could be damaging if exposed publicly. Moreover, appellant has not articulated any basis to believe that private financial, medical, and psychiatric records — items that would ordinarily become part of the record of the proceedings on a section 5511(a) petition- become less private or sensitive over time, or otherwise lose their potential to subject the incapacitated person or his family to embarrassment or possible harassment, especially where significant financial assets are being managed. Compare In re Widener’s Estate, 437 Pa. 294, 296, 263 A.2d 334, 335 (1970) (approving an orphans’ court rule permanently impounding the testamentary writings of an individual adjudged incompetent as protective of his privacy rights), with PA ChildCare LLC v. Flood, 887 A.2d 309, 312 (Pa.Super.2005) (<HOLDING>). Id. 579, 523 (emphasis added). The Supreme
recognizing that public utilities affect the public interest in that they render essential public services to a large number of the general public recognizing that the need for openness injudicial proceedings is especially pronounced in actions pertaining to the use of public funds and contracts with public entities holding that the interest of the public  especially the debtor and creditors  could limit compensation to a debtors counsel holding that public use of a beach was presumed to have originated by permission and to have continued as a license until some act  of the public or public official asserted the use to be exercised as a matter of right rather than privilege recognizing the public interest exception