Page images
PDF
EPUB

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
Amendments proposed by:

Page
Medical Society of the District of Columbia..

116-136, 316
National Association of Broadcasters...

258
McLeod, William N., Jr.

313

American Journal of Public Health, "Optometry's Role in Health Main-

tenance-A Study of Referrals”.

48

American Newspaper Publishers Association, Stanford Smith, general
manager, letter dated March 28, 1966, to Chairman Dowdy-.-

263

District of Columbia Government:

Letter dated March 18, 1966, from Hon. Walter N. Tobriner, Presi-

dent, Board of Commissioners, to Chairman McMillan.

243

Memorandum dated March 18, 1966, from Donald D. Brewer, Direc-

tor, Department of Public Welfare, to Milton D. Korman, Esq---- 252

District of Columbia Optometric Society, Horace W. White, Jr., executive

director:

Letter dated March 22, 1966, to Congressman Sisk.

Appendix 312

Memorandum dated March 25, 1966, to Dr. Warren.

305

District Wholesale Drug Corp., David I. Estrin, president, letter dated
March 18, 1966, to Chair McMillan...

257

Evers v. Buxhaum, t/a Ruben Optical Co. et al...

295

Guild of Prescription Opticians of America, Inc., statement entitled "The

Optician and Contact Lenses"

208

Houston Ophthalmological Society, Dr. George R. Kolodny, president,
telegram dated March 26, 1966, to Chairman Dowdy.

262
Maryland-Delaware District of Columbia Jewlers' Association, Henry

H. Brylawski, executive secretary, letter dated March 17, 1966, to
Chairman Dowdy ---

260
McLeod, William N., Jr., letter dated April 1, 1962, to Chairman Dowdy,
enclosing suggested amendments.

Appendix 313
Medical Society of the District of Columbia, Warren E. Magee, general

counsel, letter dated March 15, 1966, to District of Columbia Corpora-
tion Counsel.

111

National Association of Broadcasters, Douglas A. Anello, general counsel,

statement.

258

National Newspaper Association, Theodore A. Serrill.

83

New York Jewelry Co., account of Minnie Alice Henry:

Conditional sales contract.

294

Credit card..

291

Invoice and account

292-293

North Carolina State Commission for the Blind Study:

Testimony of J. Spencer Dryden, M.D., chairman, Executive Board,

Medical Society of the District of Columbia, with respect to such

study.

107-109, 138, 195–196

Exhibits presented by Dr. Dryden, being correspondence between

R. B. Rankin, M.D., and H.' A. Wood, executive secretary of the

commission.-

109-111

Letter dated March 30, 1966, from Dr. J. Spencer Dryden to Con-

gressman Whitener-

316

Testimony of Dr. Zachary Ephraim, president, District of Columbia
Board of Optometry with respect to such study.

275-285
Exhibits presented by Congressman Whitener, being letter dated

May 19, 1966, from Dr. Gideon L. Lang, Jr., member, North
Carolina Board of Examiners in Optometry, and exchange of cor-
respondence between Dr. John D. Costabile, executive secretary,
North Carolina Optometric Society, Inc. (letter dated June 13,
1961), and Henry A. Wood, executive secretary of the commission
(letter dated August 23, 1961), delineating the procedures to be
followed by optometrists in their reports and referrals.

278-285
Letter dated June 4, 1966, from Dr. Gideon L. Lang, Jr., member,

North Carolina State Board of Examiners in Optometry, to the
clerk of the committee.

285
Northern Virginia Academy of Ophthalmology, Dr. John F. Hannon,

secretary-treasurer, letter dated March 26, 1966, to Chairman Dowdy,
with resolution attached....

262
Ophthalmic Dispensing Association of Texas, Everett C. Olney, president,
telegram dated March 30, 1966, to Chairman Dowdy -

263

Rankin, Dr. Richard B., Jr., telegram dated March 23, 1966, to Hon. Basil Page

L. Whitener.

262

Reynolds, G. Stephen, distributive education, Thomas Jefferson High

School, letter dated March 7, 1966, to H. H. White, Jr., executive

director, Northern Virginia Optometric Society,

305

Texas Ophthalmology Association, Dr. Henry L. Hilgartner, president

elect, and Dr. Harold E. Hunt, president, telegram dated March 27,
1966, to Chairman Dowdy-

262
University of the State of New York:

Brind, Charles A., letter dated May 20, 1965, to Harold Kohn, Esq-- 73
Virginia, Hon. Robert'Y. Dutton, Attorney General, letter dated April 30,
1964, to Hon. D. French Slaughter, Jr.

188
Virginia Optometric Association, J. W. Doswell, administrative director,
letter dated October 9, 1964, to Earl C. Funderburk..

187-188

Washington (D.C.) Publishers Association, Henry C. Gronkiewicz, execu-

tive director, letter dated April 2, 1966, to Chairman Dowdy, enclosing

statement.

Appendix 314

APPENDIX

Summary of various State Supreme Court opinions respecting validity of

provisions of optometry laws in those States, similar to provisions in

proposed legislation..

307-312

OPTOMETRY

MONDAY, MARCH 21, 1966
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE No. 4 OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m., in room 1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. John Dowdy presiding.

Present: Representatives Dowdy, Whitener, Sisk, Grider, Harsha, Horton, and Broybill.

Also present: James T. Clark, clerk; Hayden S. Garber, counsel; Clayton Gasque, staff director; Donald Tubridy, minority clerk; and Leonard O. Hilder, investigator.

Mr. Dowdy. We have hearings set this morning on a group of bills to regulate the practice of optometry in the District of Columbia: H.R. 12937 by Mr. Sisk, H.R. 13049 by Mr. Fuqua, H.R. 13176 by Mr. Springer, H.R. 13155 by Mr. Shriver, H.R. 13623 by Mr. Huot, and H.R. 13821 by Mr. Nelson. They will be made part of the record.

(H.R. 12937, H.R. 13049, H.R. 13176, H.R. 13155, H.R. 13623, and H.R. 13821 are as follows:)

(H.R. 12937, introduced by Mr. Sisk on February 21, 1966; H.R. 13049, introduced by Mr. Fuqua on February 24, 1966; H.R. 13176, introduced by Mr. Springer on March 1, 1966; H.R. 13155, introduced by Mr. Shriver on March 1, 1966; H.R. 13623, introduced by Mr. Huot on March 15, 1966; and H.R. 13821, subsequently introduced by Mr. Nelson on March 21, 1966, are identical as follows:) A BILL To amend the Act of May 28, 1924, to revise existing law relating to the examination, licensure registration, and regulation of optometrists and the practice of optometry in the District of Columbia, and for other purposes

Be it enacted by the Senale and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Act entitled “An Act to regulate the practice of optometry in the District of Columbia”, approved May 28, 1924, as amended (D.C. Code, secs. 501-522), is amended to read as follows:

“Section 1. This Act may be cited as the 'District of Columbia Optometry Act'.

“Sec. 2. Optometry is hereby declared to be a profession. The practice of optometry in the District of Columbia is hereby declared to affect the public health, welfare, and safety, thus requiring regulation and control in the public interest. It is further declared to be a matter of public interest and concern that the practice of optometry be limited to qualified persons, admitted to the practice of optometry in the District of Columbia under the provisions of this Act. “Sec. 3. As used in this Act

(1) 'Commissioners' means the Board of Commissioners of the District of Columbia;

(2) 'practice of optometry' means any one, any combination, or all of the following acts or practices: the employment of any objective or subjective means for the examination of the human eye, including its associated

1

structures; the measurement of the powers or range of human vision; the determination of the accommodative and refractive powers of the human eye; the determination of the scope of the functions of the human eye in general; the prescription, adaptation, use, or furnishing of lenses, prisms, or frames for the aid thereof; the prescribing, directing the use of, or administering vision training or orthoptics, and the use of any optical device in connection therewith; the prescribing of contact lenses for, or the fitting or adaptation of contact lenses to the human eye; and the identification of any departure from the normal condition or function of the human eye, including its associated structures;

“(3) 'optometrist' means an individual licensed to engage in the practice of optometry in the District of Columbia;

"(4) Šperson' means any natural person, corporation, association, company, firm, partnership, or society;

“(5) 'individual' means only a natural person; and "(6) 'State' means the States of the United States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the territories of the United States. "Sec. 4. The Commissioners shall issue a license to practice optometry in the District of Columbia to any individual who

“(1) is at least twenty-one years of age; (2) is of good moral character; (3) is mentally competent; "(4) has satisfied the Commissioners that he has had a preliminary education equivalent to the completion of a four-year course of study in an accredited high school;

“(5) has completed a preoptometric course of at least two years at college level;

“(6) has graduated from a school or college of optometry approved by the Commissioners after completion of a course of study of not less than four years;

(7) has passed written, oral, and practical examinations as prescribed by the Commissioners in the following subjects: geometric, physical, and physiological optics; theoretic optometry and optics; anatomy, physiology, and pathology, especially as they relate to the eye and to vision; general practice of optometry; special practice of optometry; practical optometric dispensing and such other subject matters as are taught in the schools and colleges of optometry and which the Commissioners deem necessary to determine the applicant's competence to practice as an optometrist. The Commissioners may accept the results of written examinations given by the National Board of Optometry, but shall conduct their own oral and practical examinations; and

“(8) has paid all the required fees. "SEC. 5. (a) The Commissioners are authorized to issue reciprocity licenses to an individual who holds a license to practice optometry in another State. An applicant for a reciprocity license may, at the discretion of the Commissioners, be licensed without a written examination but he must be given and successfully pass a practical and oral examination. A reciprocity license shall be granted only

"(1) the State in which the applicant's license has been granted accords like privileges to the holder of a license to practice optometry in the District of Columbia;

"(2) the license of the applicant shall not have been suspended or revoked by any State for any cause which is the basis for suspension or revocation of a license under this Act (other than for nonpayment of fees) unless such license has been reinstated by such State and is in full force and effect at the time of the application for a reciprocity license under this section;

“(3) the applicant for a reciprocity license has not failed to pass an examination for a license under this Act in the District of Columbia after his admission to practice in another State;

"(4) the applicant for a reciprocity license has been engaged in the practice of optometry continuously for not less than five out of the seven years immediately preceding his application for a reciprocity license under this

section. "(b) If an individual holding a reciprocity license granted under this section fails to actually practice optometry in the District of Columbia within one year after such license has been granted, the Commissioners may revoke such license at any time before such individual actually begins the practice of optometry in the District of Columbia.

if

« PreviousContinue »