STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT ) OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, ) BOARD OF OPTICIANRY, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) DOAH CASE NO. 86-0805

) DPR CASE NO. 0051304

DAVID SOMERVILLE, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Following the provision of notice, a formal hearing was held in this action as envisioned by Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. The location of the hearing was Deland, Florida. The hearing took place on October 7, 1986.

Charles C. Adams was the hearing officer. This recommended order is being entered following the receipt and review of the transcript of proceedings which was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on November 3, 1986. In addition, the proposed recommended orders of the parties have been considered. The most recent proposal was filed on November 14, 1986. The fact proposals have been utilized to some extent. Otherwise they are rejected for reasons as set forth in the appendix to this recommended order.

APPEARANCES

FOR PETITIONER: Cecilia Bradley, Esquire

Senior Attorney

Department of Professional Regulation

130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750

FOR RESPONDENT: Wilson J. Foster, Esquire

615 Florida National Bank Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301

ISSUES

The issues in this case concern an administrative complaint brought by the State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Opticianry (Petitioner) against David Somerville (Respondent). It is alleged, among other claims, that the Respondent was licensed as an apprentice optician in the state of Florida and while in that capacity practiced opticianry without the benefit of supervision; entered a plea to dispensing optical devices without a license; and committed various forms of fraud related to the sponsorship of his apprentice training, all in violation of provisions of Chapters 455 and 484, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 21P, Florida Administrative Code.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Part A

The following facts are found based upon the prehearing stipulation of the parties:

1. a. Respondent is and has been, at all times material to the Administrative Complaint filed in the instant case and at all times relating to the hearings in the instant case, a licensed apprentice optician in the State of Florida, having been issued license number DA 0001541.

   1. Respondent's last known address is Brandywine Optical, 3112 N. Woodland Blvd., Brandywine Shopping Village, Deland, Florida.

   2. Respondent, David Somerville, is the owner of a business named Brandywine Optical located at 3112 North Woodland Blvd., Brandywine Shopping Village, Deland, Florida.

   3. Respondent is not now nor has he ever been licensed as an optician or optometrist in the State of Florida.

      
      

2. On September 19, 1984, the Respondent filled out an application to be registered as an apprentice optician. On September 19, 1984, Madison Ziegler filled out an application to be Respondent's sponsor. The application signed by David Somerville stated that his supervising optician, Madison Ziegler, began supervising him on September 19, 1984. Ziegler was not present at the Respondent's optical shop on September 20, 1984, and in fact only worked one or two Saturday afternoons, in September. Madison Ziegler was employed full-time with Century 21 Optical, in Holly Hill, Florida.

   
   

   Part B

   
   

   Factual findings based upon the testimony adduced at hearing and in consideration of exhibits admitted at hearing:

   
   

3. When Respondent made application to serve as an apprentice optician under the supervision of Madison Ziegler, on September 19, 1984, the arrangement called for forty-four hours of apprenticeship per week. This internship was to be performed at the business known as Brandywine Optical located at 3112 North Woodland Boulevard, Deland, Florida, respondent's business premises.

   
   

4. On October 25, 1984, Geraldine B. Johnson, manager of the Office of Investigative Services for the Department of Professional Regulation, went to Brandywine Optical. She was accompanied by investigator Diane Radideau of the Department of Professional Regulation. While in the store, the only person in attendance was the Respondent. Johnson presented the Respondent with a prescription for eyeglasses, and the Respondent filled that prescription. In the course of this exchange, Respondent took the prescription from Ms. Johnson and assisted her in obtaining frames for the glasses. Respondent measured her eyes for trifocals and indicated that the glasses would be ready sometime within that week.

   
   

5. On October 31, 1984, Ms. Johnson returned in the company of another employee of the Department of Professional Regulation, John E. Danson. At that time, no other persons were in the business premises of Brandywine Optical other than the Respondent and the two Department of Professional Regulation employees. Ms. Johnson obtained the glasses, Respondent fitted them on her face and provided her with a carrying case, the balance of the bill was paid and Ms. Johnson and Mr. Danson left the store. Before leaving, at the behest of Ms.

   Johnson, Respondent presented Ms. Johnson with a business card which identified the Respondent as dispensing optician and further indicated that Brandywine Optical was a store at which prescriptions involving eye glasses and contact glasses were filled. A photocopy of that card is found as part of the Petitioner's composite Exhibit 4 admitted into evidence. This also sets forth the prescription involved with Ms. Johnson's glasses, which Respondent placed on the back of the business card.

   
   

6. On February 13, 1985, Respondent requested that the sponsorship of his apprentice training be transferred from Madison Ziegler to Leslie Virginia Darden.

   
   

7. Within the Petitioner's composite Exhibit 6 is found a form, Apprentice Transfer of Sponsor, purportedly executed by Madison Ziegler indicating that he had supervised Respondent for a minimum of 40 hours per week between October 11, 1984, and January 18, 1985. This is an inaccurate portrayal. As stated before, Ziegler was involved in the supervision on only one or two Saturday afternoons in September 1984. Consequently, when Respondent transmitted with his Apprentice Transfer of Sponsor Request, the Apprentice Transfer of Sponsor form set out as an enclosure he was submitting information about his apprenticeship which was patently false related to the length of time over which Madison Ziegler had served as his sponsoring optician.

   
   

8. On February 13, 1985, Leslie Virginia Darden executed the application for sponsorship of Respondent as apprentice optician. Leslie Virginia Darden was licensed by the state of Florida as an optician at that time. Her actual sponsorship of the Respondent took place over a period of approximately two days in February 1985. Upon the termination of the sponsorship, the Board of Opticianry was made aware of this change by telephone call from Ms. Darden. The effective date of termination of the sponsorship was February 19, 1985. A form executed by Ms. Darden further confirmed her choice to be removed as sponsor. This form, entitled Apprentice Optical Termination Form, is found as Petitioner's Exhibit 8 admitted into evidence. Ms. Darden also authorized Respondent to sign her name on a form known as Apprentice Transfer of Sponsor which is found as part of the Petitioner's composite Exhibit 6 admitted into evidence noting a change in sponsorship.

   
   

9. As established in Petitioner's Exhibit 5 admitted into evidence, judgment and sentence in the case State of Florida vs. David Somerville, in the County Court in and for Volusia County, Florida - Div. "A," Case No. 84-15535-A, Respondent entered a plea of guilty to dispensing optical glasses without a license. He was placed on six months' probation and as a special term of probation was ordered not to dispense optical devices other than in accordance with a circumstance involving full-time supervision by a licensed optician. This judgment and sentence was placed against the Respondent on February 14, 1985.

   
   

10. In February 1985, Samuel Rosenberg, who was licensed as an optician in the state of Florida, was contacted by the Respondent. An arrangement was made in which Rosenberg would work as an employee at Brandywine Optical for a period of twenty hours a week. This arrangement lasted for four or five weeks. It did not contemplate having Rosenberg sponsor the Respondent's apprenticeship.

    
    

11. As reflected in Petitioner's Exhibit 7 admitted into evidence, on March 14, 1985, Samuel Rosenberg made application as sponsor of an apprenticeship program for the benefit of David Somerville. In that application

    it was indicated that Rosenberg would supervise the apprenticeship of Somerville for a period of forty hours a week.

    
    

12. Initially there was an arrangement in which twelve hours of supervision was to be provided Somerville by Rosenberg in supervising work as an optician at a stand in a flea market. In addition, four days a week, for a total of twenty-eight hours, were given to Somerville under Rosenberg's supervision at the Brandywine Optical address. This arrangement lasted for about nine months. From that point forward, the arrangement was to have Rosenberg supervise Somerville at the flea market on Saturdays for eight hours and to provide thirty-two hours of supervision at Brandywine Optical Monday through Thursday. Rosenberg was led to believe that on Friday an optometrist was in the Brandywine Optical offices, and according to Somerville's remarks to Rosenberg, the optometrist does all work related to eye glasses, etc., and Somerville was only involved with the selection of eye glasses and use of the telephone, unrelated to the practice of opticianry.

    
    

13. On August 27, 1985, Douglas Vanderbilt, an investigator with the Department of Professional Regulation, went to the Brandywine Optical store. When he entered the store, Somerville and another customer were the only persons he saw. The customer was trying on frames and making a selection of frames, with the assistance of Somerville. Vanderbilt picked out some frames that he wanted to buy. Somerville took the glasses that Vanderbilt had and made measurements from those glasses. This was in furtherance of the preparation of a new pair of spectacles at a cost of $110. Sixty dollars was paid down. Some of the measurements Somerville made pertaining to Vanderbilt involved bifocals. No prescription had been presented by Vanderbilt and Somerville used the old glasses which Vanderbilt had as a basis for measurement. Vanderbilt was presented with a business card which may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit 1 admitted into evidence. The business card reflects Brandywine Optical, prescriptions filled, eye glasses and contact lenses. It gives the business address and indicates that David Somerville is the dispensing optician. Somerville, upon the questioning of Vanderbilt, confirmed that the name Somerville reflected on the card and the Respondent Somerville were one and the same person.

    
    

14. On September 9, 1985, Vanderbilt returned to the business premises at Brandywine Optical. At that time, only Somerville was present. Somerville broke the black stainless steel frame across the bridge of the new glasses. Consequently, Vanderbilt picked out a brown frame, and Somerville fitted the brown pair of glasses on Vanderbilt.

    
    

    AGGRAVATION

    
    

    Part C

    
    

15. On February 28, 1986, Somerville entered a plea of nolo contendere to dispensing optical devices without a license in the action of State of Florida vs. David C. Somerville, in the County Court in and for Volusia County, Florida, Case No. 85-15487-A. He was given one year's probation to run consecutive to a previous probation and again cautioned not to conduct any business without the presence of supervisory personnel required in his apprenticeship status. In the course of the order of the court, reference was made to Section 484.007(e)(3), Florida Statutes, and Rule 21P-16.01(4), Florida Administrative Code. A copy of the information and judgment and sentence related to this matter may be found as Petitioner's composite Exhibit 10 admitted into evidence. This offense pertained to the circumstance of the purchase of spectacles by Vanderbilt.

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

16. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties to this action in accordance with Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

    
    

17. The Petitioner, at the commencement of the hearing, argued in favor of its motion in limine to prohibit the Respondent from testifying at the hearing based upon his refusal to respond to questions propounded in the discovery phase of this case. That motion was denied as reflected in the record of the proceedings.

    
    

18. Respondent's counsel urges that the disciplinary provisions set forth in Sections 484.014(1) and (2), Florida Statutes, do not pertain to apprentice opticians in the state of Florida. This position is not accepted.

    
    

19. Section 484.007(1)(e)3., Florida Statutes, dealing with licensure identifies as one prerequisite to standing the examination for licensure to practice opticianry, the apprenticeship of persons registered with the Department of Professional Regulation. Should those apprentices conclude the three years of not less than forty-hour work weeks under the supervision of an optician, a physician, or optometrist licensed under the laws of this state, together with other preliminary matters, those persons may offer their candidacy for licensure as a dispensing optician. Respondent has availed himself of this provision in attempting to obtain the necessary training to stand the examination.

    
    

20. This program is part of the licensing process. In addition, his interim registration as apprentice is a form of licensure in itself. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that this apprentice could be disciplined by a final order which would preclude his certification by the Board of Opticianry to the Department of Professional Regulation prior to being examined for licensure. This interpretation is borne out by the regulatory statute. Certification is called for in Section 484.007(1), Florida Statutes. Moreover, Section 484.014(2)(a), Florida Statutes, allows the Board of Opticianry to refuse to certify persons who have been found guilty of any of the grounds for discipline set forth in Section 484.014(1), Florida Statutes. In this connection, it is not necessary to wait until the application for licensure is presented to the Department of Professional Regulation before determining the acceptability of this candidate, given that the apprenticeship program license opportunity is an integral part of the licensing process. The disciplinary action of the refusal to certify carries with it the ability to dissolve the registration as an apprentice, to remove that license, thus precluding the apprentice's operation under the apparent color of law. When an apprentice has abused that privilege and acted outside the law, he should not be left to the protection of the law.

    
    

21. By the first count of the administrative complaint, Respondent is said to have violated Section 484.014(1)(g), Florida Statutes, which speaks in terms of discipline for violation of provisions within Chapter 484, Florida Statutes; Chapter 455, Florida Statutes; or any of the rules promulgated pursuant to those chapters. In particular, it is alleged that given a violation of Section 484.013(1)(b), Florida Statutes, by preparation, dispensing of spectacles, eye glasses or other optical devices at a time when he was not licensed as an optician in the state of Florida, Respondent is guilty of a violation of Section 484.014(1)(g), Florida Statutes. Section 484.013, Florida Statutes, sets forth certain language, to include Section 484.013(1)(b), Florida Statutes, the

    violation of which may cause a person to be prosecuted in the criminal courts of the state and to potentially be found guilty of a misdemeanor in the second degree punishable as provided in Section 775.082, 775.083 or 775.084, Florida Statutes. Under these circumstances, Section 484.014(1)(g), Florida Statutes, is not read to allow the administrative prosecution of facts pertaining to the alleged preparation or dispensing of spectacles, etc. Such prosecution is left to the State Attorney, not to the administrative prosecutor in behalf of the Department of Professional Regulation. The implications of a successful prosecution by the State Attorney are addressed in Section 484.014(1)(r), Florida Statutes, which allows disciplinary action to be taken against the Respondent for a conviction or a finding of guilt, without regard for adjudication in the courts of this state or in any other jurisdiction of a crime related to the ability to practice opticianry or related to the practice of opticianry itself. In summary, related to alleged activity on the part of the Respondent in October 1984 as set forth in Count I, Respondent is not guilty.

    
    

22. The second count to the administrative complaint mirrors the first count, with the difference being that it refers to August 1985. For reasons as stated in addressing Count I, Respondent is not found guilty of violating the provision.

    
    

23. The third count speaks of a violation of Section 484.014(1)(g), Florida Statutes, in that Respondent is said to have violated Section 484.013(2), Florida Statutes, by the use of the title "Optician" or otherwise leading the public to believe that he was engaged in the practice of opticianry, in October 1984. Count IV is similar to Count III with the exception that it pertains to August 1985. For reasons as discussed in the treatment of Count I, Respondent is not guilty of the violations alleged in Counts III and IV.

    
    

24. Count V to the administrative complaint alleges the violation of Section 484.014(1)(g), Florida Statutes, through a violation of Section 484.013(1)(a), Florida Statutes. The Respondent is said to have made false, fraudulent statements either for himself or for another person in application, affidavit or statement presented to the Board or any proceeding before the Board, related to his remarks regarding the transfer of his sponsorship from Mr. Ziegler to Ms. Darden. Count VI makes the same set of accusations as they pertain to the transfer of sponsorship from Ms. Darden to Mr. Rosenberg. For reasons as described in the discussion of Count I, Respondent is not guilty of a violation of Counts V and VI of the administrative complaint.

    
    

25. Count VII accuses the Respondent of a violation of Section 484.014(1)(a), Florida Statutes, in that he is attempting to procure a license by misrepresentation, bribery, or fraud, by misrepresenting the hours and dates of supervision and representing to the Board the the supervision was continuous when it was interrupted. Respondent, in his statements in furtherance of the claim of supervision by Madison Ziegler has grossly overstated Ziegler's supervisory activities by indicating that Ziegler was his sponsor for a number of months when in fact Ziegler only was involved for a couple of days in September 1984. This representation of continuous supervision was misstated. In actuality, there was a period of time following September 1954 into February 1955 in which there was an interruption of any supervision of activities by

    Respondent. Therefore, Respondent is guilty of violating Section 454.014(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and is subject to the penalties announced at Section 454.014(2), Florida Statutes.

    
    

26. Count VIII to the administrative complaint accuses the Respondent of a violation of Section 484.014(1)(c), Florida Statutes, by making or filing a

    report or record which he knows to be false. In his submission of the material pertaining to the supervision supposedly given by Madison Ziegler, he is reporting information about the amount of supervision which was false and known to be so by the Respondent. Therefore, he is guilty of a violation of the provision and subject to the penalties announced in Section 484.014(2), Florida Statutes.

    
    

27. Count IX of the administrative complaint accuses Respondent of a violation of Section 484.014(1)(r), Florida Statutes, by having been convicted regardless of adjudication in a court of the state of a crime which related to his ability to practice opticianry or to the practice of opticianry. His plea of guilt to the crime of dispensing optical devices without a license in the County Court, Division A, in and for Volusia County, Florida, Case No. 84-15535- A constituted action which causes him to be guilty of a violation of Section 484.014(1)(r), Florida Statutes, and subject to the penalties set forth in Section 484.014(2), Florida Statutes.

    
    

28. Count X accuses the Respondent of a violation of Section 484.014(1)(g), Florida Statutes, by violating the rules promulgated pursuant to Chapter 484, Florida Statutes, and in particular, Rule 21P-16.08, Florida Administrative Code, in that he failed to adhere to the apprenticeship standards announced in Chapter 21P-16, Florida Administrative Code. Respondent is guilty of such violations and is subject to the penalties set forth in Section 484.014(2), Florida Statutes. This violation of the rule relates to his disregard for the requirement that he practice opticianry only under supervision of the sponsor. Respondent practiced opticianry outside the supervision of any sponsor in his dispensing of glasses to members of the Department of Professional Regulation's investigative staff.

    
    

29. Count XI to the administrative complaint accuses the Respondent of violating Section 484.014(1)(g), Florida Statutes, by violating Section 455.227(1)(b), Florida Statutes. Respondent is guilty of such violation for his action in contravention of the terms of his apprenticeship as announced in Chapter 21P-16, Florida Administrative Code, and he is subject to the penalties set forth in Section 455.014(2), Florida Statutes.

    
    

30. Count XII to the administrative complaint accuses the Respondent of violating Section 484.014(1)(g), Florida Statutes, by violation of Chapter 455, Florida Statutes, particularly Section 455.227(1)(a), Florida Statutes, in that he is said to have made misleading, deceptive, untrue or fraudulent representation in the practice of his profession. In his remarks about the amount of time that he was supervised by Madison Ziegler and in his holding himself out to be a dispensing optician in the material given to the investigators Johnson and Vanderbilt and by his actions in dispensing to those investigators, he has been misleading, deceptive, untrue and fraudulent in representations in the practice of opticianry. Therefore, he is guilty of violation of Section 484.014(1)(g), Florida Statutes, and is subject to the penalties announced at 484.014(2), Florida Statutes.

Based upon a full consideration of the facts and the conclusions of law reached, it is,

RECOMMENDED:

That a final order be entered which absolves the Respondent of the accusations set forth in Counts I through VI and finds him guilty of the violation of provisions of law announced in Counts VII through XII and denies

his further pursuit of an application for licensure before the Department of Professional Regulation and precludes further activity under the guise of his registration as an apprentice optician by revoking that license.

DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of December, 1986, at Tallahassee, Florida.

CHARLES C. ADAMS

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building

2009 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550

(904) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this day 23rd day of December, 1986.

APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-0805

The facts suggested by the parties have been set forth in the recommended order with the exception of the following:

Petitioners' proposed facts

1. Paragraphs 14 and 19 of the proposals by Petitioner are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute.

2. Paragraph 33 is subordinate to the facts found in the recommended order.

3. Paragraphs 35 and 36 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute.

4. Paragraph 37 is contrary to facts found in the recommended order.

5. Paragraphs 46, 47 and 48 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute.

   
   

   Respondent's proposed facts

   
   

6. No facts were offered by the Respondent. His presentation was an argument in law that the prosecuting authorities had no jurisdiction to proceed against him.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Cecilia Bradley, Esquire Staff Attorney

Department of Professional Regulation

130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Wilson Jerry Foster, Esquire 616 First Florida Bank Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Mr. Samuel Rosenberg

542 White Street

Daytona Beach, Florida 32014

Pat Guilford, Executive Director Board of Opticianry

Department of Professional Regulation

130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750

Fred Roche, Secretary

Department of Professional Regulation

130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750

Wings Slocum Benton, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation

130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-07050

=================================================================

AGENCY FINAL ORDER

=================================================================

STATE OF FLORIDA

DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION BOARD OF OPTICIANRY

DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION,

Petitioner,

vs. CASE NO. 86-0805

DAVID SOMMERVILLE,

Respondent.

/

FINAL ORDER

THIS MATTER came before the Board of Opticianry Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, on March 6, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida, for consideration of the Hearing Officer's Recommended Order (a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A) in the case of Department of Professional Regulation v. David Sommerville, Case Number 86-0805. At the hearing, Petitioner was represented by Lisa S. Nelson, Esquire. Respondent was present and was represented by Wilson Jerry Foster,

Esquire. Upon consideration of the Hearing Officer's Recommended Order, and having been otherwise fully advised in its premises, the Board makes the following findings and conclusions:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact are approved and adopted and are incorporated herein by reference.

   
   

2. There is competent, substantial evidence to support the Board's findings.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The Hearing Officer's Conclusions of Law are approved and adopted and are incorporated herein by reference.

   
   

2. There is competent substantial evidence to support the Board's conclusions.

   
   

3. The Board rejects the Hearing Officer's recommendation that the Board deny Respondent's further pursuit of an application for licensure and preclude his further activity under apprenticeship registration by revoking that license. The Hearing Officer failed to give adequate consideration of mitigating circumstances. Specifically, that no damage to the public was established [Transcript of formal hearing (T) 154-157] that Respondent's opticianry skills were excellent (T 154-151) and that his reputation in the community was excellent (testimony of Betty Dupuis T 99-103). It should be noted that Ms. Dupuis' testimony as a consumer should be given greater credence than that of a business competitor. Further, the Board finds that Respondent made a good faith effort to obtain adequate supervision and coverage of his practice as an apprentice. Based upon the foregoing, the recommended penalty should be reduced.

WHEREFORE, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Respondent violated Sections 484.014(1)(a), 44.014(1)(c), 484.014(1)(r), Florida Statutes and Section 484.014(1)(g), Florida Statutes by violating Rule 21P-16.08, Florida Administrative Code, and the apprenticeship standards set forth in Chapter 21P- 16, Florida Administrative Code. Respondent is fined one thousand dollars ($1,000.00), is denied credit for any hours of apprenticeship served prior to March 14, 1985, and his license as an apprentice shall be suspended for a period of one year and will be reinstated at the conclusion of that period upon Respondent's appropriate application. This Order becomes effective upon being filed with the Board Clerk.

The parties are hereby notified that they may appeal this Order by filing one copy of a Notice of Appeal with the Clerk of the department of Professional Regulation and by filing a filing fee and one copy of a Notice of Appeal with the District Court of Appeal within thirty days of the date this Order is filed.

DONE AND ORDERED this 8th day of April, 1987.

Richard E. Williams, Chairman Board of Opticianry

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Final Order has been forwarded by Certified United States Mail this 30th day of April, 1987, to David Sommerville, 3112 North Woodland Boulevard, Number 202, Deland, Florida 32720, and by United States Mail to Wilson Jerry Foster, Esquire, 616 First Florida Bank Building, Tallahassee, Florida 32301, and hand delivered to Lisa S. Nelson, Esquire 130 North Monroe Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0705.

Patricia Guilford Executive Director Board of Opticianry

130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0705

(904)487-2395

Docket for Case No: 86-000805

Orders for Case No: 86-000805