R. v. Dep't of Pub. Welfare, 535 Pa. 440, 636 A.2d 142, 146 (1994). 2 . "All men ... have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of ... protecting ... reputation.” Pa. Const. Article I, Section 1. 3 . The Commonwealth Court’s decision changes the standard of proof it has applied in numerous previous expungement cases. Prior to the instant case, when DPW had shown that an indicated report was supported by substantial evidence at an expungement hearing and expungement had been denied, those denials had been affirmed. See, e.g., F.R. v. Dep't of Pub. Welfare, 4 A.3d 779 (Pa.Cmwlth.2010) (denying expungement where substantial evidence supported indicated report that father caused bruises on child); D.T. v. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 873 A.2d 850 (Pa.Cmwlth.2005) (<HOLDING>); A.O. v. Dep't of Pub. Welfare, 838 A.2d 35
holding that a process under which a report is prepared that is routine nonadversarial and made to ensure an accurate measurement indicated that the report was not investigative or prosecutorial holding that if the government fails to object to the presentence report the district courts reliance on the report is reviewed for plain error holding expert report requirement fulfilled in claim against nurse by providing expert report of nurse as to standard of care and expert report of medical doctor as to causation holding that substantial evidence existed to support an indicated report of child sex abuse against a childcare provider thus warranting denial of the providers request to expunge the report holding that the defendant conceded the accuracy of his prior convictions in his psi report by failing to object to the report