May 21 2009 9:55 MAY-21-2889 fore? FL DEPT OF HEALTH 856 488 1855 P.@514 STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, PETITIONER, v. CASE NO. 2008-13633 JOHN COCHRAN, O.D., RESPONDENT | ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT Petitioner, Department of Health, by and through its undersigned counsel, files this Administrative Complaint before the Board of Optometry against Respondent, John Cochran, O.D., alleging as follows: 1, Petitioner is the state department charged with regulating the practice of optometry pursuant to Section 20.43, Florida Statutes; Chapter 456, Florida Statutes; and Chapter 463, Florida Statutes. 2. At all times material to this Complaint, Respondent was a licensed optometrist (O.D.) within the state of Florida, pursuant to license number OP 1821. 3. Respondent’s address of record is 2518-C MeCullen Booth Road, Clearwater, Florida 33761. DOH v. John Cochran, O.D. Case No. 2008-13633 May 21 2009 9:55 MAY-21-2889 Bore? FL DEPT OF HEALTH 856 488 1855 P.@614 4, On or about January 31, 2008, MLL. presented to the Respondent for an eyeglass exam for the purpose of obtaining glasses required by her place of employment. 5. Prior 10 January 31, 2008, M.L. informed Respondent’s staff of the reason for the examination, and confirmed her appointment on January 30, 2008. 6, On or about January 31, 2008, M.L. presented to the Respondent and MLL. explained to Respondent’s staff that she was seeing the Respondent only for eye glasses. | 7. On or about January 31, 2008, M.L. arrived early at Respondent's office in order to look at the available frames. 8. During the examination, M.L. informed Respondent that she brought her current glasses for Respondent to compare measurements for the pew pair in order to save time, 9, During the examination, M.L. twice requested a copy of her prescription. However, Respondent did not provide M.L. with a copy of her prescription following the examination. 10. At the completion of the examination, Respondent provided MLL. with a Statement of Charges and Payments, which indicated that Respondent performed one comprehensive examination established (CPT code 92014) which amount to DOH v. John Cochran, 0.D. 2 Case No. 2008-13633 May 21 2009 9:55 MAY-21-2889 89:28 FL DEPT OF HEALTH 856 488 1855 P.@?/14 $110.00, and one soft spherical evaluation (CPT code 92310) which amounted to $70.00, 11. Respondent billed M.L.’s insurance carrier, VSP, a total of $95.00 and charged M.L., a total $85.00, which included a $15.00 co-payment and $70.00 charge for a contact Jens examination, even though M.L. did not request or receive a contact lens exam. 12. When MLL. inquired about the charge for the contact Jens examine she was told that the Respondent was trying to “maximize her insurance benefits.” 13. Nothing in MLL.’s “optometric records indicates that Respondent performed a contact lens examination, which includes but is not limited to lens comfort, wearing schedule, replacement frequency, and methods of care. 14. Nothing in M.L.’s optometric records indicates that Respondent noted the fit of the contact lens, any contact lens related pathology, visual acuity through the contact Jens, refraction over the contact lens, or the Jens prescribed. 15. Nothing in M.L.’s oplometric records indicated that Respondent performed a dilated fundus examination during M.L.’s initial presentation, or anytime thereafter, whenever medically indicated. 16. Nothing in M.L.’s optometric records indicated that Respondent, in performing a comprehensive eye exam on January 31, 2008, recorded M.L.’s DOH v. John Cochran, O.D, 3 Case No. 2008-13633 May 21 2009 9:55 MAY-21-2889 89:28 FL DEPT OF HEALTH 856 488 1855 P.BB/14 patient history, including personal and family medical history, personal and family ocular history, and M_L,’s chief complaint. COUNT ONE 17. Petitioner realleges and incorporates paragraphs one (1) through sixteen (16) as if fully set forth herein. 18. Section 463.016(1)(k), Florida Statutes (2007), provides that failing to keep written optometric records about the examinations, treatments, and prescriptions for patients constitutes an act for which disciplinary action may be taken. , 19, Nothing in M.L.’s optometric records indicated that Respondent performed a contact Jens examination. 20. Nothing in M.L.’s optometric records indicated that Respondent noted the fit of the contact lens, any contact lens related pathology, visual acuity through the contact Jens, refraction over the contact lens, or the lens prescribed. 21, Based on the foregoing, Respondent violated Section 463.016(1)(k), Florida Statutes (2007), by failing to keep written optometric records about M.L.’s examinations, treatments, and prescriptions. COUNT TWO 22, Petitioner realleges and incorporates paragraphs one (1) through sixteen (16) as if fully set forth herein. DOH v. John Cochran, 0.D. 4 Case No. 2008-13633 May 21 2009 9:55 MAY-21-2889 89:28 FL DEPT OF HEALTH 856 488 1855 P.@914 23. Section 463.016(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2007), provides that violating any provision of this chapter or chapter 456, or any rujes adopted pursuant thereto constitutes an act for which disciplinary action may be taken, 24, Rule 64B13-3.007, Florida Administrative Code, Minimum Procedures for Comprehensive Eye Examination reads in pertinent part as follows: (1) A comprehensive eye examination is defined as a comprehensive - assessment of the patient's visual status and shall include those procedures specified in subsection (2) below. (2) A comprehensive eye examination shall include the following minimum procedures, which shall be recorded on the patient’s case record: (a) Patient’s history (personal and family medical history, personal and family ocular history, and chief complaint); 25, Nothing in M.L.’s optometric records indicated that Respondent, in performing a comprehensive eye exam on January 31, 2008, recorded MLL.’s patient history, including personal and family medical history, personal and family ocular history, and M.L.’s chief complaint. 26. Based on the foregoing, Respondent violated Section 463.016(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2007), by violating Rule 64B13-3.007, Florida Administrative Code, by failing to record MLL.’s patient history, including personal and family medical history, personal and family ocular history, and M.L,’s chief complaint, -DOH v. John Cochran, 0.D. 5 Case No. 2008-13633 May 21 2009 9:55 MAY-21-2889 Orso FL DEPT OF HEALTH 856 488 1855 P. 18/14 COUNT THREE 27. Section 463.016(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2007), provides that violating any provision of this chapter or chapter 456, or any rules adopted pursuant thereto constitutes an act for which disciplinary action may be taken. 28. Rule 64B13-3.010 (7)(a), Florida Administrative Code, reads in pertinent part as follows: To be in compliance with paragraph 64B13-3.007(2\(0), FAC, certified optometrists shall perform a dilated fudus examination during the patient’s initial presentation, and thereafter, whenever medically indicated. 29, Nothing in ML’s oplometric records indicated that Respondent performed a dilated fundus examination during M.L.’s initial presentation, or anytime thereafier, whenever medically indicated, | 30. Based on the foregoing, Respondent violated Section 463.016(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2007), by violating Rule 64B13-3.007, Florida Administrative Code, by failing to perform a dilated fundus examination during M.L.’s initial presentation, or anytime thereafter, whenever medically indicated. COUNT FOUR 31. Section 463.016(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2007), provides that violating any provision of this chapter or chapter 456, or any rules adopted pursuant thereto constitutes an act for which disciplinary action may be taken. DOH v. John Cochran, 0.D. 6 Case No. 2008-13633 May 21 2009 9:55 MAY-21-2889 f9r29 FL DEPT OF HEALTH 856 488 1855 P.11/14 32, Rule 64B13-3.012(2), Florida Administrative Code, states that a spectacle prescription shal] be considered valid for a period of five (5) years, and a licensed practitioner shall make available to the patient or his agent any spectacle prescription or duplicate copy determined for that patient. 33. During the examination, M.L. twice requested a copy of her prescription. However, Respondent did not provide M.L. with a copy of her prescription following the examination. 34. Based on the foregoing, Respondent violated Section 463.0] 6(1)(k), Florida Statutes (2007), by violating Rule 64B13-3.012(2), Florida Administrative Code, by failing to provide M.L. with a copy of her prescription following the examination, WHEREFORE, the Petitioner respectfully Téquests that the Board of Optometry enter an order imposing one or more of the following penalties: permanent revocation or suspension of Respondent’s license, restriction of practice, imposition of an administrative fine, issuance of a reprimand, placement of the Respondent on probation, corrective action, refund of fees billed or collected, remedial education and/or any other relief that the Board deems appropriate. DOH v. John Cochran, O.D. 7 Case No. 2008-13633 : MAY-21-2889 Orso May 21 2009 9:57 FL DEPT OF HEALTH 856 488 1855 SIGNED this J day of Naect{ , 2009. Ana M. Viamonte Ross, M.D., M.P-H. Sven C. Khai Patterson Assistant General Counsel , Toe DOH Prosecution Services Unit CLERK » PPUTY cepa TH 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 Florida Bar No.: 0023221 (850) 922-2268 Telephone (850) 922-2832 Facsimile CKP/ckp Reviewed and approved by: (initials) (date) PCP: March 6, 2009 PCP Members: McClane and Oles DOH v. John Cochran, OD. 8 Case No. 2008-13633 P.ia/14 May 21 2009 9:57 MAY-21-2889 Orso FL DEPT OF HEALTH 856 488 1855 P.13/14 NOTICE OF RIGHTS Respondent has the right 10 request a hearing to be conducted in accordance with Section 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes, to be represented by counsel or other qualified representative, to present evidence and argument, to call and cross-examine witnesses and to have subpoena and subpoena duces tecum issued on his or her behalf if a hearing is requested, NOTICE REGARDING ASSESSMENT OF COSTS Respondent is placed on notice that Petitioner has incurred costs related to the investigation and prosecution of this matter. Pursuant to Section 436.072(4), Florida Statutes, the Board shall assess costs related to the investigation and prosecution of a disciplinary matter, which may include attorney hours and costs, on the Respondent in addition to any other discipline imposed. DOH v. John Cochran, O.D. 9 Case No. 2008-13633

Docket for Case No: 09-002832PL