Two members of Congress have asked an inspector general to investigate whether the top federal regulator for medical devices like pacemakers and artificial hips acted ethically in work that overlapped with that of his wife, a leading lawyer for device companies.

The lawmakers cited an investigation by The New York Times that examined the intersection of the work of the regulator, Dr. Jeffrey Shuren of the Food and Drug Administration, and his wife, Allison Shuren, a co-chair of the drug and medical device practice at the prominent Washington office of Arnold & Porter.

The two House Democrats who wrote a letter seeking an inquiry are Reps. Anna Eshoo, of California and ranking member of the health subcommittee, and Rosa DeLauro, of Connecticut and ranking member of the appropriations committee.

The Times found several instances in which the couple’s work overlapped and could have posed conflicts of interest requiring Jeffrey Shuren’s recusal. The FDA acknowledged ethics violations, saying that Shuren should have stepped aside or sought approval to be involved in two matters to “avoid any potential appearance of bias.”

“In circumstances such as these,” the congresswomen’s letter to the inspector general, Christi Grimm, said, “the only way to get to the truth and be fair both to the public and Dr. Shuren is through an independent review of the matter to determine whether this is simply an appearance of impropriety or actual inappropriate and unethical conduct.”

A spokesperson for the inspector general’s office of the Health and Human Services Department said that the letter was received Tuesday and that “we are reviewing it for appropriate action.”

Jeffrey Shuren and Allison Shuren did not respond to requests for comment. The FDA said it would not comment on whether specific employees were the subject of an internal review. Michael Felberbaum, a spokesperson for the agency, said the FDA “takes seriously its obligation to help ensure that decisions made, and actions taken, by the agency and its employees are consistent with ethics laws and regulations.”

The agency has also said it had no indication that any regulatory decisions were influenced by Allison Shuren’s employment.

In July, Jeffrey Shuren said that he was retiring as director of the medical device division and was taking on an emeritus role in the commissioner’s office.

Allison Shuren, a prominent lawyer in the ophthalmology field, is described on the Arnold & Porter website as “a trusted adviser for international manufacturers of medical devices” who “regularly interacts with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General.” She was paid $1 million to $5 million in 2018, the one year that Jeffrey Shuren reported his wife’s salary in ethics documents.

Shuren was named director of the FDA medical device division in 2010 and had an ethics agreement in place at the start, records show. He was expected to step aside if business involving his wife’s clients came before his division.

In 2014, he failed to do so, the agency confirmed, when he signed an appointment of eight members of a 12-person panel that considered approval of a lens implant by Alcon, an eye care drug and device maker and a client of Allison Shuren’s. The panel voted to approve the device.

In 2015, court records and interviews showed that Jeffrey Shuren said he was recused from matters related to Theranos, the discredited blood-testing startup. At the time, Allison Shuren’s co-chair at the law firm was representing Theranos and calling on the FDA to halt an inspection of the company’s California offices. Yet Jeffrey Shuren was involved, the FDA confirmed, though it remains unclear to what extent.

In 2017, Shuren signed an updated ethics agreement that described how he tried to help the FDA oversee his pledge to sidestep matters involving Arnold & Porter clients. The document said he sought a list of his wife’s clients from the firm, but it declined to provide it.

Issara Baumann, a spokesperson for Arnold & Porter, said in a statement in July that the firm “has long had strict protocols in place to assure full compliance with respect to our professional obligations and the FDA’s requirements governing financial conflicts of interest and impartiality.”

In another instance, the agency said Shuren did not need to recuse himself from its oversight of LASIK lasers. Patient groups that claimed harm from the procedure have sought stronger warnings.

Shuren announced a proposal to add stark warnings in 2022. Soon after, Allison Shuren’s clients, Alcon, which makes LASIK lasers, and the Society for Excellence in Eyecare, a group of ophthalmologists, urged the FDA to withdraw the plan. The agency said the proposal remained under review.

Richard Painter, a former government ethics lawyer, said he would not have signed off on Jeffrey Shuren’s 2017 ethics agreement. He said Shuren was bound by ethics regulations and criminal laws to uphold trust in government and to keep officials from profiting from their roles.

“There ought to be an IG investigation,” said Painter, a law professor at the University of Minnesota. “There’s a lot we don’t know here.”

Dr. Rita Redberg, a University of California San Francisco professor and cardiologist who has studied medical device oversight, said an investigation should proceed to determine if there were additional areas where the couple’s work overlapped.

“We need to know if that’s the tip of the iceberg,” she said. “Hopefully it’s not, but it’s important to know, because we’re talking about patient safety and patient lives.”