Pittsburgh Action Against Rape v. Department of Public Welfare
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION BY
Judge PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH.
This case of first impression addresses whether privileged or confidential communications between sexual assault counselors and their patients or clients are admissible as evidence in child abuse ex-pungement proceedings. Pittsburgh Action Against Rape (PAAR) petitions for review of the May 27, 2014 oral ruling from an administrative law judge (ALJ) denying its motion to quash a subpoena and directing an employee/counselor, V.W., to testify at an expungement hearing concerning communications that a victim made to her during sexual assault counseling.
Upon…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Ben v. SchwartzSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
- Melvin v. DoeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
- Commonwealth v. DavidsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2007
- Commonwealth v. HarrisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2011
- Commonwealth v. KennedySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- A. Violante v. J.C. BamberaCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2020