Findings Of Fact Petitioner Dyer Kemp Garvin, Jr., has never completed a course of study at a recognized school of opticianry. On April 2, 1957, however, he began working and training under Ralph C. Cronbaugh, a licensed optician, at Daytona Optical Center in Daytona Beach, Florida. He learned how to read a lensometer, interpret prescriptions for eyeglasses, figure base curves, measure the seg height and various physiognomic features, cut and edge lenses, fit lenses to the frame and so forth. Petitioner worked under Mr. Cronbaugh's supervision an average of 48 or 50 hours a week continuously until June of 1961, even though the training program as such ended after three years. Some time before June of 1961, petitioner registered as an apprentice with and paid a fee to the Florida Association of Dispensing Opticians. On June 3, 1961, petitioner became a member of the Florida Association of Dispensing Opticians. Some 15 years later the Florida Board of Opticianry instituted its own apprenticeship program for the first time. From June of 1961 until at least June of 1963, petitioner remained at the Daytona Optical Center under the supervision of Steve Stevenson, a licensed optician. For nine months or a year longer, he worked under a third licensed optician at the Daytona Optical Center, Andrew H. Hollaway. Petitioner moved to Alabama from Daytona Beach. There he managed an office for Bausch-Lomb in Birmingham, then went into business for himself under the name Jasper Optical Center in Jasper, Alabama. He actively practiced as a dispensing optician in Jasper for more than three years immediately preceding his application for licensure in Florida. Petitioner is a past vice-president of the Alabama Society of Dispensing Opticians and a former member of the board of directors of the International Society of Dispensing Opticians. He is now licensed as a dispensing optician in Alabama and has been for the last 18 years. Petitioner's Exhibit Nos. 3 and 4. Although the licensing scheme in Alabama is different from Florida's, petitioner's uncontroverted testimony was that he holds and has held a state occupational license in Alabama. This is corroborated by the affidavit of an Alabama judge, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4, and a copy of petitioner's 1981-1982 license. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3. For the past six years, petitioner and other dispensing opticians have worked to establish a state board to regulate opticianry in Alabama, but these efforts have been stymied by optometrists who have successfully opposed the legislation. As a matter of policy, respondent refuses to let dispensing opticians licensed in Alabama and other states with similar regulatory arrangements take the Florida dispensing opticianry examination. In preparing the foregoing findings of fact, the hearing officer has had the benefit of petitioner's post-hearing correspondence and respondent's proposed recommended order. Proposed fact findings that have not been adopted have been rejected as irrelevant or unsupported by the evidence.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent admit petitioner to the dispensing opiticanry examination and license petitioner as a dispensing optician if he successfully completes the examination. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of June, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of June, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Dyer Kemp Garvin, Jr. Post Office Box 1127 Destin, Florida 32541 Chris D. Rolle, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Suite 1602 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 H. Fred Varn, Executive Director Board of Opticianry 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Samuel R. Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DYER KEMP GARVIN, JR. Petitioner, vs. DOAH CASE NO. 82-484 STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, BOARD OF OPTICIANRY, Respondent. /
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner's request for exemption from disqualification from employment in a position of trust should be granted.
Findings Of Fact AHCA is a state agency required to conduct background screenings for individuals who provide certain types of healthcare related services under chapters 400, 408, and 429, Florida Statutes. § 408.809, Fla. Stat. Petitioner is seeking to become owner of a licensed nurse registry for pediatric and special needs care. As such, Petitioner is required to have a background screening check pursuant to section 408.809. Petitioner is interested in the field because his daughter was born with several disabilities. After completing Petitioner's background screening, Petitioner's 2011 disqualifying felony criminal offenses of owning, operating, or maintaining an assisted living facility without a license were identified. On March 6, 2019, Petitioner submitted a request for exemption from disqualification, which included the exemption application and supporting documentation ("exemption package"). In Petitioner's exemption package, he listed his work history, which included the following employment: Home Reach, LLC, from April 2013 to October 2013; Five Star Home Health from October 2013 to March 2014; unemployment from March 2014 to August 2014; Home Reach, LLC, from August 2014 to August 2018; and a leave of absence from Home Reach, LLC, starting August 2018. Petitioner also detailed his plans to comply with AHCA's laws and regulations in his exemption package. He explained that he has retained a consultant, Elisabeth Jean-Baptiste ("Jean- Baptiste"), to assist him. She is the director of the FEDEN Healthcare Education Institute, an entity that provides continuing legal and regulatory education in the healthcare field. Petitioner included in his exemption package documentation that he completed a 12-hour Adult Family Care Home course, which covered the rules and regulations for running a healthcare business. On May 15, 2019, as part of the exemption application process, Petitioner participated in a telephonic exemption hearing with AHCA. After the telephonic hearing and discussion, AHCA denied Petitioner's request for an exemption by letter dated May 30, 2019. Subsequently, Petitioner requested an administrative hearing. Disqualifying Offenses On May 26, 2011, Petitioner was arrested and charged with a two-count felony of operating, owning, or maintaining an assisted living facility without a license. Petitioner's criminal charges stem from him operating Heaven Sent Group Home, which he labeled "sober living" houses. At the two facilities Petitioner owned and operated, medication was distributed, and daily activities for the residents were performed without being licensed as an assisted living facility. On June 27, 2011, AHCA also charged Petitioner by Administrative Complaint in Case No. 2011001367 for operating Heaven Sent Group Home, which was the same unlicensed assisted living facility subject matter as the criminal Case No. 2011CF001679A. On or about September 20, 2011, Petitioner pled no contest in Case No. 2011CF001679A to the two felony counts of operating, owning, or maintaining an assisted living facility without a license. The court withheld adjudication and sentenced Petitioner to three years of probation, 100 hours of community service, court costs, and fines. On January 25, 2012, AHCA issued a Final Order in Case No. 2011001367, imposing a $99,000.00 fine for Petitioner's unlicensed activity. By letter dated October 2, 2013, Petitioner was notified that he completed his terms of probation and was no longer under the supervision of the Department of Corrections for Case No. 2011CF001679A. Hearing At hearing, Petitioner explained that he opened two facilities in 2007 to help the underprivileged. His residents included those that were released from incarceration or mentally ill and did not have place to live. He testified that most of his residents came from the courts or were referred by New Horizons. Petitioner denied receiving any AHCA notices sent to him regarding his operating the two unlicensed assisted living facilities prior to the 2011 cease and desist on Heaven Sent Group Home. Petitioner further claimed that he did not know he needed a license for the facilities he was running. Petitioner did admit that he was completely responsible for his wrongdoings and not being educated and aware of the rules and regulations regarding operating a group home or an assisted living facility. During the final hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of Roshina Lakram, who testified that she knew Petitioner for 30 years and that he had been helping people struggling with drugs and mental illnesses with his sober living homes. Vanessa Risch ("Risch"), the health services and facilities consultant manager for AHCA's Background Screening Unit, testified at hearing that in making the decision to deny Petitioner's exemption, AHCA considered Petitioner's entire case file including exemption application, education and training records, personal letters of support, personal attestations, one employment reference letter, and Petitioner's explanations during the telephonic exemption hearing. AHCA concluded that Petitioner was not particularly candid during the May 15, 2019, telephonic hearing, because Petitioner failed to mention prior to and during the teleconference that he has the outstanding AHCA fine in the amount of $99,000.00 from his unlicensed activity from Case No. 2011001367. Although Petitioner had some positive letters of recommendation, his failure to be candid and honest in addition to his lack of effort to make any payments toward the outstanding AHCA fine was a major consideration in the denial of Petitioner's exemption. Risch testified that Petitioner failed to meet section 435.07(3)(a) and had not demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that he was rehabilitated. At hearing, Petitioner also failed to readily admit that he owed the $99,000.00 fine to AHCA when testifying. First, Petitioner did not own up to currently owing the monies, then testified that maybe it happened while his daughter was in the hospital, and finally inquired about a payment plan. At the time of the hearing, Petitioner had not paid any amount towards the fine nor attempted to negotiate a payment plan agreement with AHCA to pay off the delinquent fine. Findings of Ultimate Fact Upon careful consideration of the entire record, the undersigned finds that Petitioner was both credible and passionate in his testimony about his future and not wanting to work for other individuals for the rest of his life. He even testified that since it was America, he wanted his own. However, Petitioner failed to testify convincingly regarding the monies owed to AHCA. He was dismissive about his past instead of being honest and forthright regarding the outstanding $99,000.00. Such lack of candor and accurateness regarding the delinquent AHCA fine establishes Petitioner's ineligibility for an exemption from disqualification because he has not demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that he has been rehabilitated.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order upholding its denial of Petitioner's request for an exemption from disqualification for employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of October, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. MCKINNEY 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 10th day of October, 2019. COPIES FURNISHED: Chan Gobin 5839 Northwest Drill Court Port St. Lucie, Florida 34986 Lindsay Worsham Granger, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Building 1, Mail Stop 7 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Richard J. Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Stefan Grow, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Mary C. Mayhew, Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 1 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Shena L. Grantham, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Building 3, Room 3407B 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Thomas M. Hoeler, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed)
Findings Of Fact Petitioner sat for the August 24, 1991 Optometry licensure examination. He did exceedingly well on two of the three portions of the examination. His grade on the clinical portion (sections 1 and 2) was 71.5. The minimum passing score was 75.0. Petitioner challenged the behavior of the examiners in section 2 of the clinical portion of the examination, and the grade he received for several individual procedures tested. Petitioner's patient for the clinical examination was his wife, Susan Vazoulas. Mrs. Vazoulas testified that prior to Petitioner entering the examination room for section 2 of the clinical portion of the examination, she overheard the two examiners, one male and one female, discussing material already on their clipboards. The male examiner indicated he had given an "81". The female examiner indicated she had given an "84", but was a "hard liner." Petitioner was not present during this exchange. Mrs. Vazoulas did not see what was on the examiners' clipboards and could not testify with any certainty as to what was being discussed. Every reasonable inference suggests that the examiners' conversation did not apply to Petitioner's section 2 clinical test for the following reasons: The examiners' comments were made before the Petitioner entered the examination room and before he began to take his section 2 clinical examination. The numbers "81" and "84" bear no relationship to any of Petitioner's scores on any portion of his licensure examination. The examiners for section 2 were not the examiners for section 1, whereon Petitioner scored 100%. If anything, had the examiners reached two divergent scores of 81 and 84, respectively, it would more likely suggest the presence of independent judging and the lack of collusion, instead of the presence of collusion and absence of independence as assumed by Petitioner in this instance. The examination room in which section 2 of Petitioner's clinical examination was administered was very small, approximately 8 x 10 feet. During section 2, the two examiners separately viewed each of 16 procedures performed on Mrs. Vazoulas by Petitioner and after each procedure, they individually returned to their respective clipboards to record their scores. The two clipboards were placed on a countertop side by side while not in use. Petitioner and Mrs. Vazoulas each observed the examiners separately marking their respective clipboards but never saw what was written down by either of the examiners. Petitioner and Mrs. Vazoulas felt it would have been hard for each examiner to avoid seeing the score assigned by the other examiner, but neither Petitioner nor Mrs. Vazoulas observed any actual sharing of information or scores during Petitioner's section 2 clinical examination or afterwards. Petitioner and Mrs. Vazoulas testified in terms of the examiners having "the chance" to see each other's clipboard and "the opportunity" for collusion and absence of independence in grading. In this instance, Petitioner considered that identical grades given by both examiners was proof of their collusion and arbitrary and capricious grading. However, similarity of scores is equally susceptible of being interpreted as resulting from each examiner having observed the same performance by Petitioner on each of the 16 procedures and applied the same judging criteria to what s/he saw. The law does not presume illicit behavior without more evidence than that it "could have" happened. Petitioner challenged his section 2 grade for clinical procedures 4-9 for biomicroscopy, alleging that he was graded 17.5 out of a possible 20 points while all parts were checked "yes". In fact, the score sheets show that all parts were not checked "yes" by both examiners. One examiner graded procedure four with "N" for "no". This could result in an "all or nothing" score of zero for that item. Assuming, arguendo, the "yes" and "no" were averaged, Petitioner's score still would not have amounted to the additional 2.5 points Petitioner alleged he was entitled to out of this section of the examination. Respondent's Exhibit 2 is a document titled "Optometry Practical Examination Section 2 - Grading Standards August 1991." The instructions to the examiners state in the second paragraph of that document, "Comment on reason for any NO judgment. Comment if performance was a marginal YES." Thus, examiners could legitimately insert comments even where they responded "yes" in evaluating the performance of the candidate in a given procedure. They did so here. Petitioner challenged his grade on procedure number 15, gonioscopy, stating that partial credit should have been given for the showing of the proper angle. Petitioner's Exhibits 1 and 2, the grade sheets for section 2, reflect that Petitioner received no credit from either examiner. Both "no" responses have comments recorded next to them. Respondent's Exhibit 2, page 4, states the criteria for a "yes" response on procedure number 15, gonioscopy, as: Must be focused on nasal angle with proper illumination Gives proper response to question Both criteria must be satisfied to receive a "yes" response. Petitioner and Respondent concur that Petitioner correctly demonstrated the angle required in procedure 15, gonioscopy, which satisfied one of the two required criteria to receive a "yes" from either examiner. Petitioner attempted, by extrapolation of procedure 5, to show that the remaining criterion was also met. He was not persuasive in this attempt. The grade sheets reflect that Petitioner failed to satisfy the second criterion: to give the correct response to the question posed. Petitioner made no valid showing that he did answer the question correctly or that the points available from this answer would raise his total score 3.5 points for a passing grade. Petitioner challenged his grade for procedure number 1, binocular indirect ophthalmoscopy (BIO). Petitioner admitted that he did this procedure incorrectly by using the 3:00 o'clock position, rather than the 9:00 o'clock position requested by the examiners but felt six points should not have been deducted and it should have been marked "yes, marginal," awarding him a majority of the six lost points. Petitioner did not demonstrate good cause within the grading criteria in evidence why he should have received the "majority," presumably four, points. Petitioner presented no evidence concerning the grading of challenged procedures 11 and 14. As to all of the foregoing, Petitioner's challenge to the effect that he did not understand the grading system was not sufficient to carry his burden of proof to establish that the examination, scoring, and/or grading system was arbitrary or capricious.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Department of Professional Regulation enter a final order ratifying the examination grade previously assigned to Petitioner. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 15th day of September, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The De Soto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of September, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 92-2205 The following constitute specific rulings, pursuant to S120.59 (2) F.S., upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF) Petitioner's PFOF: None filed Respondent's PFOF: 1-6 Accepted except for unnecessary, subordinate on cumulative material. 7-13 Accepted except for subordinate material. It is noted that Petitioner bears the burden of proof herein, not Respondent. COPIES FURNISHED: Vytas J. Urba Assistant General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 George L. Vazoulas 182C Chestnut Ridge Drive Harrisonburg, VA. 22801 Diane Orcutt, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Optometry 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
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 central issue in this case is whether the Petitioner's document filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on January 8, 1992, which was initially construed to be a petition challenging an existing rule, and which was assigned to the undersigned on January 16, 1992, should be dismissed as argued in the motion to dismiss filed by the Respondent on January 28, 1992.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a second year medical student currently enrolled at the University of South Florida, College of Medicine, in Tampa, Florida. Petitioner is a licensed optometrist in the State of Florida and graduated valedictorian from the University of Houston, College of Optometry in May, 1990. In Florida, the Board of Optometry (Board) retains licensed optometrists who write the questions for the licensing examination administered by the Board. In some instances, the same examination drafters are retained by the Board to administer the practical portions of the examination. Thus, the drafter of the questions may proctor the examination given to examinees. Further, in some instances, the examination drafters have working in their employ unlicensed optometrists or optometry students who receive training from such employer. When that occurs, the unlicensed employee may receive assistance from the employer not available to others who would seek licensure by examination. This appearance of assistance or potential assistance is created because the drafter of the examination is also the grader and employer of the unlicensed person who must be tested for licensure. It is the Petitioner's position that licensed optometrists who provide both the content of the written test and administer the practical portions of the examination for licensure should not also serve as mentor or employer of those seeking licensure by the same examination. Petitioner has not cited an existing rule that regulates the activities described. Rule 21Q-4.006, Florida Administrative Code, adopts by reference Rule 21-11.014, Florida Administrative Code, as the rule governing examination security and monitoring for the Board. That rule provides, in pertinent part: Any individual found by the Department or any board within the Department to have engaged in conduct which subverts or attempts to subvert the examination process may have his or her scores on the examination withheld and/or declared invalid, be disqualified from the practice of the profession, and/or be subject to the imposition of other appropriate sanctions by the Department or, if administered by a board within the Department, by the applicable board. Conduct which subverts or attempts to subvert the examination process includes: Conduct which violates the security of the examination materials. . . Petitioner has not alleged that anyone violated the foregoing rule. Rather, Petitioner maintains that allowing the activities described above to continue gives the appearance of impropriety or increases the potential for impropriety.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Respondent's license as an optometrist in Florida should be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Petitioner, Board of Optometry, was responsible for the licensing of optometrists and the regulation of the practice of optometry in this state. Respondent was licensed as an optometrist in Florida, practicing under license number OP0001451, originally issued on September 21, 1978. Some time prior to or during 1987, Respondent, Dr. Brian L. Weber, dissatisfied with what he found to be the practice of large optical dispensers with regard to pressuring optometrists to prescribe lenses, decided to open a facility where patients needing glasses could receive an eye examination from a licensed optometrist and also, if the patient so desired, obtain the eye wear prescribed. Consistent with what he perceived to be the rules of the Board of Optometry at that time, Dr. Weber entered into a business venture with Mr. Record, a licensed optician, through which a patient could do just that. In 1990, Dr. Weber and Mr. Record changed the name of the business to 29/49 Optical, Inc., and as of March 2, 1990, operated five separate stores under that name. Dr. Weber and Mr. Record incorporated the company within which each ultimately owned 50 percent of the stock of the corporation. Dr. Weber provided the funds to start the business, and Mr. Record, the "sweat equity." Mr. Record was made president of the company because he had the experience in opticianry and was responsible for operations. Weber was the "money man," and provided the overall business goals and strategy. Once the corporation was established and the initial filing was completed, Mr. Record was responsible for recurring filings as a matter of course. The firm, 29/49 Optical, Inc., was in the business of providing optician services. The leases for the stores were taken out in the name of the company which, in essence, provided a "turn-key" office to a licensed optometrist who was one of those individuals associated with Respondent in the optometry practice known as Brian L. Weber and Associates. Each of the optometrists in the association was an independent contractor, associated in practice with Respondent. None of them were employees of 29/49 Optical, Inc. In each of the offices of 29/49 Optical, Inc., was a display area where glass frames were displayed and fitted, a waiting room used both by customers of the optical shop and patients of the resident optometrist, a storage room, and, for the exclusive use of an optometrist, an examining room equipped with those items and supplies necessary for the accomplishment of eye examinations. As was the custom in the profession at the time, this office, owned or leased by 29/49 Optical, Inc., was furnished to the optometrist at little or no cost. Though it was hoped that the optometry patients would choose to have their prescriptions for glasses or contact lenses filled at 29/49 Optical, Inc., they were under no obligation to do so, and many did not. Patients seen by an optometrist in the 29/49 Optical, Inc. offices were billed by the optometrist for the optometry services and by the optical company for the cost of any glasses or contact lenses purchased. The two charges were paid separately, the payments placed in separate accounts. Payments for eye examinations by an optometrist were deposited to the account of Brian L. Weber, optometrist. Payments for glasses or lenses were deposited to the accounts of 29/49 Optical, Inc. The funds were neither mixed nor co-mingled, and funds placed in the account of Brian L. Weber were not used to pay the expenses of the 29/49 Optical, Inc. stores. Each optometrist maintained his or her own patient records which were stored in a filing cabinet maintained for that purpose separate and apart from the files relating to the operation of the 29/49 Optical, Inc. stores. Only the optometrists made entries to those records. Since the optometrists who manned the offices in the 29/49 Optical, Inc., stores were independent contractors, within basic guidelines as to routine procedures and office hours, they were free to work such hours as they chose and to charge what they believed to be appropriate fees for other than routine procedures. They were paid with funds drawn from the account of Brian L. Weber, into which the patient fees for optometry services were deposited. In addition to the associates who practiced at the individual shops, Dr. Weber also practiced at each and all of the shops periodically. Mr. Record was paid from the checking account maintained by 29/49 Optical, Inc., on which account either Record or the Respondent could write checks. Dr. Weber is quick to admit that the advertisement for 29/49 Optical, Inc., which appeared in the March 1, 1990, edition of the St. Petersburg Times is a poorly worded advertisement. So much of the advertisement which implies a total price to be paid to 29/49 which includes examination and glasses is admittedly inappropriate, and when he saw the proof prior to publication, he claims to have made appropriate changes which would have corrected the deficiencies. However, the corrections dictated by Respondent were not made, and the inappropriate advertisement was published. His immediate complaint to the newspaper after the first publication date resulted in an immediate correction. Respondent claims that when the disciplinary action was initiated against him in 1992, he immediately contacted the newspaper and requested a letter which would clarify the situation. He did not tell the paper what to say, and the subsequent letter from the paper relates to a failure to have his name appear in the March 1, 1990, advertisement. This is not the defect in the advertisement of which the Board complains. Dr. Liane, a Board certified optometric physician, a former Chairman of the Board of Optometry and now an expert for and consultant to the Board, reviewed the case file in this matter for the Board, along with the transcripts of other cases relating to Dr. Weber. None of the other matters was based on disciplinary action. To his recollection, the Board's rule on corporate practice was promulgated in 1986, at the time he was a member of the Board. At that time, the Board conducted numerous workshops around the state to advice practitioners of the standard of practice in that regard. Dr. Liane was also on the Board's legislative committee when Chapter 463, Florida Statutes, was enacted. The Board of Optometry was concerned with the protection of the public from the danger of allowing opticians or unlicensed entities to have input into whether lenses were needed. The Board, and the legislature, wanted to allow optometrists to practice with other licensed health care practitioners, but not with unlicensed opticians. After the legislation was passed, the Board promulgated its Rule 21O-3.008, which outlines factors which must be shown in order to prove corporate practice. One of the prohibitions in the rule relates to any practice or pronouncement which "implies" that the corporate or unlicensed entity is providing professional services. In the instant case, Dr. Liane is of the opinion that the original advertisement in question implies that 29/49 Optical, Inc., is offering a complete eye examination. As was noted previously, Respondent agrees, and it is so found. Having considered all the evidence available to him, including the advertisement of March 2, 1990, and the assumption of the lease arrangements existing prior and up to 1990, Dr. Liane concluded that Respondent was involved in an unauthorized corporate practice. While a side-by side practice between optometrists and opticians is common and approved, it may not be within a corporate practice by the same individuals who are in business together.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board of Optometry enter a Final Order dismissing Counts I and II of the Administrative Complaint; finding him guilty of Count III thereof and imposing an administrative fine of $250.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of November, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6947 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of November, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Alexandria E. Walters, Esquire William C. Childers, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 Angela T. Hall Agency Clerk Department of Health 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 6 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Grover Freeman, Esquire 201 East Kennedy Boulevard Suite 1950 Tampa, Florida 33602 Eric G. Walker Executive Director Board of Optometry 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Pete Peterson General Counsel Department of Health 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 6, Room 102-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
