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