PaFOIC

Dad seeks to block report in son's death

BY MATT MILLER | The [Harrisburg] Patriot-News

A new legal battle could be brewing over a Shippensburg University student's death that already has prompted a court duel over the state's Right to Know Law.

Last summer, WGAL-TV sued former Cumberland County Coroner Michael Norris, claiming Norris wouldn't release cause of death information regarding Thomas Rainey, a former university football player who died in an off-campus apartment in April.

The station claimed the Right to Know Law required Norris to promptly reveal Rainey's cause of death. WGAL lost the initial rounds of that legal fight, but is appealing the case to Commonwealth Court.

Now, Rainey's father, Phil, is asking the Cumberland County Court to permanently bar the public release of a report on an autopsy conducted in his son's death.

According to a death report already filed publicly with the county prothonotary, Thomas Rainey, 21, a senior and a former offensive lineman on the university's football team, died of an accidental drug overdose.

The death report filed with the prothonotary indicates only that Thomas Rainey died from "opiate toxicity" and that his death was deemed accidental.

Todd Eckenrode, the new coroner, confirmed Rainey's cause of death was a drug overdose.

The autopsy report that Phil Rainey of Landisville, Lancaster County, seeks to have sealed is on file with Eckenrode. It outlines the medical examination of Thomas Rainey's body

Phil Rainey, who couldn't be reached for comment, cited "privacy concerns of the family" in a petition for the sealing request. He also claimed the autopsy report, which intricately details the post-death medical examination, contains "sensitive medical information."

Judge J. Wesley Oler Jr. hasn't ruled on the sealing request, pending input from Eckenrode, who said he will endorse Phil Rainey's plea.

The ongoing battle between WGAL and the coroner's office sparked by Rainey's death could set more solid parameters for access to death information under the Right to Know Law, depending on how the Commonwealth Court rules.