Case No. VFA-0555, 27 DOE ¶ 80,269

March 28, 2000

DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Appeal

Name of Appellant:Mary L. Michel

Date of Filing:January 28, 2000

Case Number: VFA-0555

Mary L. Michel filed this Appeal from a determination issued to her by the Oak Ridge Operations Office (ORO) of the Department of Energy (DOE). The determination responded to a request for information she filed under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552, as implemented by the Department of Energy (DOE) in 10 C.F.R. Part 1004. In her Appeal, Michel challenges the adequacy of ORO's search for documents responsive to her request.

I. Background

Michel submitted a request to ORO for copies of medical records of her late husband, John Michel. ORO responded by releasing John Michel’s complete medical file, with some redactions to remove identifying information concerning other individuals.

Among the records ORO released was a document signed by John Michel and dated October 25, 1972. I will refer to this document as “the consent form.” The consent form states, in part, that John Michel gave permission for his blood sample:

... to be used for purposes other than routine testing.... These uses ... might include such things as development of new tests, establishment of standards, accumulation of pooled reference serum, etc.... My name or any identifying data will not appear in any publication.... If tests are done that have clinical importance the results will be made part of my medical record.... If any of the results are thought to have prompt clinical significance I will be so informed.

Mary Michel appealed the adequacy of the search for responsive material conducted by ORO. She stated that she had “received all requested information except the results of the blood analysis agreed to in the [form] signed and dated by John W. Michel, 10-25- 72.” The sole issue on appeal, then, is whether ORO should have discovered documents relating to a blood test associated with the consent form.

II. Analysis

The FOIA generally requires federal agencies to release material to the public upon request. Following an appropriate request, agencies must search their records for responsive documents. We have often stated that a FOIA request deserves a thorough and conscientious search for responsive documents, and we have not hesitated to remand a case where we believe the search conducted was inadequate. E.g., Ashok K. Kaushal, 27 DOE ¶ 80,189 (1999); Hobart T. Bolin, Jr., 27 DOE ¶ 80,124 (1998).

In a case involving the adequacy of the agency's search, "the issue is not whether any further responsive documents might conceivably exist but rather whether the government's search for responsive documents was inadequate." Perry v. Block, 684 F.2d 121, 128 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (emphasis in original). To determine whether an agency's search was adequate, we therefore examine its actions under a "standard of reasonableness." McGehee v. CIA, 697 F.2d 1095, 1100-01, modified in part on rehearing, 711 F.2d 1076 (D.C. Cir. 1983). This standard "does not require absolute exhaustion of the files; instead it requires a search reasonably calculated to uncover the sought materials." Miller v. Department of State, 779 F.2d 1378, 1384-85 (8th Cir. 1985). Furthermore, the determination of whether a search was reasonable is "dependent upon the circumstances of the case." Founding Church of Scientology v. National Security Agency, 610 F.2d 824, 834 (D.C. Cir. 1979).

Michel requested all medical records of John Michel, including special monitoring records and exposure records. In our review of Michel's Appeal, we ascertained that personnel at ORO searched the records of the site’s medical department and located the medical file for John Michel that covered the full period of his employment at the site. These persons were not aware of any other place where John Michel’s medical records could reasonably be found. In addition, we obtained information about the consent form from Judy Edwards, a laboratory technician with the ORO medical department. Edwards was working at the laboratory on October 25, 1972, when John Michel signed the consent form. She knew Mary Michel, and recalled that John Michel signed the consent form in order to give a blood sample to help calibrate a new blood test machine and to set standards for later tests. No individual blood test results were generated from this procedure. Thus, she believes there would be no responsive records specifically associated with John Michel’s consent form dated October 25, 1972.

III. Conclusion

We believe that ORO conducted a search that was reasonably calculated to find the materials requested by Mary Michel. Moreover, based on Edwards’ statement, we find no ground for believing that there are further records associated with the consent form. We will therefore deny this Appeal.

It Is Therefore Ordered That:

(1) The Appeal filed by Mary L. Michel, Case No. VFA-0555, is hereby denied.

(2) This is a final Order of the Department of Energy from which any aggrieved party may seek judicial review pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B). Judicial review may be sought in the district in which the requester resides or has a principal place of business, or in which the agency records are situated, or in the District of Columbia.

George B. Breznay

Director

Office of Hearings and Appeals

Date: March 28, 2000