vO \ ~» STATE OF FLORIDA RECEIVED - Lepay DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ~~ arc OOAPR 25 PK 3:97 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO.: 98-01427 BS A a | ES ADAM CHERRY, : Respondent. Lo Bec Petitioner, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, hereinafter referred to as “Petitioner,” files this Administrative Complaint before the Board of a Optometry against ADAM CHERRY, hereinafter referred -to.as “Respondent,” and alleges: _ lL Effective July 1, 1997, Petitioner is the state agency charged 0 provide consumer complaint, Investigative, 0002 0 Z dav Assurance, councils, or boards, as appropriate, including thei issuance of emergency orders of s suspension or restriction. 3. Respondent is, “and has been at all times ‘material hereto, a certified Optomens, having been issued license muimber OP 0002582 pondent’s last known address is » 1272 NW Losth ‘Avenue, Plantation, Florida, 33322. _ Respondent performed services as. an independent contractor | 5. for Vision Express, Inc., during the period beginning in or around January,” 1997, through i in or around December, 1998, 6. Respondent has stated that he participated in mobile optomettic _ Prior to each child's examination, Respondent has stated that each chiles eyes were e dilated using spray method which he indicated worked much faster than drops and were preferable to use on children. However, s since it takes approximately thirty G0)n minutes to complete dilation, this i is s not statistically faster than drop dilation. i Respondent also indicated that, using this spray method, even though the spray method i is not statistically faster than the - drop method, the Respondent could still reach the examination rate of © ninety-one (2 pat nts i in a four ‘(4)- hour period. 12 Re sont ou submitted claims to third ary p payors ; for the aforementioned examinations. : 13. It is not 1 possible to provide comprehensive eye examinations to ‘this number of patients in the time period indicated. in paragraphs one (1) through thirteen (13) above. {leges and incorporates the allegations contained . 16. Petitioner realleges and incorporates the allegations contained an] paragraphs one e) through thirteen a3) above, i 17 Based ¢ on the foregoing the Respondent’ license to practice as an optometrist in the State of Florida i is subject to discipline pursuant to Section 463. o16caye) Florida Statutes, for frau, deceit, negligence or oo incompetency, or 9 misconduct in n the practice of optometry, couNT In 18. | Petitioner realleges and incorporates the allegations contained in paragraphs one (1) through thirteen (13) above. . 19. Based on the foregoing, the Respondent's license to practice as an optometrist in the State of Florida is subject to discipline pursuant to Section 463. 16(1)6), Florida Statutes, for fly submitting to any third- . party payor a claim for services which were not provided toa patient. ‘an administrative fine not to exceed $5000, issuance e of a reprimand, = placement 9 f Respondent ’s license on probation for : a period of time and - subject to terms and/or c ons, and/or any other relief that the board deems appropriate. . "SIGNED this wei day of Apu 2000. Robert G. Brooks, MD. Secretary, Department of Health DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH DEPUTY CLERK - By Nancy Snurkowski, Chief Attorney _?P Regulation-Legal ‘General Counsel’s 's Office- MQaA : ge James A. G. Davey, IJr., “Cees. z \- -*S- WOOO | Senior SE Neeiba — Mebecs. RB racer! YA CC | 1 ‘

Docket for Case No: 00-002065