American Dental Ass'n v. Martin
984 F.2d 823 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An administrative agency like OSHA may promulgate a universal, practice-based safety standard for a broad industry sector without making a specific finding of significant risk for every sub-industry, so long as the approach is rational. However, the agency must address unique compliance difficulties, such as those faced by employers who do not control the work site, and set forth the contours of compliance in those settings.
Facts:
- Bloodborne pathogens, particularly the Hepatitis B Virus (HBV) and Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), can be transmitted through contact with infected blood, posing a health risk to healthcare workers.
- HBV is significantly more virulent and common than HIV among healthcare workers, responsible for approximately 200 worker deaths per year, whereas by 1991, only 24 confirmed cases of occupational HIV infection had occurred in the U.S.
- Following recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) promulgated a rule in 1991 mandating "universal precautions" for employers in the healthcare industry.
- The rule requires employers to implement engineering and work practice controls, provide personal protective equipment, offer the HBV vaccine at their expense, and provide post-exposure medical evaluations.
- The American Dental Association challenged the rule, arguing that dental workers face a lower risk of infection than other medical personnel and that OSHA improperly aggregated all healthcare fields together.
- The Home Health Services and Staffing Association (HHSSA) also challenged the rule, arguing its members could not comply with site-specific requirements because their employees work in locations outside their control, such as private homes or other healthcare facilities.
Procedural Posture:
- The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), after a notice-and-comment period, promulgated a final rule titled 'Occupational Exposure to Bloodborne Pathogens.'
- The American Dental Association and the Home Health Services and Staffing Association, representing employers in their respective industries, filed petitions for review directly with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, challenging the rule's validity.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is OSHA's bloodborne pathogens standard, which applies universally to various healthcare sectors without disaggregated risk analysis and without specific provisions for employers who do not control the worksite, a valid exercise of its authority under the Occupational Safety and Health Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Posner, Circuit Judge
Partially Yes and Partially No. The bloodborne pathogens standard is largely a valid exercise of OSHA's authority, but it is invalid as applied to worksites that are not controlled by the employer or by another entity subject to the rule. OSHA was not required to perform a separate significant risk analysis for each healthcare sub-industry, as its decision to regulate based on common practices (e.g., exposure to blood) rather than by industry was rational. The petitioners' arguments about the rule's costs and negative effects were unpersuasive because they failed to quantify them. However, OSHA failed to address the acute and unique compliance problems faced by employers, like home health agencies, who do not control the worksite. Merely relying on a pre-existing 'multi-employer worksite defense' is insufficient; OSHA had an obligation within the rule itself to define the contours of reasonable compliance for these specific settings. Therefore, the rule is vacated only insofar as it applies to sites not controlled by the employer or another covered entity.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Coffey, Circuit Judge
No. The bloodborne pathogens standard is an invalid exercise of OSHA's authority and should be remanded or vacated in its entirety. OSHA failed to meet its burden under the 'Benzene' case to establish a 'significant risk' for each specific industry, such as dentistry and home health, instead improperly aggregating dissimilar fields. The rule is an over-expansive and duplicative reaction ('killing a fly with a sledgehammer') driven by public hysteria over AIDS, not scientific data. It ignores more cost-effective alternatives, like mandatory HBV vaccination, and fails to consider the effectiveness of existing CDC guidelines. Furthermore, the rule is fundamentally flawed because its confidentiality provisions protect employee privacy at the expense of a patient's right to informed consent regarding their provider's health status. OSHA lacks the expertise to regulate the highly technical healthcare field, a task better left to the CDC and state health agencies.
Analysis:
This decision affirms an agency's authority to regulate a broad industry sector with a single, practice-based rule, relieving it of the burden of conducting a granular, sub-industry by sub-industry risk analysis where a common risk exists. This strengthens agency power to regulate efficiently across diverse but related fields. However, the ruling concurrently limits this authority by establishing that an agency cannot ignore unique compliance challenges inherent in specific business models, such as a lack of worksite control. It requires agencies to proactively define compliance expectations in such non-traditional settings within the regulation itself, rather than leaving such crucial determinations to later enforcement proceedings.
