The Issue The issues in this case are presented on the basis of an Administrative Complaint brought by the Petitioner against the Respondent. Allegations set forth in that complaint pertain to the treatment of the patient Helen Gilmore. It is alleged that Respondent failed to record on the patient's records or perform the minimum examination procedures for vision analysis related to that patient in an examination of January 26, 1982. It is further alleged that on May 29, 1982, that the patient requested a duplicate copy of the original prescription obtained from the initial examination but Respondent instead performed a new eye examination and again failed to record on the patient records or perform the minimum procedures for vision analysis concerning this patient. In the face of these factual allegations, Respondent is said to have violated Sections 463.012 and 463.016(1)(g) and (h), Florida Statutes, and Rule 21Q-3.07, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to the Administrative Complaint, Respondent has been licensed as a practicing optometrist in the State of Florida, license No. 40616. During this sequence, Respondent has conducted his practice in Palatka, Florida. Respondent saw the patient Helen Gilmore on January 26, 1982. Ms. Gilmore was having difficulty with her present glasses related to vision in her left eye. Following an examination which took into account the minimum procedures for vision analysis set forth in Rule 21Q-3.07, Florida Administrative Code, Respondent issued a prescription for the patient which deviated from the prescription in the glasses which she was wearing at the time of the examination. Respondent charged $30 for the examination and prescription, which was paid by Gilmore. The prescription was presented to Eckerd's Optical Service in Palatka, Florida, in March 1982, at which time Reid obtained new lenses and frames. Ms. Gilmore paid Eckerd's for the lenses and frames. Having obtained the new frames and lenses from Eckerd Optical, Ms. Gilmore wore those glasses until she started having trouble focusing one of her eyes. Specifically, the patient was having trouble focusing on distant objects. Ms. Gilmore complained to Eckerd Optical about her problem several times. Eckerd Optical was unable to find the duplicate prescription related to the request for prescription by Dr. Reid and Gilmore was advised to return to Dr. Reid and receive a copy of that prescription from his office. In this regard, Dr. Reid's office, in the person of his wife, contacted Gilmore and asked if some problems were being experienced, to which Gilmore indicated that she was having difficulty with her eye and Mrs. Reid stated that Gilmore should return and have her eyes checked again by Dr. Reid. On May 29, 1982, Gilmore was seen by Respondent in his office. The purpose of this visit was to obtain a duplicate copy of the prescription which had been given by Dr. Reid on January 26, 1982 and Gilmore made this known to Respondent. Dr. Reid examined the glasses which Ms. Gilmore had purchased from Eckerd Optical and discovered that the lenses were not in keeping with the prescription which he had given to the patient in that the cylinder correction for astigmatism was not as prescribed and the bifocal had been made up round as opposed to flat. The variance in the prescription given and the prescription as filled was slight. Nonetheless Dr. Reid was of the opinion that it could cause and had caused discomfort to the patient, though not in the way of permanent damage. Having this in mind, instead of providing the duplicate copy of the prescription as requested, Respondent conducted a further vision analysis carrying out those procedures set forth in Rule 21Q-3.07, Florida Administrative Code. On the May 29, 1982 visit, and in the January 26, 1982, examination, Respondent failed to record on the patient's case record the indication that external examination including cover test and visual field testing had been done. Moreover, as established by the testimony of a qualified expert, Dr. Walter Hathaway, who is licensed and practices optometry in the State of Florida, the further examination was not optometrically indicated. This determination was made by Dr. Hathaway based upon the fact that Respondent should merely have provided a duplicate copy of the original prescription of January 26, 1982, as issued by Dr. Reid, having discovered the mistake in the efforts of Eckerd's to fill that prescription and allowed Eckerd's to rectify its error. Per Hathaway, it not being necessary to conduct further examination of the patient, to do so was outside acceptable community standards for the practice of optometry, Again, the opinion of Dr. Hathaway is accepted. As a result of the examination, Dr. Reid prepared a second prescription, which was unlike his January 26, 1982, prescription and the efforts at compliance with that prescription made by Eckerd's in fashioning the lenses. Gilmore was charged $35 for the examination and she paid the bill.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent used fraudulent, false, misleading, or deceptive advertising and whether Respondent willfully submitted a claim to a third-party payor for services not rendered to a patient; and, if so, what is the appropriate sanction.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of optometry pursuant to section 20.43, Florida Statutes, and chapters 456 and 463, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was a licensed optometrist in the State of Florida, having been issued license number OPC 1738. Respondent is the owner of One Price Optical in Cape Coral, Florida, where he practices optometry and sells eyeglasses. He opened his business in 2000. For the first 13 years of his business, Respondent advertised in an area newspaper, offering a free eye exam for glasses. The advertisement that he published in newspapers until sometime in 2013 is in evidence. At the top of the ad, the words “FREE EYE EXAM” appeared in large, white, all capital letters, against a solid black background. Immediately below, also on the black background in smaller white, all capital letters, was the following: FOR YOU • FOR GLASSES • PATIENTS 7 YEARS & UP Below the prominent white-on-black section, the ad contained information about the business in black print against a white background. The name of the business was the only print as large as the “FREE EYE EXAM” message at the top of the ad. Looking at the ad as a whole, the eyes are drawn to two messages: “FREE EYE EXAM” and “ONE PRICE OPTICAL.” The smaller black print on the white background identified Respondent as the optometrist, provided the address, telephone number, and hours, and listed names of third-party payors, including Medicare, vision plans, and insurance plans. The bottom of the ad contained one more very small black banner with tiny white print, setting forth a disclaimer required by statute and Board rule, regarding a patient’s right to a refund. N.P. saw the newspaper advertisement, and on October 4, 2012, he went to One Price Optical to obtain his free eye exam for glasses. N.P. already had glasses, but wanted to get an updated prescription. N.P. brought the ad with him. N.P. was greeted by staff member Hope Fior who asked what brought him to One Price Optical that day. N.P told her that he wanted the free eye exam. Patients are asked to complete a two-sided patient information form provided to them on a clipboard. Ms. Fior does not recall whether she was the staff person who gave N.P. the clipboard paperwork to fill out, but her initials, “HF,” appear at the top of the first page in the blank for “staff,” suggesting that it was her. Just as Ms. Fior did not specifically recall that she was the “staff” initialing N.P.’s paperwork--after all, it has been nearly seven years since the encounter--N.P. also did not recall filling out paperwork, although he remembers that he spoke with a female staff member (and Ms. Fior was the only female staff member). Nonetheless, N.P. was able to identify his handwriting on the form, such as his name, address, and telephone number on the first page (the front of the two-sided page). At the bottom of the first page, the form instructs Medicare patients that they “MUST READ & SIGN THE OTHER SIDE.” (Pet. Ex. 2, handwritten p. 29, lower left corner). The second page (the other side of the two-sided form) was referred to by Respondent as the “how are you going to pay” page, requiring patients to select one of several options, initial and/or sign the selection, and sign at the bottom of the page. One section is designated for “If You Have Medicare.” This section states that if a patient has Medicare, “We will bill Medicare for your eye exam according to the Medicare Laws [CPT code] 92004: New Patient, Comprehensive [or CPT code] 92014: Previous Patient, comprehensive. Please provide the staff with your: 1) Medicare card; 2) Medicare Advantage Card; 3) Any supplemental card; 4) Any other non-governmental health insurance card.” Below these provisions, the Medicare section concludes with the following: “If you do not have all of your insurance cards today, we will not be able to exam [sic] you today and will reschedule you.” (Pet. Ex. 2, p. 30). N.P.’s completed “how are you going to pay” page has a handwritten “X” in the box selecting the “If You Have Medicare” section, with N.P.’s initials next to the “X” (because he was a Medicare patient, and, therefore, required to complete this section as written). A check mark also appears next to “Medicare Advantage Card” in the portion requiring the patient to provide staff with insurance cards. Above the “If You Have Medicare” section, a separate section is provided for “Free Exam For Glasses,” with the following description: “The free eye exam for glasses is free. You do not have to buy anything at all. The free exam does not come with any prescription. If you wish, you may pay an exam fee and get a prescription for eye Glasses to take with you.” (emphasis added). At the bottom of this section, two options are provided, with spaces for the patient’s signature. One option is: “I would like the free exam with no RX”; the other option is: “I would like the $48 exam and get my RX.” On N.P.’s completed form, the “Free Exam For Glasses” section has no “X” in the selection box, and neither of the two options was signed by N.P. However, there are hand-drawn circles around the $48 exam option and the signature space to select that option, suggesting that this option was called to N.P.’s attention. There were no circles around the “free exam with no RX” option--the only option that was truly “free.” That option would not have met N.P.’s objective in coming into One Price Optical, which was to get an updated eyeglasses prescription. Another section on the second page is called “Vision Plans.” This section provides: “We will follow all the procedures, rules, and regulations according to the terms of your plan. The free exam for glasses above can not [sic] be combined with any part of your vision plan. You may not mix and match different coupons, promotions, store discounts, etc. with your Vision Plan.” On N.P.’s completed form, there is no “X” in the box provided to select this section, no initials by N.P., and no hand-drawn circles to indicate that this provision was called to N.P.’s attention as potentially applicable. N.P. signed the bottom of the “how are you going to pay” page (with only the Medicare/Medicare Advantage section initialed), next to the handwritten date, October 4, 2012. According to Respondent, his staff would have carefully walked N.P. through the examination and payment options when he came in and asked for the advertised free eye exam. This would have included asking Respondent whether he was covered by Medicare, whether he had “Medicare supplement” insurance coverage, and whether he had any other “vision plan” coverage. If so, he would have been asked to produce his insurance cards and the staff would have investigated what type of coverage was available for eye examinations. According to Respondent, N.P. made the voluntary election to undergo a comprehensive eye examination, which would be paid for under his Medicare Advantage insurance plan, instead of the “free eye exam.” Respondent acknowledged that a comprehensive eye examination must be completed on a patient in order to write a prescription for eyeglasses. One required component of a comprehensive eye examination is an internal examination of the eyes, to the back of the eyes (examination of the fundus). See Fla. Admin. Code R. 64B13-3.007. Respondent admitted that the so-called free eye exam for glasses offered by the advertisement was actually only a “screening” or a “consultation” with a patient to determine if the patient might need eyeglasses. Respondent admitted that the “free eye exam” (screening/consultation) would not be sufficient to enable Respondent to write a prescription for glasses. The advertisement does not mention this. What is offered for “free” is called an “eye exam for glasses,” not a screening that would be insufficient for Respondent to write a prescription for glasses. Staff person Hope Fior acknowledged that the advertisement caused confusion, not only for N.P., but for others. She blamed their confusion on the failure to read the fine print that she believed was in the ad, which she described as making clear that the offer of a free eye exam for glasses could not be used in combination with vision plans. That language did not appear in the advertisement, in fine print or otherwise. Respondent’s claim that N.P. made the voluntary election to forego the advertised free eye examination is contrary to the credible evidence. What N.P. wanted was a “free eye exam for glasses,” as advertised. N.P. was not offered a free eye exam that would have allowed him to obtain an updated prescription for his glasses. Respondent performed an eye examination on N.P. However, Respondent did not complete all steps required for a comprehensive eye examination. In particular, as the parties stipulated, Respondent did not perform a fundus examination on N.P. A comprehensive eye examination, including fundus examination, can be done with or without dilation. Examination of the fundus, the interior examination to the back of the eyes, is generally done after dilation drops are administered. The fundus examination can be done by other means if the patient does not want dilation, but generally dilation is preferable. In fact, Respondent testified that he “always” administers dilation drops, unless a particular patient asks him not to, in which case he makes them sign a form declining dilation. Respondent administered dilation drops to N.P. There is no persuasive evidence establishing that N.P. was resistant to receiving dilation drops, but there is also no persuasive evidence that N.P. was offered a choice or told that he could decline dilation. More importantly, there is no persuasive credible evidence that N.P. was informed before the drops were administered that he would be charged $39.00 as a dilation fee.3/ Instead, N.P. credibly testified that he was not told he would have to pay any fee until later. After Respondent put dilation drops in N.P.’s eyes, he directed N.P. to go down the hall to the reception/store area where eyeglasses are displayed for purchase, and was told he could wait there and look at glass frames while the drops took effect in 15 to 20 minutes. While N.P. was in the optical area, staff member Todd Dutton spoke with him about whether he might want to purchase glasses. The conversation about glasses did not progress, however, because Mr. Dutton also told N.P. that there was a $39.00 charge for dilation, and asked him to pay. N.P. got very upset with this new information, because up until that point, he was still under the impression that he was getting a free eye exam, as advertised. When Mr. Dutton did not retreat from the position that N.P. would have to pay $39.00 for the dilation drops he had received, N.P. walked out, rather than returning to the examination room for Respondent to complete the comprehensive examination. He did not ever return. Inexplicably, Respondent said he was not aware until much later on October 4, 2012, that N.P. walked out. Respondent did not come back for N.P., or send a staff person to bring N.P. back to the examination room, after the short period of time needed for the dilation drops to have taken effect. No explanation was provided for this lapse. It was not until an hour or two later, when Respondent was going over the patient paperwork for the day, that he realized that he never retrieved N.P. to complete N.P.’s comprehensive examination by performing the fundus examination. Respondent completed the patient record form as best he could, as the form he had created did not have an option to indicate an incomplete comprehensive examination, nor did his form provide the option of recording that an intermediate examination was done (which would not require a fundus examination, but would not be sufficient for writing a prescription for eyeglasses). Respondent selected the option called “No Dilation” and circled “Yes” to indicate that dilation was declined. Then he attempted to clarify in handwriting that there was no internal examination because the patient left the office. Despite not performing a fundus examination, Respondent produced a prescription for N.P. that he said he prepared after the incomplete examination. N.P. testified that he does not recall whether he asked for a prescription before he left the office, but he is sure that no prescription was offered to him. Todd Dutton confirmed that there was no discussion with N.P. about a prescription. The prescription presumably could not have been finalized and actually issued to N.P. before the comprehensive examination was completed, so whatever Respondent prepared must be viewed, at best, as preliminary. Respondent’s advertisement that offered a “free eye exam . . . for glasses” was misleading and deceptive. A reader would have been led to believe, just as N.P. did believe, that there would be no charge to anyone--the patient or the patient’s insurer--for an eye exam that would be sufficient to allow Respondent to prescribe glasses. N.P. was misled and deceived by the advertisement, as were others who were confused by the ad’s offer of a free eye exam for glasses. Respondent testified that he discontinued the advertisement, after 13 years of publishing it in the newspaper, sometime the next year (2013) when it came up for renewal. He said that he discontinued it, in part, in response to N.P.’s complaint to the Department, but also because he did not believe the ad was worth the cost of publication. Respondent did not say that he discontinued the advertisement out of remorse for falsely advertising free eye exams for glasses. He was steadfast in disputing the charge that his advertisement was in any way false, misleading, or deceptive. After N.P.’s incomplete examination, Respondent proceeded to bill N.P.’s vision insurance plan. He submitted a claim under CPT code 92004 in the amount of $139.00, and a claim under CPT code 92019 in the amount of $39.00. Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes are used by optometrists to define the services provided to patients in submitting claims to third-party payors for payment. Each CPT code has a definition set forth in a book maintained and distributed by the American Medical Association. The CPT code book has been officially adopted by the Department of Health and Human Services as the standard medical data code set, which must be used by “covered entities” under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, for physician services and other health care services, including vision services. See 45 C.F.R. §§ 162.1000 and 162.1002(a)(5)(vi) and (b)(1). CPT codes have uniform objective definitions that do not change based upon the type of practitioner or setting in which they are used. CPT code 92004 is defined as a comprehensive ophthalmological examination, including fundus examination. CPT code 92019 is defined as an ophthalmological examination and evaluation under general anesthesia. Respondent admits that he did not complete the comprehensive eye examination of N.P. The parties stipulated that Respondent did not perform the fundus examination. Respondent stated that by submitting a claim to N.P.’s vision insurance plan using CPT code 92004, he intended to bill the vision plan for performing a dilated fundus examination on N.P. He admits to having willfully submitted a claim to a third- party payor for services not provided to a patient. Respondent contends he should be excused for submitting the claim because the reason Respondent did not perform the dilated fundus examination on N.P. is that N.P. walked out. While that explains why Respondent did not provide the service to N.P., it does not justify Respondent’s claim seeking insurance reimbursement for a service he admittedly did not provide. Respondent testified that he was left in a quandary as to how to handle the billing, as there was no option for billing the vision plan for three-quarters or some other fraction of CPT code 92004. Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Kline, offered a viable alternative that would have solved Respondent’s quandary without submitting a claim for a service that was not provided. Dr. Kline testified that Respondent could have submitted a claim under CPT code 92002, for an intermediate eye examination. CPT code 92002 is appropriate to use by an optometrist who has performed a less extensive examination than a comprehensive examination. In particular, the fundus does not have to be examined in an intermediate exam. While an intermediate eye examination was insufficient to meet N.P.’s objective of securing a legal updated prescription (which requires a comprehensive eye examination), the unrebutted evidence in this record shows that submitting a claim using CPT code 92002 would have been accurate in identifying the service actually provided to N.P. Dr. Kline opined that submitting no claim to N.P.’s third-party payor was also an option that would have solved Respondent’s quandary, and in his opinion, would have been the most reasonable course of action under the circumstances. It would have been what he would have done. In light of Respondent’s advertisement for a “free eye exam,” Dr. Kline’s opinion is credited: the most appropriate option would have been to not submit a claim to N.P.’s third-party payor, thereby providing a “free,” albeit incomplete exam. Respondent defended his claim under CPT code 92004 for a comprehensive eye exam, under the guise of it being acceptable practice to perform a comprehensive eye examination in more than one sitting. According to Respondent, as long as the examination is going to be completed, it is acceptable to bill the third- party payor for the entire examination after only part of it has been done. This may be true when (as Respondent was told in a seminar), the completion of the exam is scheduled for the next day, within the next few days, or perhaps as much as a week later. For example, on occasion a patient might request to not be dilated on the day the examination is initiated and mostly completed, and arrangements are made for the patient to return for the dilation and fundus examination on a day when dilated eyes do not present a problem for the patient. However, that is not what occurred with N.P. N.P. never contacted Respondent to complete the examination, nor did Respondent ever attempt to contact N.P. to schedule his return for the fundus examination. It was obvious that N.P never intended to return. Indeed, Respondent admitted that he would not have attempted to contact N.P. because of N.P.’s anger when he left One Price Optical. Respondent’s justification for billing the vision insurance plan under the CPT code for a comprehensive examination could only be accepted if, at the time Respondent submitted the bill, arrangements had already been set for the examination to be completed, either because N.P. had scheduled a return visit before leaving, or because Respondent had called the patient and succeeded, before submitting the bill, in scheduling N.P.’s return visit to complete the exam. Under the circumstances here, at the time Respondent submitted the claim to N.P.’s vision plan, he knew that he had not completed a comprehensive eye examination of N.P., and he knew that no arrangements had been made to complete the examination. A fundus examination is a service that is a required component of CPT code 92004. Respondent willfully submitted a claim to a third-party payor for a service that was admittedly not provided to N.P. Respondent also admitted that he did not provide an eye examination to N.P. while under general anesthesia, which is the service defined by CPT code 92019, but he submitted a claim to the third-party payor using that CPT code. Respondent contended that he intended to use that CPT code to submit a claim for dilation charges. Respondent attempted to explain that some vision plans do not strictly follow the CPT code definitions, and some of them use CPT code 92019 to mean dilation. He testified that he just does his best using their claim forms and the descriptions they use for the CPT codes. Respondent did offer evidence that a different vision plan, not the one administering N.P.’s Medicare Advantage plan’s vision benefits, described CPT code 92019 as “dilation” in its online claim form. If a claim submitted to that other vision plan were at issue here, Respondent’s explanation might be accepted as evidence that Respondent did not willfully submit a claim for a service not provided. However, the evidence does not support Respondent’s explanation in this instance. In the “Explanation of Payment” printed from N.P.’s vision insurance plan’s website, CPT code 92019 was specifically described (in the available space) as “ophthalmological examination and evaluation under general an” and not as dilation. (Pet. Ex. 2, p.35) (emphasis added). Respondent said that he does all of the billing and coding for One Price Optical, and that he has tried to find out what is required. His claim that so-called “vision plans” are not considered insurance and do not strictly follow the CPT code definitions rings hollow, at least as applied to the facts here, where everything in N.P.’s patient records speaks to Medicare Advantage health care insurance. The “how are you going to pay” form completed by N.P. directed him, as a Medicare patient with Medicare Advantage insurance, to authorize billing under that coverage, which Respondent’s form assured would be done in compliance with Medicare laws and rules. The claim processing paperwork calls N.P.’s plan “Universal Health Care – Medicare,” and the plan’s explanation of denied payment for the claim under CPT code 92019 used the code definition from the CPT code book.4/ Respondent testified that he always very carefully checks to see how a particular vision plan uses and defines the CPT codes, and that he submits his claims using the CPT codes as defined by the particular plan. He therefore admitted that he willfully submitted a claim to N.P.’s vision plan under CPT code 92019, defined as “ophthalmological examination and evaluation under general an[esthesia].” The undersigned is not persuaded by Respondent’s assertion that in billing under CPT Code 92019, he should be found to have not willfully submitted a claim for a service not rendered because he knew that the claim would not be paid. The fact remains that Respondent knowingly, intentionally, and willfully submitted a claim to N.P.’s vision insurance plan, coded under CPT code 92019, claiming to have performed an eye exam under general anesthesia on N.P. on October 4, 2012, as explained in the Explanation of Payment. (Pet. Ex. 2, p. 35). Whether Respondent intended to get paid or expected to get paid is not germane to the question of whether he willfully submitted the claim for a service not provided.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health, Board of Optometry, issue a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating section 463.016(1)(f) and (1)(j), Florida Statutes (2012); and, as discipline, imposing a fine of $6,000.00 and issuing a 12-month probationary period on such terms and conditions as the Board deems appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of June, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELIZABETH W. MCARTHUR Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of June, 2019.
Findings Of Fact Mitchell D. Paulson, Respondent, holds a teacher's certificate issued by the Professional Practices Council, Petitioner, and was so certified at all times here involved. On November 19, 1977 Respondent was driven to Hollywood from Miami by Dr. Scorzelli, who, at the time, was a licensed osteopathic physician. He took a prescription given to him by Dr. Scorzelli into a drugstore to have it filled. Due to lack of an address the pharmacist became suspicious and ultimately called the police who arrested Respondent. A search following the arrest disclosed a hypodermic syringe with a clear substance in the syringe later identified as demerol. On December 20, 1977 Respondent was subpoenaed to appear at the office of the State Attorney in Fort Lauderdale, and pursuant to a grant of immunity testified fully regarding the November 19, 1977 incident involving Dr. Scorzelli and himself. Dr. Martin Dayton testified that Respondent was a patient of his in 1978 and that on various occasions he prescribed medications for Respondent including Valium, Placidyl, quaaludes and Oxaine M. Exhibit 10, prescription No. 42180 dated 4-3-78 issued by Dr. Dayton to Respondent for Oxaine M was offered into evidence and clearly appears to have been altered to quaaludes. No evidence was presented that Respondent altered this prescription, or that anyone attempted to have this obviously altered prescription filled.
Recommendation DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 28th day of September, 1979. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of September, 1979. COPIES FURNISHED: Craig R. Wilson, Esquire 315 Third Street West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Mr. Mitchell D. Paulson 1640 Northeast 180th Street North Miami Beach, Florida 33162 Mr. Hugh Ingram Administrator Professional Practices Council Room 3, 319 West Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was and remains a licensed optometrist in the State of Florida, having been issued License No. 000595. Respondent's present address is 4636 North Dale Mabry, #619, Tampa, Florida 33614. The Respondent, prior to relocating his office to Tampa, Florida, practiced optometry in Tallahassee, Florida, in an office adjacent to the Pearle Vision Center in the Governor's Square Mall. He closed that office the last week of December, 1980. Treatment of Wendell Harrison The Respondent first saw Wendell Harrison on October 11, 1980. At that time, Respondent was offering a special of $59.00 for three visits which included an examination and prescription, contact lenses, and the fitting of those lenses. The first of the three visits was the initial examination and prescription. The second visit occurred after the patients received their lenses, and the third visit was a follow-up visit for the purpose of ensuring that the lenses were fitted properly and there were no problems. On October 11, 1980, Mr. Harrison was examined by Dr. Hunter and given a prescription for contact lenses. On that date, Mr. Harrison paid the Respondent $40.00 of the $59.00 total charge. On October 22, 1980, Mr. Harrison received his contact lenses and returned to the Respondent's office for his second visit. During that visit, he was shown how to insert the lenses and also saw a film on how to care for the lenses. At this time, he paid the $19.00 balance of the total charge of $59.00. Subsequent to the second visit, Mr. Harrison experienced blurred vision and pain, especially in his left eye. He returned to Dr. Hunter and informed him of the blurred vision and pain. Dr. Hunter made no examination of Mr. Harrison's eyes or the lenses and informed him the lenses would tighten up and that he should continue to wear them. Mr. Harrison continued to have problems and returned to Dr. Hunter's office the first week of January, 1981. The office was closed. Mr. Harrison did not recall seeing a sign in the window or door of the closed office, but was informed by someone employed at the Pearle Vision Center next door that Dr. Hunter had left and that a Dr. Ian Field was handling problems with Dr. Hunter's patients. Mr. Harrison then made an appointment to see Dr. Field. After an examination, Dr. Field told Mr. Harrison not to put the lenses back into his eyes and not to use them. Dr. Field wrote a prescription for new lenses and refitted Mr. Harrison with the new lenses. Mr. Harrison experienced only minor problems in getting used to the new lenses and had no problem with blurred vision with the new lenses. The prescription of the lenses prescribed for Wendell Harrison by Dr. Hunter was improper in that the lenses corrected the vision in his right eye to only 20/40 which is the minimum for driving a vehicle in Florida. The left eye was corrected only to 20/40 and three additional letters on the next line of the chart. The lenses were also improperly fitted to Mr. Harrison's eyes, and as a result, moved around too much and would ride up underneath the upper lids of his eyes. By letter dated February 3, 1981 (see Petitioner's Exhibit 3), Mr. Harrison contacted Dr. Hunter and requested a full refund of his $59.00 fee. Dr. Hunter responded by letter dated February 9, 1981 (see Petitioner's Exhibit 4) and refunded with that letter $9.00 of the $59.00 paid by Mr. Harrison. Treatment of Maureen Sue Woodward Sometime in the Fall of 1980, Maureen Sue Woodward visited the office of the Respondent in Governor's Square Mall for the purpose of an examination and fitting of contact lenses. On the first visit, Ms. Woodward was examined by Dr. Hunter and was given a prescription for contact lenses. She took the prescription next door to Pearle Vision Center to have the prescription filled. Ms. Woodward, on the first visit, was quoted a price of $75.00 for three visits and this is the amount she paid Dr. Hunter. The three visits were to consist of first, an examination and prescription, secondly, the actual insertion and instruction on care of the lenses, and lastly, a follow-up visit to make certain there were no problems. After she received her contact lenses, she returned to Dr. Hunter's office for instruction on how to insert them and care for them. She watched a film about the cleaning of the lenses. Following the second visit, she wore the contacts just as she had been instructed to wear them and began to experience problems. Her eyes were bloodshot, burning, and tearing as a result of the contact lenses. Ms. Woodward returned to Dr. Hunter's office a third time and explained the problems she was experiencing. Dr. Hunter performed no examination of her eyes or the lenses but told her she was not cleaning them properly. She returned home and continued to clean the lenses as prescribed in the written instructions she had been given by Dr. Hunter and continued to have the same problems of bloodshot eyes, tearing, and burning. Dr. Hunter had told her to come back if she had any further problems. When she returned to Dr. Hunter's office in early January, 1981, the office was closed and there was a note on the door of the closed office referring patients to Dr. Ian Field in the Tallahassee Mall. Her third visit with Dr. Hunter had been approximately a week earlier and he had not mentioned the possibility that he might be leaving Tallahassee. The only information given by the note on the door was that Dr. Hunter's patients were referred to Dr. Field. On January 7, 1981, Mrs. Woodward was seen by Dr. Ian Field. The contact lenses which had been prescribed by the Respondent had an improper prescription. Prescriptions for contact lenses are in plus or minus. A prescription at zero has no prescription at all and is clear glass. A nearsighted person needs something for distance and requires a minus prescription and a farsighted person requires a plus prescription. The power of both lenses prescribed by Dr. Hunter for Mrs. Woodward were more plus than they should have been. When Mrs. Woodward saw Dr. Field on January 7, 1981, she was continuing to wear the contacts prescribed by Dr. Hunter. She was also experiencing blurred vision and bloodshot eyes. Her right eye felt scratchy. Treatment of Barbara Magnusson Stathos The Respondent examined Barbara Magnusson Stathos and prescribed contact lenses sometime prior to September 29, 1980. The agreed fee was $59.00 for three visits and Ms. Stathos had her second visit with Dr. Hunter on September 29, 1980, after picking up her contacts. After receiving her contacts Ms. Stathos experienced problems and called Dr. Hunter's office. She spoke with Dr. Hunter at that time. She continued to have problems and when she returned to Dr. Hunter's office, he had left the area. Barbara Stathos was then seen as a patient by Dr. Walter Hathaway, an optometrist, on January l7,1981. She was using a liquid chemical method of disinfectant for the lenses Dr. Hunter had prescribed for her. Thirty to forty percent of the population has an allergic reaction to these particular chemical disinfectants. There were deposits and coatings on the lenses which had been prescribed for Barbara Stathos by Dr. Hunter. Dr. Hathaway replaced her lenses and switched her to a heat disinfectant method. This solved her problem. The problem of coatings and deposits on her lenses would not have corrected itself. Such a condition would have required an optometrist to correct it. Treatment of Marianne Topjian On December l2, 1980, Marianne Topjian was given a prescription by Dr. Hunter for contact lenses. Subsequent to December 12, 1980, she received her contact lenses. On January 8, 1981, Marianne Topjian saw Dr. Ian Field. She was having problems with the contact lenses prescribed by Dr. Hunter. These lenses had an improper prescription in that they did not correct her vision for close work. The lenses should correct for distance as well as close work. Standard of Care and Requirement for Due Notice The standard of care for optometrists in the Tallahassee community in 1980 and 1981 required proper follow- up care in order to ensure that contact lenses fit properly, that the prescription was proper, and that the patient was not experiencing any problems requiring correction by the optometrist. The follow-up care includes necessary examinations to determine the source of any problems being experienced by the patient. Some degree of follow-up care is required with every patient who is fitted with contact lenses by an optometrist. The standard of care in the Tallahassee community, as well as the nation, requires that when a physician leaves his practice and relocates to another community, he must give notice to his patients and make certain that patients under his active care are taken care of by another optometrist. The relocating optometrist must also make arrangements to make the records of his patients available to them. Neither Wendell Harrison nor Maureen Woodward were given notice by the Respondent that he was leaving Tallahassee and relocating elsewhere. Wendell Harrison and Maureen Woodward were under his active care at the time Dr. Hunter left Tallahassee, and no proper arrangements were made by Dr. Hunter for the follow-up care for the problems that these two persons had complained about. Dr. Hunter saw Maureen Woodward approximately one week prior to his departure, and he did not inform her that he was considering leaving Tallahassee. Prior to leaving Tallahassee, the only arrangements made by Dr. Hunter involved one phone call with a Dr. Orb who planned to move into Dr. Hunter's office in Governor's Square Mall. Dr. Orb agreed generally to take care of any of Dr. Hunter's patients, but no specific financial arrangement was made for such treatment and no specific patients experiencing current problems were discussed. Dr. Hunter did not know when Dr. Orb would be moving into the office, and there was no evidence that he called Dr. Orb in Tallahassee after his departure to determine if Dr. Orb was, in fact, caring for his patients. No arrangement at all had been made with Dr. Ian Field. The Respondent was negligent and fell below the standard of care in the community by failing to provide proper follow-up care to Wendell Harrison. The Respondent specifically failed to examine Mr. Harrison and take appropriate steps to determine the cause of the blurred vision and discomfort complained of by Mr. Harrison on his third visit Having been made aware by an active patient that the patient was having ongoing continuous problems with the new contacts, the Respondent failed to make arrangements upon his departure from Tallahassee to ensure that Mr. Harrison would receive the necessary care to correct his problems, if they continued. As a result of failing to provide proper follow-up care, the Respondent failed to diagnose and correct the improper prescription in the lenses received by Mr. Harrison. The Respondent was negligent and fell below the standard of care in the community in his treatment of Maureen Sue Woodward by failing to provide her with proper follow-up care after she was fitted with contact lenses by the Respondent. After Maureen Woodward complained of bloodshot eyes, burning and tearing, the Respondent did not perform an examination of her eyes or contact lenses in order to determine the cause of these problems. Having been made aware of these problems, he did not make proper arrangements upon his departure from Tallahassee to ensure that Ms. Woodward would receive the necessary follow- up care to correct these problems in the event that the problems continued. By failing to perform the appropriate examinations and to provide the appropriate follow-up care, the Respondent failed to diagnose and correct the improper prescription in the lenses received by Maureen Woodward. There was insufficient evidence to show that the Respondent breached any standard of care in the community with regard to his treatment of Marianne Topjian and Barbara Magnusson Stathos. Neither of these patients testified in the administrative proceedings.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent be found guilty of Counts 6, 8, 9, and 11 of the First Amended Administrative Complaint and that he be required to pay an administrative fine of $1,000. It is further recommended that the Respondent be placed on probation for a period of six (6) months subject to such conditions as the Board deems appropriate to ensure that the Respondent is completely familiar with and follows the requirements for proper follow-up care with patients being fitted with contact lenses. It is recommended that Counts 1 through 5, 7, 10, and 12 through 16 of the Administrative Complaint be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 25th day of May, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of May, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph W. Lawrence, II, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William F. Daniels, Esquire 127 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Ms. Mildred Gardner Executive Director Board of Optometry 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was a licensed optometrist in the State of Florida, having been issued license number OP-0000437. On or about January 4, 1986, Clara Piskura was examined and fitted by Respondent for soft contact lenses. She had worn hard contact lenses for approximately 15 years. Respondent issued soft contact lenses to Piskura on January 4, 1986, but she immediately informed him she could not see well with the soft contact lenses. She subsequently reported headaches and a continuing inability to see. On or about January 8 and 18, 1986 Piskura had follow-up visits with Respondent, but when she went to Respondent's office on January 27, 1986, he refused to examine her. Her headaches and inability to see were not corrected in these follow-up visits. Piskura returned the soft contact lenses to Respondent, and received a 50 percent refund of the $110.00 she paid for the soft contact lenses, pursuant to an Agreement she signed on January 4, 1986. According to John Walesby, O.D., who was accepted as an expert in optometry, Respondent failed to keep acceptable minimum optometric records relating to his patient, Clara Piskura. He did not record a patient history or chief complaint, an internal or external examination of the patient, or a visual field testing in an acceptable manner. There is no recording of pupillary examination, or biomicrososcopy (monocular or binocular). Based upon his failure to keep adequate patient records which would meet minimum optometric standards, Respondent's examination and treatment of Piskura was negligent or incompetent in that it was incomplete, and did not allow anyone reviewing the records to interput or understand those records or the patient's condition. However, the evidence does not establish that Respondent's actions constituted misconduct in his profession or gross malpractice. Respondent testified that he conducted a complete and thorough exam of Piskura, but his records do not document or confirm his testimony, or otherwise explain his use of check-marks in his patient records. Respondent has been licensed, and has practiced in the State of Florida, for over 30 years and has never been the subject of license disciplinary action prior to this proceeding.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Board of Optometry enter a Final Order finding Respondent in violation of Sections 463.016(1)(g) and (k), Florida Statutes, and placing his license on probation for a period of 3 months, conditioned upon his successful completion of 6 hours of continuing optometric education in addition to the hours regularly required to maintain his license and the payment of a $500 administrative fine. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of January, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN 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 7th day of January, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-4902 Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. 3-4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. 7-14. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. 15-16. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. Respondent did not file Proposed Findings of Fact upon which explicit findings could be made. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack M. Larkin, Esquire 806 Jackson Street Tampa, Florida 33602 Jack L. Hargraves 1211 South Dale Mabry Tampa, Florida 33629 Mildred Gardner Executive Director Board of Optometry Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 William O'Neil General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 =================================================================
The Issue The issue in this case concerns whether Respondent violated Section 484.014(1)(f), Florida Statutes, in the manner alleged in an administrative complaint and, if so, what penalties should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is, and at all times material has been, a licensed optician in the State of Florida, having been issued license number DO 2390 on November 29, 1984. At all times material, Respondent has operated, or has assisted in the operation of, a business named Fast Eyes Optical, located at 8246 Jog Road, Boynton Beach, Florida 33437. On or about January 3, 2002, customer R.S., accompanied by a friend (L.E.), visited Fast Eyes Optical, where they were attended by Respondent. Both R.S. and L.E. decided they would each buy a pair of Oakley sunglasses. Respondent quoted an initial price of $634.00 per pair for the Oakley sunglasses with prescription lenses. Ultimately, Respondent agreed to sell the Oakley sunglasses for $500.00 per pair. At the time in question, the Oakley sunglasses came from the manufacturer with non-prescription lenses made from a material known as polycarbonate. Polycarbonate lenses are noted for being impact resistant. Polycarbonate lenses are more impact resistant than lenses made of a plastic material known as CR-39. Polycarbonate lenses are particularly desirable for people who frequently engage in sports or otherwise lead a very active lifestyle in which they are at greater risk of some form of impact to their eyewear. Plastic lenses made from CR-39 have better optical characteristics than polycarbonate lenses, and, from a visual acuity point of view, are a better choice material than polycarbonate. R.S. wanted to have prescription lenses in his new Oakley sunglasses. Respondent told R.S. that Respondent could put prescription lenses in the new Oakley sunglasses that would duplicate the prescription in the glasses R.S. was wearing when he came into the store, but that he would have to send off for the prescription lenses for the Oakley sunglasses. It was ultimately agree that Respondent would obtain prescription lenses for the new Oakley sunglasses and that when the new sunglasses were ready, Respondent would mail them to R.S. at R.S.'s home in Ohio.1 Using a device called a lensometer, Respondent examined the glasses R.S. was wearing when he came into the shop and determined the prescriptions that were in the lenses in those glasses. Respondent ordered lenses for the Oakley sunglasses that matched the prescriptions in the glasses R.S. was wearing that day. While R.S. was still in the shop, Respondent explained to him that Oakley did not (at that time) make prescription lenses for the frame model R.S. was buying, that the prescription lenses for the sunglasses would not be Oakley lenses, and that the lenses would be made from a plastic material called CR-39 because Respondent thought CR-39 was a better choice lens material in view of the purposes for which R.S. was buying the sunglasses.2 In due course Respondent mailed a pair of Oakley sunglasses to R.S. in Ohio. Shortly after receiving the sunglasses, R.S. went on a trip to Mexico. While in Mexico, and while wearing the sunglasses he had received from Respondent, R.S. fell down at least three different times at the same place on the same set of stairs in the same Mexican restaurant. His last fall on those stairs caused R.S. to have a bruised chin, a bruised wrist, and a broken big toe on his left foot.3 Shortly after returning from his trip to Mexico, R.S. went to an optician in Ohio and asked the Ohio optician to examine the Oakley sunglasses he had purchased from Respondent. Upon examining the sunglasses made by Respondent, the Ohio optician communicated the following conclusions to R.S.: The right lens in those sunglasses did not match R.S.'s prescription, the lenses were made from CR-39 plastic material, and the lenses were chipped.4 On March 14, 2002, the Ohio optician sold R.S. a pair of prescription polycarbonate lenses in his correct prescription for his Oakley frame, and replaced the plastic lenses that Respondent had originally placed in the Oakley frame. The Ohio optician charged $321.00 for the new lenses. The polycarbonate lenses sold by the Ohio optician were not Oakley lenses. Not long after his visit with the Ohio optician, R.S. communicated with Respondent and complained about the things the Ohio optician had told him were wrong with the lenses furnished by Respondent. Respondent told R.S. that R.S. should mail the sunglasses to Respondent and Respondent would correct any problems with the sunglasses. R.S. refused to send the sunglasses back to Respondent because he no longer had any confidence in Respondent. Instead, R.S. asked Respondent to send him a refund of approximately $300.00 to cover the cost of the lenses R.S. bought from the optician in Ohio. Respondent refused to send a refund to R.S., but repeated his offer to make any necessary corrections to the sunglasses. Respondent has a policy of not giving refunds to customers, but Respondent also has a policy of doing whatever is necessary to correct any problems with any of the products he sells.5
Recommendation On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Opticianry enter a Final Order concluding that the violations charged in the Administrative Complaint should be dismissed because the evidence is insufficient to prove the violations alleged by clear and convincing evidence. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of April, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MICHAEL M. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of April, 2004.
