## Facts

- A union representative requested that the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) conduct a health hazard evaluation at Westinghouse’s Trafford, Pennsylvania plant due to worker allergic reactions linked to chemical exposure.
- After an initial walk-through, NIOSH determined the earlier concern area had been corrected but suspected hexahydrophthalic anhydride (HHPA), used in an epoxy process area, might be causing allergic reactions.
- NIOSH sought (1) employee lists for current and former workers in the relevant area, (2) access to medical records for those employees and other intermittently exposed volunteers, and (3) information on Westinghouse’s health-monitoring practices.
- Westinghouse provided a list of current employees but asserted it could not supply a list of former employees now assigned elsewhere.
- Westinghouse refused to produce employee medical records without individual written consent and assurances limiting disclosure, citing confidentiality and privacy concerns.
- NIOSH issued a subpoena duces tecum for the medical records; Westinghouse did not fully comply.

## Issues

1. Whether NIOSH’s subpoena for employee medical records was within its statutory authority under the Occupational Safety and Health Act to conduct a health hazard evaluation.
2. Whether enforcing the subpoena without individual written consent unlawfully invaded employee privacy interests or violated physician–patient privilege or other confidentiality protections.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s order enforcing the subpoena.
- The court held that NIOSH had statutory authority to obtain the medical records as reasonably related to conducting a health hazard evaluation and occupational health research.
- The court concluded that compelled production to NIOSH, subject to confidentiality safeguards, did not impermissibly violate employee privacy interests, physician–patient privilege, or related confidentiality concerns.

## Legal Principles

- Administrative subpoenas are enforceable when the information sought is reasonably relevant to the agency’s authorized investigation or research function.
- NIOSH may obtain employee medical records for occupational health evaluations when necessary to assess workplace exposure and correlate exposure with health effects.
- Employee medical records carry substantial privacy interests, but disclosure may be compelled when limited to nonpublic agency use and protected by regulatory confidentiality restrictions.
- A general demand for individualized written consent is not a categorical prerequisite to agency access where statutory authority supports the request and confidentiality controls limit dissemination and use.

## Conclusion

The court enforced NIOSH’s subpoena for employee medical records to investigate suspected occupational allergy risks from HHPA, finding the request authorized by federal occupational health law and justified despite privacy concerns because disclosure was controlled and protected by confidentiality safeguards.


United States v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 638 F.2d 570 (3d Cir. 1980)