expend funds other than under the Optometry Act. That was when my father said, "I have had it" and decided to resign.

Mr. DowDY. These glasses look like the sort of thing you go in the dime store and buy off the counter. Is that what they are? Dr. EPHRAIM. I do not think they are even that good. These frames were discontinued about four years ago.

Mr. DOWDY. I never saw anything like them.

Dr. EPHRAIM. No, sir. They have been discontinued for some time. As Dr. Warren said, the lenses are the nearest thing to a zero prescription you can give and still give a prescription. The reason given for giving these was the girl was told she had very sensitive eyes. This is stealing. I examined the girl and found her need for glasses was very, very dubious, and even if she did need them this is a gross overcharge. I advised her to make no more payments. She had already paid $15 and when they called her she told them what I had advised and she has not heard from them since.

they feel since they got $15, that was about $10 more than what they

cost.

I realized I had overstepped my bounds because I am not a lawyer, but I turned it over to the Legal Aid Society who will take action to get the legal charges dropped.

Dr. Warren has mentioned the case of a person being overcharged, but within the last month or so we have had two complaints on contact lens fitting where it is almost a case of gross neglect. The case we heard of this week was a person who had a very painful eye after having been fitted with contact lenses. She went back and was told by the girl-she could not even see the doctor-not to wear it for five days and then to come back.

So one case is robbing a person of money and another is gambling with a person's eyes. Here again we can take no action.

Dr. WARREN. I have here also a report that was carried to the United States Court of Appeals before any of us was on the Board. This was a case where the optometrist involved was charged with not giving a patient all the attention that he possibly could. The defense was, "Since this man is not my patient directly but I was helping Mr. Boxman in the examination of this man so the information is furnished to Mr. Boxman." He was taking advantage of the fact he was working for a corporation. He was examining a patient but refused to take any responsibility for any of his actions by blaming it all on the corporation. This is another thing we do not feel an optometrist should be doing, working for a corporation. He should be working in his own name and have responsibility for what he is doing. In this case the patient thought he was dealing with an optometrist but really he was dealing with a corporation.

Dr. EPHRAIM. Another thing is the optometrist was not a pathologist and advised the corporation of this but the corporation did not advise the patient of this and the patient ran into serious trouble, and that is why they had the case.

Mr. SISK. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DOWDY. Mr. Sisk.

Mr. SISK. I might say one of the reasons it was decided by the committee to call these gentlemen before us were some discussions we were having in the committee having to do with some of the questions that have arisen pertaining to the fact that, for example, a case such

as the one just discussed should be subject to legal action, because it really amounted to fraud. And in the discussions we had I was led to believe that legal action on the part of the Board, which is actually responsible in a sense for the practice of optometry in the District of Columbia, had been in effect advised it was none of their business. I think Dr. Warren indicated this was his experience or the experience his father had previously. This was one of the reasons we wanted to give these gentlemen an opportunity to discuss some of these matters. I believe there was a case involving a young man of a similar nature. I think I discussed it with Dr. Warren or one of the other Board members, where I think under a request for payment actually the corporation dropped the pressure for collection. Is that right?

Dr. WARREN. That is right. I have the facts right here. I will pass the letter up. This young man was literally dragged by the arm into an establishment to have a free eye examination. His free eye examination resulted in his being given a pair of glasses for $85. This young man is a resident of Virginia, was in the school dropout program, the Federal dropout program.

Mr. DOWDY. Is that the same case?

Dr. WARREN. Yes. He was unable to meet the payments and went to his adviser and of course the problem was he had a part-time job. He had been issued a summons to come into court and if he were to go in there and lose the case there would be a garnishee of his wages and the establishment for whom he is working has a policy that any of its employees who is garnished would immediately lose his job in this area.

The adviser contacted the D.C. Legal Aid Society and they had the young man come down to the Optometric Clinic, which gives free eye examinations, and Dr. Witten happened to be there that day and examined his eyes and could find no refractive error that was necessary to be corrected. His glasses were of the same order as those I have already passed up. There was no need for glasses. Of course the patient originally had no complaints. He went in there for a free eye examination.

Dr. Witten, with the aid of the Legal Aid Society, gave a deposition and the attorney for the corporation who sold the glasses saw the deposition and as soon as he saw the glasses they dropped the complaint immediately.

Here, again, we feel action should have been taken against the optometrist.

Dr. WITTEN. Just one correction. May I say I did not see the young man at that time. His legal counsel contacted me at that time and he had this paper and after I read it I was glad to sign it because I felt the young man was being cheated. From that point on he handled the case and I understand it has been in court action.

Mr. SISK. Do I understand from what Dr. Warren said, that the company who had sold the boy glasses dropped the charges? Dr. WITTEN. Yes.

Mr. SISK. In other words, they were glad to get off the hook?
Dr. WITTEN. That is right.

Mr. SISK. How much had he paid?

Dr. WITTEN. I do not know. He was being charged $85. I really do not know how much he had paid at that time.

Mr. SISK. Dr. Witten, in your practice in town, to what extent does this kind of occurrence happen in your experience?

First I will ask, how long have you been in practice here?

Dr. WITTEN. A little over 12 years.

Mr. SISK. Do you find this kind of thing occurring with some regularity in the District?

Dr. WITTEN. I would say Yes. Of course even before I entered private practice here, there was a good deal of irregularity.

Mr. Sisk. Mr. Chairman, I do not mean to take over.

Mr. DOWDY. Go right ahead.

Mr. SISK. When you gentlemen were appointed as members of the Board of Optometry, basically what are your obligations? When you receive your appointment what are you really supposed to do? What are your instructions or directions to carry out your obligations in the District of Columbia?

First, who actually appoints you?

Dr. WITTEN. The District Commissioners.
Mr. SISK. The Board of Commissioners?

Dr. WITTEN. That is right.

Mr. SISK. Then go ahead, if you will, Dr. Witten, and the rest of you gentlemen if you would like, and tell us what your responsibilities What authority do you have to act to correct some of the things we have in the record that you are familiar with?

are.

Dr. WITTEN. I think, as Dr. Warren has already stated, we have no authority to prosecute or to take a license away from an optometrist under the present Act except by reason of fraud or moral turpitude.

Dr. EPHRAIM. Not fraud, only by reason of the use of narcotics, habitual drunkeness, or crime involving moral turpitude.

Mr. SISK. Dr. Ephraim, would you comment on what you felt your duties would be when you were appointed to the Board?

Dr. EPHRAIM. I do not know what I felt but I will tell you what they

The duties of the Board are purely to examine candidates, pass on their qualifications to take the examination in the District of Columbia, make up and grade the examinations, and issue certificates. As far as enforcing the law or protecting the public, we have no power. Mr. SISK. You have no police power whatsoever?

Dr. EPHRAIM. None whatsoever. I have been on the Board six years. When I first came on the Board it was the policy of the Department of Occupations and Professions to receive complaints and forward them to the Board for action. Then in formal hearings we would hear complaints and render decisions and refer them back to the Department and they would so notify the complainant. Now the Department of Occupations and Professions, when they receive a complaint, in a very nice way advise the complainant that the Board has no power to take action and not to bother to file complaints but if he feels strongly enought to file a civil suit in court. So we no longer receive complaints.

Mr. SISK. Thank you.

Mr. HORTON. May I ask, are there any qualifications for membership on the Board?

Dr. EPHRAIM. Yes. The optometrist has to be a member of the Optometric Society. The Society submits three names for each vacancy and the Commissioners select one from the three names.

Mr. HORTON. What are the qualifications of the present members of the Board? Are you all optometrists?

Dr. EPHRAIM. Yes.

Mr. HORTON. There are no ophthalomologists?

Dr. EPHRAIM. No. It is strictly an optometry board.

Mr. WHITENER. You must have been engaged in the practice of optometry for three years?

Dr. EPHRAIM. I do not think that is in the law.

Mr. WHITENER. Yes, it is.

Dr. WARREN. The 1924 law?

Mr. WHITENER. It says:

He shall have been actively engaged in the practice of optometry three years next preceding his appointment.

Dr. WARREN. I do not think it is even required that you have to be a member of the Society, either. It has been customary for the Society to submit names but it is not compulsory.

Mr. WHITENER. Yes, it is. The statute says "the Commissioners of the District of Columbia shall appoint a Board of Optometry consisting of five persons to be selected from a list of ten optometrists submitted by a majority vote at some regular meeting of the District of Columbia Optometric Society."

Dr. WARREN. Under the Reorganization Act we have been told. many times that we can be replaced by any person whatsoever the District of Columbia Commissioners wished to appoint, whether they were optometrists or not.

Mr. WHITENER. If we go into that we will get into an argument because we have raised this question before and some of us feel the reorganization procedures have to be in keeping with the plain language of the statute. I do not think, personally, that there is anything in the Reorganization Act or elsewhere in the law that would permit the District of Columbia Commissioners to appoint a plumber or an optometrist who had had less than three years of practicing experience to the Board of Optometry. They and other officials take many liberties under these so-called Reorganization Acts, but I do not believe they can bypass the plain language of the law.

In these cases you mentioned, like this Bill Taishoff, trading as New York Jewelry Company, have you ever talked to the District Corporation Counsel about the possibility of a criminal action against that company for obtaining money under false pretenses?

Dr. WARREN. We have had many meetings with the Corporation Counsel. I myself met with Chester Gray and with his predecessorhis name slips me right now-and we have all been told there is nothing we can do.

Of late we were talking about these charge accounts being carried on month after month after month, these add-on charge accounts, and we were advised by Commissioner Duncan himself that this case might lend some fuel to some legislation they were trying to obtain that would give them more power to regulate some of the credit schemes being carried on in the District of Columbia, but that is as far as they have gone in this respect.

Mr. WHITENER. I cannot conceive of a more clear-cut case of false pretense than where an individual renders a false diagnosis to take money from an individual. I know that man might come in with a defense of professional judgment, but that is a matter for the jury. Where you have repeated actions of that kind by one firm or individual, I think the jury could see through it.

I think if you would talk to Mr. Korman, the Acting Corporation Counsel, you would have a receptive ear. He is certainly fair minded and I think a very excellent man.

But this sort of thing, it seems to me, is a license to steal.

Dr. WARREN. As my dad used to say, "Jesse James had a gun. Mr. WITENER. From what you say, they almost lassoed them. I do not want to be critical of anybody but I think you gentlemen may be in a position where your Board, instead of having greater authority will have less, because under the proposal of the Commissioners, if we give them broad authority for the regulation of all trades and professions. It would have the result of putting all the authority right there with them and making you folks more figureheads than you

are now.

You have only one firm here that specific evidence has been presented on. I think you would agree there are some optical firms and maybe some optometrists who practice as employees rather than as privately practicing optometrists who are trying to do a good job and are ethical. You would not want to hurt them; neither would we.

Dr. WARREN. Well, sir, we think that less than 10 percent of the optometrists, maybe 5 percent, that would be affected by any Optometry Bill, are practicing in an unprofessional manner. A newspaper reporter told me last week, "Well, that is just standard procedure. That is one of the things about 'let the buyer beware'." However, if we have 5 percent of the population stealing and murdering we have to maintain a police force for that 5 percent. And we think we need a police force for this 5 percent of optometrists.

Mr. WHITENER. I suppose you noticed on the contract this girl from the drug store signed they are very careful to say this was for "optical services" and not optometric services.

Dr. WARREN. I did not notice that, not being an attorney.

Mr. HORTON. Could I ask some more questions about your qualifications. What is the length of your term?

Dr. EPHRAIM. Three years and we might be appointed for a second term of three years.

Mr. HORTON. And there is a prohibition against an additional term?

Dr. EPHRAIM. Yes.

Mr. HORTON. Are you paid for your services on the Board?

Dr. EPHRAIM. We are paid for time spent in preparing examinations and for meetings. We are paid $3 an hour for anything except meetings and we are paid $25 per meeting once a month.

Mr. HORTON. As I understood your earlier testimony, you generally are responsible for conducting examinations and issuing licenses. Do you grade papers and that sort of thing?

Dr. EPHRAIM. Yes.

Mr. HORTON. In other words, you have the sole responsibility for the issuance of licenses to optometrists?

Dr. EPHRAIM. Yes, sir.