The Issue The issues in this cause concern whether disciplinary action should be taken against the Respondent's license to practice medicine, based upon alleged violations of Section 458.331(1)(b), Florida Statutes. Specifically, the disputed issue concerns whether his license to practice medicine was revoked, suspended or otherwise acted against by the licensing authority of another state.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is and at all times material hereto, has been licensed as a physician in the State of Florida. He holds licensed number ME0028248 issued by the State of Florida, Board of Medical Examiners. Respondent is also licensed in the State of New York as a medical doctor. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with enforcing the medical practice standards contained in Chapter 458, Florida Statutes and related rules. Pertinent provisions of that chapter and Chapter 455, Florida statutes authorize the Petitioner to make investigations of physician's licenses in the State of Florida and, if probable cause exists to indicate that a physician has engaged in conduct proscribed by Chapter 458, to commence formal proceedings seeking disciplinary action against such physicians. The New York State Department of Education and its Board of Regents is the licensing authority for medical doctors for the State of New York, (Petitioner's Exhibit 3 is evidence.) On August 14, 1986, the Commissioner of Education of the State of New York, on behalf of the State Education Department and its Board of Regents entered an order wherein the Respondent'S license to practice medicine in the State of New York was suspended for one year. That suspension was stayed and the Respondent's license to practice medicine was placed in probationary status with the probation being subject to certain conditions. See Petitioner's Exhibit 3 in evidence. In that order, the Respondent, had been found guilty of professional misconduct by being convicted of committing crimes under the state law of New, York. Specifically, he was convicted of four counts of violations of Public Health Law 12.B(2), by being registered as a medicaid provider and leasing space for the practice of medicine at a dental office, a "shared health facility", the rental fee for which was calculated and paid as a percentage of the defendant's earnings for medical services rendered on the premises. The Respondent was also found guilty of falsely representing that he was certified by the American Board of Internal Medicine when in fact he was not so certified, and by the willful making and filing of a false report, which also constitutes unprofessional conduct within the meaning of the law of the State of New York, specifically 8NYCRR 29.1(b)(6), (1984), cited in Petitioner's Exhibit 3 in evidence.
Recommendation Accordingly, it is therefore RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the State of Florida, Board of Medical Examiners suspending the Respondent's license for one full year or until such time as the Respondent appears before the Board of Medicine and demonstrates that he is capable of practicing medicine with care, skill and safety to patients including a demonstration that his license to practice medicine in New York is reinstated and is unrestricted, whichever time period is less. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of July, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of July, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Jonathan King, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729 Vijay Sakhuja, M.D. 120 Secor Drive Port Washington, New York 11050 Vijay Sakhuja, M.D. 90-10 Sutphin Boulevard Jamaica, New York 11435 Dorothy Faircloth, Executive Director Board of Medicine Department of Professional Regulation Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729 Kenneth Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729 ================================================================= DISTRICT COURT OPINION ================================================================= IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA VIJAY SAKHUJA, M.D., NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND Appellant, DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED. vs. CASE NO. 89-2296 DOAH CASE NO. 88-4658 DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, Appellee. / Opinion filed October 10, 1990. Appeal from an Order of the Department of Professional Regulation Walter D. Forehand, of Myers & Forehand, Tallahassee, for appellant. Lisa S. Nelson, Department of Professional Regulation, for appellee. WENTWORTH, J. Appellant seeks review of an administrative order by which appellee Department of Professional Regulation, through its Board of Medicine, suspended appellant's medical license. The duration of this suspension exceeds the penalty which the hearing officer had recommended. Although we find no error with regard to appellant's other contentions, we do find that the Board did not fully and adequately delineate the basis for increasing the recommended penalty. We therefore reverse the order appealed. Appellant was licensed to practice medicine in both Florida and New York, and the current proceeding ensued after disciplinary action was taken by the licensing authority in New York for violations which had occurred in that state. The New York licensing authority acted upon appellant's conviction for violating a public health law which prohibits calculating medical office rental fees on a percentage of earnings, and upon appellant's false reporting and false representation of a medical certification. The proceeding in Florida was based upon this New York action, as appellant was charged with violating section 458.331(1)(b), Florida Statutes, which specifies that disciplinary action may be taken in this state when a license has been "acted against" by the licensing authority of another jurisdiction. After an administrative hearing on this charge the hearing officer recommended that appellant's Florida license be suspended for one year or until such time as he satisfies certain conditions including the reinstatement of his New York license. The Board of Medicine adopted the hearing officer's recommended findings, but increased the penalty so as to suspend appellant's license in Florida for one year and until such time as the various other conditions are satisfied. The order increasing the recommended penalty recites that: Rule 21M-20.001(1)(b), F.A.C., provides for discipline for action taken in another jurisdiction to be the discipline which would have been imposed if the substantive violation had occurred in Florida. Although this explanation identifies a permissible basis for the Board's action, and it does not appear that the hearing officer considered the applicability of the cited rule, the order does not specify the asserted substantive Florida violation had appellant's conduct occurred in this state. While appellant's conduct in New York, as indicated by the substantive violations in that state, might be such as would also constitute substantive violations in Florida, the Board's failure to delineate a particular substantive Florida violation does not fully satisfy the Board's obligation, as mandated by section 120.57(1)(b)10, Florida Statutes, to provide a particularize statement of the reason for increasing the recommended penalty. Appellee concedes that the Board's order is deficient, but contends that it should be afforded the opportunity to enter a more thorough and explicit order on remand. Because the order now being appealed reflects a legally permissible basis for the challenged action, on remand the Board may address the matter with greater particularity should it again decide to increase the recommended penalty. See Van Ore v. Board of Medical Examiners, 489 So.2d 883 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); see also, Pages v. Department of Professional Regulation, 542 So.2d 456 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). The order appealed is reversed and the cause remanded. MINER and WOLF, JJ., CONCUR.
The Issue Whether Respondent engaged in an unlawful employment practice with regard to Petitioner because of Petitioner's asserted disability.
Findings Of Fact At the time of the hearing, Ms. Hays was 36 years of age and was unemployed. During times pertinent she lived in Chattahoochee, Florida. The Hospital in Chattahoochee, Florida, is a large residential mental health facility operated under the auspices of the Department. The Hospital also administratively supports employees of the Agency for Persons with Disabilities. The Hospital is an employer as that term is defined in Subsection 760.02(7), and thus subject to the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992. Ms. Hays, prior to her employment with the Hospital, worked for various employers in clerical and secretarial positions. She began working at the Hospital in 2000. She was employed in a temporary position in Unit 25 as a Clerk Typist Specialist. After two weeks on the job, she was moved to Unit 14 and worked as a Human Service Worker I. This was also a temporary position. In this latter position, she took care of elderly residents. She bathed them, fed them, and otherwise helped them with their daily needs. She also escorted them to off-campus appointments. She received a "Review and Performance Planning" document signed by her on June 19, 2000, which indicated that she was performing in a satisfactory manner. She was hired in a full-time position as a Human Service Worker I in August 2000 in Unit 31/32. In this position her duties included assisting nurses in the medical unit of the Hospital. A "Review and Performance Planning" document signed by Ms. Hays on January 30, 2001, stated that she achieved standards and included some complimentary remarks. In July 2001, she was moved to Unit 29 as a Human Service Worker I. Unit 29 is also known as the Mentally Retarded Defendant Program (MRDP) or MRDP 29. She received a "Review and Performance Planning" document that she signed on March 29, 2002. She received an overall evaluation of "3.81." A performance rating of "4" means that she consistently met and often exceeded expectations. A "5" is the highest rating one can obtain at the Hospital. Her next rating for the period March 2002 until July 2002, resulted in a grade of "4." During the period July 20, 2002, until March 1, 2003, she did not receive a rating because she was not working at the Hospital during the evaluation period. Nevertheless, Annette Bates, Ms. Hays' supervisor, noted that she was a good worker and an asset to MRDP 29. Ms. Hays was injured on November 27, 2001, while exiting the "big blue bus." She slipped on wet steps, and her lower back and neck impacted the steps. A physician, Dr. K. W. Richardson of Chattahoochee, reported that the injury sustained was a broken tail bone. He noted this in a "First Report of Injury or Illness" dated November 28, 2001. Ultimately the diagnosis was changed to two bulging disks. Pain medication was prescribed, but she never required surgery. Wages paid to her, by the Hospital, $751.63 bi-weekly, terminated on December 4, 2001. Subsequently, she was paid workers' compensation benefits. She was informed she could work, but could not lift more than ten pounds and could not have contact with patients. She was authorized to work only at a desk job. Ms. Hays returned to work at the Hospital on January 18, 2002. She was placed on light duty and assigned to the Medical Records Section at MRDP. She filed documents and did other tasks as assigned. Her supervisor was a Ms. Lawrence. On July 18, 2002, her light-duty status expired and because the Hospital could not accommodate her restrictions, she was sent home and provided workers' compensation benefits. She continued to receive workers' compensation benefits until December 2004, when she reached maximum medical improvement. In December 2004, she was contacted by Tracy Wallace and as a result, Ms. Hays met with Margaret Forehand. Ms. Forehand, at that time, was the Hospital's Workers' Compensation Coordinator. She told Ms. Hays that a position was available in MRDP, Unit 29, and invited her to apply for it. Ms. Hays completed a State of Florida Employment Application. She was thereafter employed as a "clerk typist specialist - F/C" at a salary rate of $754.24, which was, on a bi-weekly basis, $39.70 less than she was receiving before her injury. (The designation F/C means forensic corrections.) Ms. Hays' Letter of Acceptance, dated December 7, 2004, and accepted by Ms. Hays on December 7, 2004, informed her that her position was probationary for 12 months. The letter was written on Department stationery, but was signed by David English, Program Operations Administrator, who worked for the Agency for People with Disabilities. He has the ultimate hiring authority for the employees of MRDP. Although termed a "demotion," the lower pay was actually the result of Hospital policy that was applied to all employees who returned from an absence subsequent to being placed on workers' compensation. This job was not preceded by an interview. The person who became her supervisor, Shellie Owens, was not involved in Ms. Hays' hiring process. Ms. Hays' ultimate employer was the Department. Ms. Hays' duties as a "clerk typist specialist- F/C" included filing, typing, and answering and referring calls. She filed ward charts, "thinned charts," and ensured that ward charts and central files were maintained in accordance with Hospital policies, among other tasks. Her duties were set forth in a "Career Service System Position Description." Her section was denoted "MRDP." She was physically able to perform these duties without an accommodation. Her daily work was not in the least affected by any injury or disability. The evidence indicates that both Ms. Hays and Ms. Owens' ultimate employer was the Agency for Persons with Disabilities. Ms. Owens was aware that Ms. Hays had been on workers' compensation for a time. Ms. Owens knew that Ms. Hays could not lift more than ten pounds and was aware that the job did not require lifting more than ten pounds. No evidence was adduced indicating that Ms. Owens perceived Ms. Hays as disabled. Because entries are frequently entered in patients' ward charts, they would grow quite large if not managed. It is necessary for some of the information to permanently remain in ward charts, but a substantial portion may be stored elsewhere. The portions of the charts that are not required to remain in the ward are permanently stored in the Medical Records Office. The process of removing designated matter from the ward charts is called "thinning." Thinning was an important part of Ms. Hays' job. She had to "thin" in accordance with a schedule. Some documents would be left in ward charts for three months, some would be kept if they were only the most recent of a type, and some were kept as long as needed. Some were permanent and, therefore, never removed. It was important also, as part of the process, that Ms. Hays ensure that documents in ward charts were arranged in the proper order. For the rating period December 7, 2004, until March 1, 2005, Ms. Owens evaluated Ms. Hays as a "3." In the written portion of the evaluation, Ms. Owens noted that Ms. Hays had a pleasant personality and was willing to assist others. Ms. Owens' job title is Health Information Specialist Supervisor. In addition to Ms. Hays, during times pertinent, Ms. Owens supervised from three to four other people. On April 19, 2005, approximately six weeks after receiving her evaluation, Ms. Hays was counseled by Ms. Owens. Ms. Owens told her she needed to improve in some areas and that her desk was not tidy. She provided Ms. Hays with a schedule of daily assignments designed to help Ms. Hays improve. Ms. Owens memorialized her discussion with Ms. Hays in a memorandum dated April 19, 2005. In the memorandum, she noted that Ms. Hays had been provided with the MRDP Worksite Orientation Requirement Worksheet on February 25, 2005, and that Ms. Hays understood her duties and acknowledged that by signing it. The memorandum recited that Ms. Hays' work was backed up and that her desk had food and drink on it that could have been spilled on documents which were on the desk. The memorandum also reminded Ms. Hays that she was a probationary employee. Ms. Owens also gave Ms. Hays a "daily schedule" that had an effective date of April 25, 2005. Ms. Hays and Ms. Owens both signed it. The "daily schedule" informed Ms. Hays exactly what she was to do every day of the week. In Ms. Hays' opinion, she followed "every word" of the schedule, and Ms. Owens did not indicate that there was any problem with her work immediately subsequent to the implementation of the "daily schedule." Ms. Owens conducted an audit of the charts maintained by Ms. Hays on May 20, 2005, and reduced the results to writing. The information developed in the audit caused Ms. Owens to conclude that Ms. Hays' work was not improving. Ms. Owens believes that medical records are extremely important and keeping them in good order is a necessity. Her audit found that Ms. Hays was not keeping them in good order. She found her work to be unacceptable. She discussed the matter with Les Smith, the Residential Services Director of Forensic Corrections. He was her immediate supervisor. Ms. Owens then talked to Amy Bryant the Hospital's Employee Relations Counselor with regard to procedures to be followed in terminating an employee. She wanted to comply with procedures. Ultimately a meeting occurred attended by Ms. Owens, Les Smith, David English, and an attorney for the hospital, Amy Tillman. During this process, the decision to offer Ms. Hays the opportunity to resign in lieu of being fired, was finalized. On May 24, 2005, Ms. Hays was ordered by Ms. Owens to report to Mr. Smith's office. Mr. Smith is Ms. Owens' supervisor. When she arrived, she was given the choice of resigning or being fired. If she had not resigned, she would have been fired immediately. Ms. Hays was surprised when she was informed of this choice. She resigned in a handwritten letter dated May 24, 2005. This was her last day of work at the Hospital. As a probationary employee, she had no right to appeal what amounted to a discharge. Bernice King worked at the Hospital with Ms. Hays. She was a Human Service Worker II in MRDP 29. She had an opportunity to observe Ms. Hays' work. Ms. King used the charts maintained by Ms. Hays, and she found them to be in good order. Danielle Rene Shaw worked at the Hospital with Ms. Hays. She was a Human Service Worker II in MRDP 29. She had an opportunity to observe Ms. Hays' work. Ms. Shaw used the charts maintained by Ms. Hays, and she found them to be in good order. She thought Ms. Hays was a hard worker. Mark Flodin, M.D., worked as a physician in MRDP 29 when Ms. Hays was working there, and he had an opportunity to observe her performance. He noted that she was a hard worker and had a professional attitude. He said she maintained the ward charts in an orderly fashion. He was surprised when she was terminated. Ms. Hays' position was filled by Ms. Ryan Smith, who came to the Hospital from another state agency. She was paid at the rate of $828.17 bi-weekly. Ms. Hays applied for over a hundred jobs with the State of Florida using the state's website, MyFlorida.com. She also sought employment with 15 private employees. She was interviewed twice, but received no job offers. She was never offered an interview at the Hospital. She received unemployment compensation for about six months after she left the Hospital. Subsequent to her departure from the Hospital, and her inability to secure other employment, she had to have her depression medicine, Zoloft, increased, but she still feels depressed and worthless. She is also taking Chlonzpam, an anti- anxiety drug, and Wellbutrin. Ms. Hays' mother works at the Hospital, as a licensed practical nurse, and her husband was once employed there also. Her father is retired from employment at the Hospital, and her grandmother and grandfather worked there.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismiss the Petition of Alicia Hays. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of July, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HARRY L. HOOPER 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 25th day of July, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Carolyn Dudley, Assistant Staff Director Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 1, Room 101F Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sharon L. Ray, Esquire Agency for Persons with Disabilities 3700 Williams Drive Marianna, Florida 32446 Erika E. Bush, Esquire Marie A. Mattox, P.A. 310 East Bradford Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the Petitioners have alleged facts sufficient to prove their standing to challenge the Respondent's proposed amendment to Rule 21-18.002, Florida Administrative Code?
Findings Of Fact The Florida Society of Opthalmology, Inc., Emanuel Newmark, M.D. and Waite S. Kirkconnell, M.D)., filed a Petition to Determine The Invalidity of a Rule (hereinaffter referred to as the "Petition"), with the Division of Administrative Hearing on May 29, 1990. In the Petition the Petitioners challenged the validity of a proposed amendment to Rule 21-18.002, Florida Administrative Code (hereinafter referred to as the "Rule Amendment"). The Rule Amendment was filed with the Secretary of State on March 3, 1990, with the Rule Amendment to take effect on May 7, 1990. The Rule Amendment allows licensed, certified optometrists to administer and prescribe certain Steroids and certain Steroid/Sulfonamide combinations. It is alleged in the Petition that the Petitioner, Florida Society of Ophthalmology, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "FSO"), is: a Florida not-for-profit incorporated association of ophthalmologists, who are allopathic and osteopathic physicians, specializing in the medical diagnosis of eye diseases, anomalies and disorders, and treatment with medication, surgery, and corrective lenses and prisms. FSO acts and is organized to further the education, professional, and economic interests of Florida ophthalmologists, improve quality of health care administered to the public, and to educate the public to its needs for adequate health care. FSO routinely represents and serves its members through public relations activities, interactions with governmental agencies, and participation in administrative proceedings, legislative affairs and litigation. Pages 1 and 2 of the Petition. The following allegations concerning Dr. Newmark and Dr. Kirkconnell are included in the Petition: That Petitioner, DR. NEWMARK, is a physician licensed by the State of Florida pursuant to chapter 458, Florida Statutes. DR. NEWMARK maintains an office for the practice of medicine in Atlantis, Florida. Petitioner, DR KIRKCONNELL, is a physician licensed by the State of Florida pursuant to chapter 458, Florida Statutes. DR. KIRKCONNELL maintains an office for the practice of medicine in Tampa, Florida. Both physicians specialize in the field of ophthalmic medicine or ophthalmology. Many of these Petitioners' patients also visit optometrists for some of their vision care needs. 3. That Petitioners DR. NEWMARK and DR. KIRKCONNELL file this Petition on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated; i.e., licensed Florida physicians practicing ophthalmic medicine in the State of Florida. These Petitioners also file this Petition on behalf of their patients, who are consumers of eye care and vision care services in the State of Florida. Page 2 of the Petition. The Petition contains two Counts challenging the Rule Amendment. In support of the Petitioners' standing, the following allegations are contained in Count I: That the Rule Amendment purports to authorize the practice of medicine by persons who are not licensed to practice medicine by chapters 458 and 459, Florida Statutes, thereby adversely affecting Petitioners' property right to practice medicine. That Petitioners are concerned with protection of the public by ensuring that persons engaged in the various health care professions are qualified to do so, and Petitioners believe that the Rule Amendment with illegally authorize certified optometrists to adversely affect the public health through utilization of drugs which they are not qualified to prescribe, administer or monitor. Page 5 of the Petition. In Count II of the Petition, allegations almost identical to paragraph 17 of the Petition are made. On June 13, 1990, the Intervenors filed Intervenors' Motion to Dismiss. On June 27, 1990, the Petitioners filed Petitioners' Response to Respondent's [sic] Motion to Dismiss. On June 28, 1990, the Petitioners filed Amendment to Petitioners' Response to Respondents' [sic] Motion to Dismiss correcting the title of the Motion and correction of a citation to a court decision contained in the Motion. In the Petitioners' Response to Respondent's [sic] Motion to Dismiss the Petitioners state the following: The pleadings allege adequate facts in the following paragraphs from the petition: ".... improve quality of health care administered to the public, and to educate the public to its needs for adequate health care . . . .... Many of Petitioners' patients also visit optometrists for some of their vision care needs .... .... These Petitioners also file this Petition on behalf of their patients, who are consumers of eye care and vision care services in the State of Florida. The Petitioners also quoted paragraphs 17 and 26 of their Petition. Pursuant to written notice a motion hearing was held on July 3, 1990, to consider the Intervenors' Motion to Dismiss and other motions previously filed by the parties. Following oral argument of the parties, the parties were informed that the Intervenors' Motion to Dismiss would be granted. The FSO and the individual ophthalmologists in Board of Optometry v. Society of Ophthalmology, 538 So. 2d 878 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), cert. denied, 545 So. 2d 1367 included the following allegations of fact concerning their standing in their Petition in that case: 1. Petitioner FSO is a Florida net- for-profit incorporated association of ophthalmologists, who are allopathic and osteopathic physicians (M.D.'s and D.O.'s) specializing in the medical diagnosis of eye diseases, anomalies and disorders, and treatment with medication, surgery, and corrective lenses and prisms. FSO acts and is organized to further the education, professional, and economic interests of the Florida ophthalmologists. FSO routinely represents and serves its members through public relations activities, interactions with governmental agencies, and participation in administrative proceedings, legislative affairs and litigation. In addition to the representation of its members, FSO is committed as an organization to protecting, maintaining and improving the quality of eye care which is available to the public. 3. Petitioners Broussar, Patrowicz, and Byerly are physicians licensed by the State of Florida pursuant to Chapter 458, Fla. Stat. Broussard maintains an office for the practice of medicine in Melbourne, Florida; patrowicz in Mount Dora, Florida; and Byerly in Tallahassee, Florida. Each physician specializes in the field of ophthalmic medicine opthalmology. Ophthalmology consists of the medical diagnosis of eye diseases, anomalies and disorders, and treatment with medication, surgery and corrective lens and prisms. Many of these Petitioners' patients also visit optometrists for some of their vision care needs. . . The following allegations were included in the petition in Board of Optometry, concerning the substantial affect on the FSO and the individual opthalmologists: The physician Petitioners and a substantial number of the members of the association Petitioners are substantially affected by the Board's proposed certification of any optometrist as a certified optometrist in the following ways: Petitioners believe that the certification of optometrists, and the concomitant authorization of such certified optometrists to use and prescribe medications in their practice of optometry encroaches on the right of physicians licensed to practice medicine pursuant to Chapter 458, Fla. Stat. The right to practice medicine is a valuable property right in Florida, and subject to the protection of the due process clauses of the Florida and United States Constitutions. Petitioners have been denied due process in regard to the impending infringement on or diminution in value of their property rights. Petitioners also believe that the quality of eye care and health care available to the public will decline as optometrists are certified to use and prescribe medicine in the practice of optometry. Petitioners believe that allowing optometrists to administer and prescribe drugs presents a danger to the public, including but not limited to Petitioners' patients. Petitioners believe that the general public is uninformed as to the distinction between optometrists and ophthalmologists, when in fact significant differences exist in education, training, ability, experience, and scope of practice. The designation of some optometrists as "certified optometrists" further adds to the confusion and will result in the treatment by optometrists of patients who should be treated by Physicians. This not only will result in economic injury to physicians, including the. physician Petitioners and all other similarly situated, but also in injury to their practices, loss of public respect for their profession, and to the health and welfare of Petitioners' patients and the patients of other similarly situated physicians.
