pursuant to the Law. See Heiligman’s
Br. at 47-59. The question of whether the Department has properly exercised its discretionary
authority in this area falls far outside the scope of question that is properly before us, i.e., whether
the specific illness that killed Clover and her fawn has been expressly designated as a “dangerous
transmissible disease” under the Law.
11
With the exception of reported, single-Judge, election law-related opinions that were issued
after October 1, 2013, “a single-Judge opinion of this Court, even if reported, shall be cited only
for its persuasive value and not as a binding precedent.” Section 414(b) of this Court's Internal
Operating Procedures, 210 Pa. Code. § 69.414(b).

12
that the agency has exhibited a “lack of good faith compliance with the RTKL and
an abnegation of mandatory duties under its provisions.” Id.; accord Bagwell, 155
A.3d at 1141. The party asserting bad faith bears the burden of proving its existence.
Anand v. Pa. Ins. Dep’t, 329 A.3d 1, 22 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2024), appeal denied, 348
A.3d 87 (Pa. 2025). Furthermore, when acting as the factfinder in an RTKL dispute,
a court must address any allegations of bad faith by issuing sufficiently detailed
factual findings and legal conclusions. See Bagwell, 155 A.3d at 1140; Bowling,
621 A.3d at 476.
The RTKL specifically allows for two different types of monetary
sanctions to be imposed as a consequence of an agency’s failure to act in good faith.
First, a Court may award a requester attorney’s fees and costs in the event it
concludes that an agency “willfully or with wanton disregard deprived the requester
of access to a public record subject to access or otherwise acted in bad faith under
the provisions of this act; or . . . the exemptions, exclusions or defenses asserted by
the agency in its final determination were not based on a reasonable interpretation
of law.” Section 1304(a) of the RTKL, 65 P.S. § 67.1304(a). Second, a “[C]ourt
may impose a civil penalty of not more than $1,500 if an agency denied access to a
public record in bad faith.” Section 1305(a) of the RTKL, 65 P.S. § 67.1305(a).
Notably, however, a Court may award sanctions under Section 1304(a) of the RTKL
only in the event it “reverses the final determination of the appeals officer or grants
access to a record after a request for access was deemed denied[.]” 65 P.S. §
67.1304(a); see Uniontown Newspapers, Inc. v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 243 A.3d 19, 34
(Pa. 2020) (quoting Uniontown Newspapers, Inc. v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 197 A.3d
825, 835 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018) (Simpson, J., single judge op.)) (“Section 1304(a)(1)

13
‘permit[s] recovery of attorney fees when the receiving agency determination is
reversed, and it deprived a requester of access to records in bad faith.’”).
We have made no such reversal or grant of access in this matter. To
the contrary, and as explained at length supra, we fully agree with the Department
that it need not disclose the materials requested by Heiligman because those
materials do not constitute the Department’s records under the RTKL. Accordingly,
we have no reason to award Heiligman reasonable costs of litigation.12

12
We note that Heiligman bases his bad faith argument upon his position that the Department
determined that certain materials in the Haechan RTKL matter were its records, but then decided
that substantially similar materials in this matter were not its records. See Heiligman’s Br. 60-65.
Heiligman rests this assertion upon what the Department wrote in its July 22, 2024 response to his
Haechan RTKL request. See id. In doing so, Heiligman conspicuously and disconcertingly
ignores the substance of the Department’s July 24, 2024 response to his Haechan RTKL request,
in which the Department explicitly clarified that it did not consider the materials it had divulged
in response to the Haechan RTKL request to be its records for purposes of the RTKL. See Dep’t’s
Am. Resp. to Heiligman’s Haechan RTKL Request, 7/24/24, at 2. This is especially curious, given
that Heiligman begrudgingly acknowledges both the existence and substance of the Department’s
July 24, 2024 response in earlier portions of his brief. See, e.g., Heiligman’s Br. at 12-14, 19-20,
27-31. Heiligman was thus well aware prior to filing of his RTKL request in this matter that, at
minimum, the Department had changed its position regarding both the nature of the materials he
sought and whether it had any legal obligation to disclose those materials to him. We caution
Heiligman that similar omissions and lack of candor in future RTKL appeals may lead to the
imposition of appropriate sanctions. See Section 1304(b) of the RTKL, 65 P.S. § 67.1304(b)
(“Sanctions for frivolous requests or appeals.--The court may award reasonable attorney fees
and costs of litigation or an appropriate portion thereof to an agency or the requester if the court
finds that the legal challenge under this chapter was frivolous.”).

14
III. CONCLUSION
In accordance with the foregoing analysis, we affirm the OOR’s Final
Determination and deny Heiligman’s request for an award of reasonable costs of
litigation.

LORI A. DUMAS, Judge

15
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Robert M. Heiligman, :
Petitioner :
: No. 165 C.D. 2025
v. :
:
Pennsylvania Department of :
Agriculture (Office of Open Records), :
Respondent :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 13th day of March, 2026, it is hereby ORDERED:
1. The Final Determination issued by the Office of Open Records on
January 31, 2025, is AFFIRMED;
2. Robert M. Heiligman’s request for an award of reasonable costs of
litigation is DENIED.

LORI A. DUMAS, Judge