Achievements

While not litigated, PVL was prepared to litigate against the state Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) to obtain optometry’s restoration as a covered benefit under Medi-Cal. DHCS had previously dropped optometry, dentistry and other disciplines from the Medi-Cal program (other than for coverage of minor children). Because the state continued to pay physicians for vision care services under Medi-Cal, PVL was able to obtain a reversal of the DHCS’s policy relative to optometry and optometry has been fully restored to the Medi-Cal Program.

In this case, litigation was commenced against the director of the state Department of Health Care Services to enjoin the 10 percent Medi-Cal cuts implemented by the department. Injunctions were issued from federal courts and the matter is now on appeal in the U.S. Supreme Court where a decision is expected shortly. COA has been an amicus in the litigation in opposition to the reimbursement reduction.

This case is an offshoot of People v. Cole. The action was filed in federal court in Sacramento by the National Association of Optometrists and Opticians and LensCrafters (a Luxottica subsidiary) contending that sections of the Business & Professions Code prohibiting economic relationships between optometrists and opticians were unconstitutional. After NAOO, et al., had initial success in the trial court, the matter was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which reversed the trial court holding that the statutes in question are a valid exercise of state power. The Ninth Circuit referred the matter back to the trial court for further proceedings which resulted in the trial court reversing itself and the matter is now, again, on appeal in the Ninth Circuit. PVL filed an amicus curiae (a friend of the court brief) in the Ninth Circuit in support of existing law.

In this case, the state attorney general sued Cole Vision, a subsidiary of Luxottica, claiming that Cole’s Pearle Vision Centers were violating the law and that the Pearle Vision opticianries were involved in unlawful relationships with optometrists that are prohibited by California Business & Professions Code Sections 655 and 2556. Cole, et al., defended on the theory that Pearle Vision was a vision care plan and governed by the Knox-Keene Act and, consequently, the provisions of the Business & Professions Code prohibiting economic relationships between optometrists and opticians did not apply. The California Supreme Court disagreed holding that the provisions of the Business & Professions Code do apply to vision care plans. COA [PVL?] was an amicus curiae (friend of the court) advocating for the Court’s ultimate decision.

On two different occasions in the late 1990s to early 2000s, COA has sued the Medical Board of California to enjoin the implementation of regulations adopted by the Medical Board that would allow assistants in the offices of physicians to perform refractions. In each of the two cases, the regulations have been declared unlawful.

Pearle Vision, an optician, attempted to franchise optometric offices in the state of California. PVL, through the offices of Dr. Kendall and joined by the California Association of Dispensing Opticians and the California Board of Optometry, filed suit in San Diego County Superior Court. The suit claimed that it was unlawful in California to franchise optometric offices. In a landmark decision, the court entered an injunction against Pearle Vision. The case was appealed wherein the injunction was upheld. The case remains good law and holds that it is not possible to franchise optometric offices in this state.

In the Eyeglasses II proceeding, the FTC adopted yet another trade regulation rule that would have preempted state laws prohibiting economic relationships between optometrists and opticians. After the rule was adopted, it was litigated in the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and the court held that Eyeglasses II represented an unlawful exercise of the FTC’s rulemaking authority in that health care was properly the subject of state regulation and the rule was voided. COA and AOA jointly participated as a party in objecting to the rulemaking and in the subsequent litigation.

The Terminal Hudson case marked the renewal of activities by Opti-Cal in which it advertised the price of optometric services. PVL supported the law at that time that prohibited price advertising. As a result of the trial in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, Terminal Hudson was enjoined from engaging in such advertising. Subsequently, after violating the terms of the injunction, PVL instituted contempt proceedings against Terminal Hudson and Terminal Hudson was fined in excess of $20,000. In a parallel case filed in federal court, Terminal Hudson challenged the constitutionality of the California statutes that prohibited price advertising by optometrists. Based on the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Bates v. Arizona, the California statutes were deemed to be unconstitutional and, since that time, price advertising in California has been lawful.

The Eyeglasses I proceeding involved a Federal Trade Commission rulemaking, wherein the FTC adopted a trade regulation rule that it claimed preempted state laws that restricted the advertising of optometric services. At that time, many states, including California, restricted the content of ads for optometric services, including prohibitions against advertising price. After the rule was adopted over COA’s strong objections, the matter was litigated in the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and the court held that the FTC had overstepped its bounds and basically voided the rule. PVL participated fully in all of the Eyeglasses I proceedings.

Opti-Cal was a chain opticianry that had doctors located immediately adjacent to the opticianries. At trial, it was proven that Opti-Cal was paying the doctors in a way that violated California Business & Professions Code Sections 655 and 2556, which prohibited certain economic relationships between optometrists and opticians. The Superior Court of Orange County entered an injunction prohibiting the unlawful relationship. PVL, through Dr. Dundas, prosecuted the case.

PVL sued Travelers Insurance Company claiming Travelers discriminated against optometrists in payment for the treatment of strabismus. They would reimburse medical doctors but not optometrists. Travelers was represented by the California Medical Association’s lawyers and, consequently, this suit was an M.D. versus O.D. battle. PVL prevailed, and from that time on optometric services for strabismus have been covered by not only Travelers but other major insurance companies.