below, 43 where an agency summarily denied a fee waiver, 44 and where the court identified evidence that should have been, but was not, considered. 45 In other cases, it has remanded to correct a legal error, 46 to allow OOR to address a legal question in the first 374, 388 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (remanding in part because “a genuine dispute exists as to whether [the documents in question] . . . contain purely factual material”); Dep’t of Labor and Indus. v. Rudberg, 32 A.3d 877, 882 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (remanding to determine whether performance review records in the agency’s possession “relate[d] to its own employees or employees of other Commonwealth agencies”). See, e.g., Pa. Turnpike Comm’n v. Elec. Transaction Consultants Corp., 230 A.3d 548, 563 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2020) (“We remand the matter to the OOR to allow [one of the respondents] an opportunity to be meaningfully heard[.]”); Pa. Pub. Util. Comm’n v. Sunrise Energy, LLC, 177 A.3d 438, 444-45 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018) (remanding in part because the recipient of agency documents subject to disclosure “did not have the opportunity to protect its interests in its own attorney-work-product”); Wishnefsky v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 144 A.3d 290, 295 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (remanding because “Wishnefsky was not afforded an opportunity to be heard and to answer the [agency’s] submission to OOR”); Pa. Dep’t of Educ. v. Bagwell, 131 A.3d 638, 650 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (remanding in light of the fact that “PSU did not have a meaningful opportunity to be heard before the initial fact-finder, OOR”). 43 See, e.g., Prison Legal News v. OOR, 992 A.2d 942, 949 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (“[T]he matter is remanded to the OOR for further remand to the Department to provide explanations for why it denied [the] request for a public interest fee waiver[.]”). 44 See, e.g., Glunk v. Dep’t of State, 102 A.3d 605, 609 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (“Requester contended that the OOR failed to consider [a piece of evidence] . . . [and] this [c]ourt remanded to the OOR for consideration of [that evidence]”). 45 See, e.g., West Chester Univ. of Pa. v. Rodriguez, 216 A.3d 503, 510-11 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2019) (remanding where “the OOR applied incorrect standards with respect to . . . FERPA’s education records definition” and instructing that “the instant case requires a balancing analysis to protect alleged constitutional privacy rights”); State Employees’ Ret. Sys. v. Campbell, 155 A.3d 1153, 1156 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017) (remanding and instructing OOR to perform a balancing test as required by Pa. State Educ. Assoc. v. OOR, 148 A.3d 142 (Pa. 2016)); Barnett v. Pa. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 71 A.3d 399, 405 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (remanding in light of the conclusion that OOR erred by summarily dismissing an appeal where the requester had satisfied the statutory requirements). 46 [J-3-2023] - 10