Petitioner: DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, BOARD OF OPTOMETRY
Respondent: NAVINDRA SINGH, O.D.
Judges: LISA SHEARER NELSON
Agency: Department of Health
Locations: Inverness, Florida
Filed: Aug. 05, 2009
Status: Closed
Settled and/or Dismissed prior to entry of RO/FO on Monday, January 25, 2010.
Latest Update: Dec. 23, 2024
Aug 5 2009
AUIG-@5-2889 18:42 FL DEPT OF HEALTH 856 488 1855 P.@3
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,
PETITIONER,
Vv. CASE NO. 2007-09524
NAVINDRA SINGH, 0.D.,
RESPONDENT
I TIV MP T
Petitioner, Department of Health, by and through its undersigned counsel, files
this Administrative Complaint before the Board of Optometry against Respondent,
Navindra Singh, 0.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 (0.D,) within the state of Florida, pursuant to license number OP 3763.
3. Respondent's address of record is 103 Knights Court, Royal Palm Beach,
Florida 33411,
4. On or about January 10, 2007, Patient HL, an eleven-year-old male,
presented to Respondent, accompanied by his mother (TD).
DOH v. Navindra Singh, O.D.
Case No. 2007-09524
Aug 3 2009 11:13
AUIG-85-2689 18:42 FL DEPT OF HEALTH 856 488 1855 P.a4
5. On or about January 10, 2007, Respondent conducted an eye
examination, without a dilated fundus examination, on Patient HL and subsequently
issued an eyeglass prescription for Patient HL for clear lenses and sunglass clips,
6, An eyeglass prescription is a written order by the optometrist to an
optician for eyeglasses specifying the refractive power needed to correct vision, typically
in the following format:
SPH CYL
__ (Spherical (Cylindrical) _ AXIS
Right Eye |
Left Eye |
7, Spherical correction, or “SPH,” refers to correction of the refractive error
of the eye.
8. Cylindrical correction, or “CYL,” refers to correction of the astigmatic
refractive error of the eye.
9, The numerical values in the “spherical” and “cylindrical” columns indicate
lens strengths in diopters. A spherical value of 0.00 (or notation of “p/’) indicates no
correction is needed.
10. The axis is the horizontal, vertical or diagonal angle of the cylindrical
correction. The numerical value in the axis column indicates the direction of the
cylinder axis in degrees,
DOH v. Navindra Singh, O.D. 2
Case No. 2007-09524
Aug 3 2009 11:13
AUIG-@5-2889 18:42 FL DEPT OF HEALTH 856 488 1855 P.@S
di. On or about January 10, 2007, Respondent wrote the following
prescription for Patient HL:
Right Eye
Left Eye
12. Patient HL’s file indicated that this prescription was sent to DBL Labs for
production of a pair of clear lens glasses (‘Frame 456”) and a pair of sunglass clip
lenses (“Frame 625”).
13. On or about January 11, 2007, Patient HL received the glasses and
sunglass clip lenses produced by DBL Labs.
14. On or about January 12, 2007, Patient HL returned to Respondent -
complaining that he could not see well out of one or both lenses.
15, On or about January 12, 2007, Respondent evaluated one or both pairs of
lenses and informed Patient HL and TD that the prescription was correct.
16. Patient HL’s optometric records did not contain any notation regarding
Respondent’s subsequent lens evaluation or any encounter with Patient HL that took
place on or about January 12, 2007,
17, Patient HL continued to have visual problems with one or both pairs of
lenses,
18. On or about March 1, 2007, Patient HL presented with TD to Dr. N.,
another optometrist.
DOH v. Navindra Singh, O.D. . 3
Case No. 2007-09524
AUIG-@5-2889 18:42
19. Dr. N. wrote the following prescription for Patient H.L.:
FL DEPT OF HEALTH
Aug 3 2009 11:13
856 488 1855
P.@6
SPH CYL
(Spherical) _ (Cylindrical} AXIS
| Right Eye 0.00 - 0,25 90
| Left Eye + 0.25 - 0.75 82
20. ‘Dr. N. examined Patient HL’s clear lenses (Frame 456), His examination
indicated these lenses had the following power:
SPH CYL
(Spherical) (Cylindrical) AXIS
| Right Eye 0.00 -0,25 109
| Left Eye - + 0.50 - 1.00 74
21. Dr, N. examined Patient H.L.’s sunglass clip lenses (Frame 625). His
examination indicated these lenses had the following power:
|
SPH CYL
(Spherical) (Cylindrical) AXIS
LK Right Eye 0.00 0.25 170
Left Eye +.0.50 -1.00. 80
22. Dr. N,’s medical records for Patient HL indicated that the right eye axis
power (170) for the sunglass clip prescription lenses (Frame 625) varied significantly
from Patient HL's actual prescription from both Dr. N and Respondent,
23. Respondent’s optometric records for Patient HL do not contain any
notation regarding this significant right eye axis prescription variation after the
Respondent re-evaluated one or both pairs of lenses when Patient HL returned on or
about January 12, 2007, and complained of his inability to see through the lenses,
DOH v. Navindra Singh, O.D.
Case No, 2007-09524
Aug 3 2009 11:14
AUIG-@5-2089 18:43 FL DEPT OF HEALTH 856 488 1855 Pa?
COUNT ONE
24. Petitioner realleges and incorporates paragraphs one (1) through twenty-
three (23) as if fully set forth in this count.
25, Section 463.016(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2006), provides that violating any
provision of Chapters 456 or 463, Florida Statutes, or any rules adopted pursuant thereto,
constitutes grounds for disciplinary action.
26. Rule 64B13-3.007(1) & (2), Florida Administrative Code, requires in
pertinent part, that a comprehensive visual assessment include minimum procedures
which shall be recorded on the patient’s case record as follows:
so
(2) A comprehensive eye examination shall include the following minimum
procedures, which shall be recorded on the patient's case record:
(c) External examination;
aha
(e) Visual field testing (confrontation or other);
269k,
27, Nothing in HL's optometric records indicated that Respondent conducted or
recorded either an external examination or visual field testing (confrontation or other)
Pursuant to Rule 64B13-3.007(2)(c) or (e), Florida Administrative Code.
28. Rule 64B13-3.007(3), Florida Administrative Code, requires that if because
of the patient’s age or physical limitations, one or more of the procedures specified herein
or any part thereof, cannot be performed, or if the procedures or any part thereof are not
DOH v. Navindra Singh, O.D, 3
Case No, 2007-09524
Aug 3 2009 11:14
AUIG-@5-2089 18:43 FL DEPT OF HEALTH 856 488 1855 P.@8
to be performed by reason of exemption from this rule, the reason or exemption shall be
noted on the patient's case record.
29. — Nothing in HL’s optometric records indicated that Respondent recorded any
reason why one or more of the specified procedures could not be performed because of
the patient's age or physical limitations or any other exemption from the requirements of
the rule,
30. Based on the foregoing, Respondent violated Section 463.016(1)(t), Florida
Statutes (2006), by failing to perform or record minimum required procedures pursuant to
Rule 64B13-3,007(1) & (2), Florida Administrative Code, or by failing to record any reason
why the minimum procedures were not performed or recorded or exempt from Rule
64B13-3.007(1), Florida Administrative Code.
COUNT 2
31. Petitioner realleges and incorporates paragraphs one (1) through twenty-
three (23) as if fully set forth in this count.
32. Section 463.016(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2006) provides that violating any
provision of Chapters 456 or 463, Florida Statutes, or any rules adopted pursuant thereto,
| constitutes grounds for disciplinary action.
33. Rule 64B13-3.010(3), Florida Administrative Code, requires that an
optometrist shall provide that degree of care which is full and complete, consistent with
the patient conditions presented, the professional competency of the optometrist and the
scope of practice of optometry.
DOH v-. Navindra Singh, O.D. 6
Case No. 2007-09524
Aug 3 2009 11:14
AUIG-85-2089 18:43 FL DEPT OF HEALTH 856 488 1855 P.@9
34. On or about January 10, 2007, Respondent wrote the following
prescription for Patient HL:
SPH CYL
(Spherical) (Cylindrical) AXIS
| Right Eye pl ~ 0.25 080
Left Eye + 0.50 ~1,00 080 |
35. On or about January 12, 2007, Patient HL returned to Respondent
complaining that he could not see well out of one or both pairs of lenses.
36. . On or about January 12, 2007, Respondent evaluated one or both pairs of
lenses and informed Patient HL and TD that the prescription was correct.
37. On or about March 1, 2007, Patient HL presented with TD to Dr. N.,
another optometrist.
38. Dr, N, examined Patient HL’s clear lenses (Frame 456). His examination
indicated these lenses had the following power:
SPH CYL
(Spherical) (Cylindrical) AXIS
[ Right Eye 0.00 - 0,25 109
Left Eye + 0,50 - 1.00 74 |
39. Dr. N. examined Patient HL’s sunglass clip lenses (Frame 625). His
examination indicated these lenses had the following power:
| oma | as
(Spherical) Cylindrical AXIS
Right Eye 0.00 ~0.25 170
| Left Eye: + 0.50 -1.00 80
DOH v. Navindra Singh, O.D. 7
Case No. 2007-09524
Aug 3 2009 11:14
AUIG-@5-2889 18:44 FL DEPT OF HEALTH 856 488 1855 P.1a
40. Dr. N.’s medical records for Patient HL indicated that the right eye axis
power (170) for the sunglass clip prescription lenses (Frame 625) varied significantly
from Patient HL‘s actual prescription from both Dr. N. and Respondent, yet the
Respondent indicated upon re-evaluation that one or both pairs of lenses were correct.
41, _ Based on the foregoing, Respondent violated Section 463.016(1)(t), Florida
Statutes (2006), as defined by Rule 64B13-3.010(3), Florida Administrative Code, by
failing to provide that degree of care which Is full and complete, consistent with the
patient conditions presented, the professional competency of the optometrist and the
scope of practice of optometry.
COUNT 3
42. Petitioner realleges and incorporates paragraphs one (1) through twenty-
three (23) as if fully set forth in this count.
43. Section 463.016(1){t), Florida Statutes (2006), provides that violating any
provision of Chapters 456 or 463, Florida Statutes, or any rules adapted pursuant thereto,
constitutes grounds for disciplinary action.
44. Rule 64B13-3.007(7)(a), Florida Administrative Code, requires that in order
to be in compliance with paragraph 64B13-3.007(2)(f}), Florida Administrative Code,
certified optometrists shall perform a dilated fundus exarnination during the patient's initial
presentation, and thereafter, whenever medically indicated; however, if not performed
based on the optometrists best judgment because of the patient's age, physical
limitations, or conditions, the reason(s) shall be noted in the patients medical record.
DOH v. Navindra Singh, O.D. 8
Case No. 2007-09524
Aug 3 2009 11:15
AUIG-@5-2889 18:44 FL DEPT OF HEALTH 856 488 1855 P.ii
45. Nothing in Patient HL’s optometric records indicated that Respondent
performed, a dilated fundus examination or if not, any reason the dilated fundus exam
was not performed, as required by Rule 64B13-3,007(7)(a), Florida Administrative Code.
46. Based on the foregoing, Respondent violated Section 463.016(1)(t), Florida
Statutes (2006), as defined by Rule 64B13-3.010(7)(a), Florida Administrative Code, by
failing to perform a dilated fundus examination or recording any reason why the dilated
fundus examination was not performed.
COUNT 4
47. Petitioner realleges and incorporates paragraphs one (1) through twenty-
three (23) as if fully set forth in this count.
48. Section 463.016(1)(kK), Florida Statutes (2006), provides that failing to
keep written optometric records about the examinations, treatments, and prescriptions
for patients constitutes grounds for disciplinary action.
49. On or about January 12, 2007, Patient HL returned to Respondent
complaining that he could not see well out of one or both frames.
50, ‘On or about January 12, 2007, Respondent evaluated one or both pairs of
lenses and informed Patient HL and TD that one or both lenses were correct.
51. Patient HL’s optometric records do not contain any notation regarding
Respondent’s subsequent lens evaluation or any encounter with Patient HL that took
piace on or about January 12, 2007.
52. Based on the foregoing, Respondent violated Section 463.016(1)(k),
Florida Statutes (2006), by failing to provide any notation in Patient HL’s optometric
DOH v. Navindra Singh, 0.D. 9
Case No. 2007-09524
Aug 3 2009 11:15
AUIG-@5-2889 18:44 FL DEPT OF HEALTH 856 488 1855 P.i2
records regarding Respondent’s subsequent lens evaluation or any encounter with
Patient HL that took place on or about January 12, 2007.
WHEREFORE, the Petitioner respectfully requests 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.
SIGNED this_ {© day of (WOU , 2009,
Charlyne “Khai” Patterson
Assistant General Counsel
DEPART FILED DOH Prosecution Services Unit
ARTMENT OF HEALTH 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65
CLERK Raul “Eh Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265
14 OF Florida Bar No.:0023221
DATE (850) 922-2268 Telephone
& (850) 922-2382 Facsimile
CKP/ckp
PCP: May 13, 2009
PCP Members: Naberhaus & Oles
DOH v. Navindra Singh, O.D. 10
Case No. 2007-09524
Aug 3 2009 11:15
AUIG-85-2089 18:44 FL DEPT OF HEALTH 856 488 1855
NOTICE OF RIGHTS
Respondent has the right to 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 456.072(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. Navindra Singh, O.D. 1
Case No. 2007-09524
P.13
Docket for Case No: 09-004191PL
Issue Date |
Proceedings |
Jan. 25, 2010 |
Order Closing File. CASE CLOSED.
|
Jan. 25, 2010 |
Notice of Cancellation of Deposition (of V. Nothnagel, O.D.) filed.
|
Jan. 22, 2010 |
Notice of Cancellation of Deposition Duces Tecum filed.
|
Jan. 22, 2010 |
Petitioner's Motion to Relinquish Jurisdiction to the Board of Optometry filed.
|
Jan. 22, 2010 |
Notice of Cancellation of Deposition (of J. Andrews, O.D. on January 25, 2010) filed.
|
Jan. 21, 2010 |
Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum (Brain P. Den Beste,O.D.)filed.
|
Jan. 20, 2010 |
Respondent's Notice of Serving Verified Amended Answers to Petitioner's First Set of Interrogatories filed.
|
Jan. 20, 2010 |
Petitioner's Notice Canceling Deposition Duces Tecum (of Navindra Singh) filed.
|
Jan. 20, 2010 |
Respondent's Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum of Victor T. Nothnagel, O.D filed.
|
Jan. 20, 2010 |
Respondent's Notice of Serving Unverified Amended Answers to Petitioner's First Set of Interrogatories filed.
|
Jan. 19, 2010 |
Respondent's Supplemental Response to Petitioner's First Request for Production filed.
|
Jan. 14, 2010 |
Respondent's Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum (of J. Andrews, O.D filed.
|
Jan. 13, 2010 |
Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum (of N. Sing, O.D. filed.
|
Jan. 13, 2010 |
Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum (of J. Andrews, O.D.)filed.
|
Jan. 12, 2010 |
Notice of Taking Depositions Duces Tecum (of H. Lindall IV and H. Lindall III) filed.
|
Jan. 12, 2010 |
Second Request to Produce filed.
|
Nov. 23, 2009 |
Order Granting Continuance and Re-scheduling Hearing (hearing set for February 11, 2010; 11:00 a.m.; Inverness, FL).
|
Nov. 18, 2009 |
Amended Unopposed Motion for Continuance filed.
|
Nov. 18, 2009 |
Unopposed Motion for Continuance filed.
|
Nov. 10, 2009 |
Respondent's Response to Petitioner's First Request for Production filed.
|
Nov. 10, 2009 |
Respondent's Notice of Serving Unverified Answers to Petitioner's First Set of Interrogatories filed.
|
Nov. 03, 2009 |
Order Granting Motion to Compel.
|
Oct. 16, 2009 |
Petitioner's Motion to Compel Discovery filed.
|
Sep. 30, 2009 |
Notice of Serving Petitioner's Response to Respondent's Interrogatories filed.
|
Sep. 30, 2009 |
Notice of Serving Petitioner's Response to Respondent's Request for Production filed.
|
Sep. 09, 2009 |
Respondent's Response to Petitioner's First Request for Admissions filed.
|
Aug. 24, 2009 |
Order of Pre-hearing Instructions.
|
Aug. 24, 2009 |
Notice of Hearing (hearing set for November 30, 2009; 11:00 a.m.; Inverness, FL).
|
Aug. 20, 2009 |
Notice of Serving Interrogatories filed.
|
Aug. 20, 2009 |
Request to Produce filed.
|
Aug. 13, 2009 |
Joint Response to Initial Order filed.
|
Aug. 13, 2009 |
Amended Joint Response to Initial Order filed.
|
Aug. 10, 2009 |
Notice of Serving Petitioner's First Request for Admissions filed.
|
Aug. 10, 2009 |
Notice of Filing Petitioner's First Request for Production filed.
|
Aug. 10, 2009 |
Notice of Serving Petitioner's First Set of Interrogatories filed.
|
Aug. 05, 2009 |
Initial Order.
|
Aug. 05, 2009 |
Notice of Appearance (filed by C. Patterson).
|
Aug. 05, 2009 |
Election of Rights filed.
|
Aug. 05, 2009 |
Administrative Complaint filed.
|
Aug. 05, 2009 |
Agency referral filed.
|