Columbia is subject to licensing and regulation, and we stated that, in our opinion, it might not lawfully be subjected to commercialization and exploitation. We cited many authorities holding that a corporation engages unlawfully in the practice of medicine when it employs licensed physicians to treat patients, itself receives the fee, and the profit object is its main purpose, the arrangement being such as to divide the physician's loyalty and destroy the well-recognized confidential relation of doctor and patient. This brings us, then, to consider whether this rule applies to the practice of optometry. "Many States have similar or nearly similar statutes, but their courts have disagreed on whether optometry is a learned profession. We have considered the cases, and are of the opinion the best considered adopt the view that optometry is not one of the learned professions. "Optometry is said by a well-known writer on the subject not to be a part of medicine, either by inheritance, basic principles, development or practice. It is "an applied arm of optical science resting upon the work and discoveries of physicists and opticians through the ages down to modern times. It does not treat the eye, whether in health or disease, but adapts the light waves which enter the eye, in accordance with optical principles so as to produce focused and single vision with the least abnormal exertion on the part of the eye.' Arrington's History of Optometry, page 24 (1929). * "There is no more reason to prohibit a corporation, organized for the purpose, from employing licensed optometrists, than there is to prohibit similar employment of accountants, architects, or engineers. We know of no instance in which the right in any of those cases has ever been challenged, though universally all are deemed professions. "We find nothing in the statute to indicate that Congress intended to prohibit corporations from employing licensed optometrists. Its primary purpose was to insure that the service would be rendered by competent and licensed persons and thereby to protect the public from inexpertness. That purpose may be fully accomplished, though the person rendering the service is employed by a corporation. "We think the lower court was correct in denying injunctive relief, and the decree is, therefore, affirmed with costs." H.R. 12937 in section 2 thereof asks Congress to declare the practice of optometry to be a profession. From the nature of the regulations set forth in H.R. 12937, including regulations forbiding persons, including corporations, to hire or employ optometrists in the practice of optometry, H. R. 12937 is in effect declaring optometry to be a learned profession and is attempting to regulate it as such. The medical society contends that optometry should not be declared to be a learned profession and should not be regulated as such. No public health need requires such legislative action and it is not in the public interest. H.R. 12937 in section 12(c) attempts to make certificates issued by optometrists qualified expert evidence in any trial or hearing in the courts of the District of Columbia and in other instances. The courts in the District of Columbia have consistently decided that expert testimony dealing with defects and diseases of the eye must come from a medical expert with medical training in the diagnosis and treatment of the eye. H.R. 12937 in effect reverses these decisions, all of which are clearly in the public interest, by making statements issued by licensed optometrists expert evidence in any trial or hearing in the courts of the District of Columbia. The courts of the District of Columbia in the matter of expert testimony, particularly pertaining to the eye, have followed the landmark desision of Ewing v. Goode (C.C.S.D. Ohio), 78 F. 2d 442 (1897). In Ewing, C. J. Taft, who later became both Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States and President of the United States, in directing a verdict for the defendant, Dr. Goode, for allegedly causing the loss of sight in the right eye and the impairment of sight in the left eye of the plaintiff, for lack of expert medical testimony supporting the plaintiff's claim, held (p. 443): "But when the case concerns the highly specialized art of treating an eye for cataract, or for the mysterious and dread disease of glaucoma, with respect to which a layman can have no knowledge at all, the court and jury must be dependent upon expert evidence. There can be no other guide, and, where want of skill or attention is not thus shown by expert evidence applied to the facts, there is no evidence of it to be submitted to the jury." Recent cases in the U.S. Court of Appeals following and approving Ewing are: Brown v. Keaveny (1963), 117 U.S. App. D.C. 117; 326, F. 2d 660; Quick) v. Thurston (1961), 110 U.S. App. D.C. 169, 172; 290 F. 2d 360, 363; Rodgers v. Lawson (1948), 83 U.S. App. D.C. 281, 282; 170 F. 2d 157, 158; and Hohenthal v. Smith (1940), 72 App. D.C. 343, 346; 114 F. 2d. 484, 497. Whether or not a party is qualified to give expert medical testimony in court must be determined by a court from the actual medical training, knowledge, and experience of the witness and the courts of the District of Columbia should not be shackled in their determination of who is a qualified medical expert witness by a legislative fiat that a licensed optometrist's statements are considered to be expert evidence in eye cases in any court in the District of Columbia. The enactment of such legislation is not in the public interest and certainly will not improve but could hinder, the administration of justice in cases involving eye problems in the District of Columbia. Optometrists, since 1938, have been endeavoring to have Congress enact legislation quite similar to H.R. 12937. The medical society has opposed such legislation and up to the present time Congress has refused to enact legislation similar to that proposed in H.R. 12937. The medical society opposes H.R. 12937 on the basic ground that this legislation is not in the public interest and does not meet any health needs of the District of Columbia. The medical society respectfully requests that the Commissioners of the District of Columbia and the Corporation Counsel oppose the enactment of H.R. 12937. Representatives of the medical society are prepared to discuss this matter with the Commissioners, their representatives, the Corporation Counsel or his representatives, and to testify against H.R. 12937 in Congress. Yours very truly, WARREN E. MAGEE, General Counsel for the Medical Society of the District of Columbia. Soru CONGRESS 2D SESSION H. R. 12937 IN THE HOUSE. OF REPRESENTATIVES FEBRUARY 21, 1966 Mr. Sisk introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the District of Columbia 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. 1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 3 That the Act entitled "An Act to regulate the practice of 4 optometry in the District of Columbia", approved May 28, 5–1924, as amended (D.C. Code, secs. 501-522), is amended 6 to read as follows: 7 "SECTION 1. This Act may be cited as the 'District of 8 Columbia Optometry Act'. 9 sk illed "SEC. 2. Optometry is hereby declared to be a profes mechanical art involving human vision 1-sion. The practice of optometry in the District of Columbia 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 "SEC. 3. As used in this Act "(1) Commissioners' means the Board of Com missioners of the District of Columbia; (2), practice of is defined to be the application of optometry' means any one, any the employment of any objective or subjective-means methods and devices in the for the axuminution of the human eye, including-its associated structures; the measurement-of-the-powers- or range of hun vision; the determination-of the accommodative and refractive powers of the human eye; the determination of the scope of-the-functions-of, the haman eye in general; the prescription, adaptation,-use. or furnishing of lenses, prisms, or frames-for-the aid 22 thewof the prescribing, directing the use of, or admin————- • 23 istering vision training or orthoptics, and the use of any or optical device in connection therewith the prescribing of contact lenses for, or the fitting or adaptation of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 3 contact lenses to the human cyc; and the identification 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) person-me-aux-natural-person, corporation, nasociation, company-fam, partnership, or society; “(5)—individual mears-only a natural person; and “(6) State-mennethe States of the United States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the territories of the United States. Delete: Insert Sec. 2-511 D. C. Code as amended "Spe. 4. The Commissioners shall issue a license-to by order of the Commissioners dated September 26, 1930 14 practice optometer in the District of Columbia to any in No. 31772 în lieu thereof 15 dividual who 16 17 18 “(1) ixatleast-twenty-one yea» of age; "' (2)—is of cont mount-elmmeter: “(ü)-is-meually compotent; “(4)—lma-antisfied the Commissioners that he has had a preliminary education equivalent to the completion of a four-your course of study in an accredited high -school+ "(5) has completed a preoptometric_course_of_at least two venrat-college-level; “(6)—lux-graduated from a school or college of |