††††††††††† DATE:††††††††††† September 10, 2010


††††††††††† TO:††††††††††††††††† Idaho Board of Optometry


††††††††††† SUBJECT:††††† Investigative Report



Fiscal Year 2011 (to date)

††††††††††† Total Complaints received†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† 1

††††††††††† Status:

††††††††††††††††††††††† Remaining under investigation††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† 1


Fiscal Year 2010

††††††††††† Total Complaints received†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† 10

††††††††††††††††††††††† (Including 3 CE audit files.)

††††††††††† Status:

††††††††††††††††††††††† Closed by Board action††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† 5

††††††††††††††††††††††† Closed following disciplinary action††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† 2

††††††††††††††††††††††† Remaining under investigation††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† 2

††††††††††††††††††††††† Awaiting Board determination†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† 1


Fiscal Year 2008

††††††††††† Total Complaints received†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† 4

††††††††††† Status:

††††††††††††††††††††††† Closed by Board action††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† 3

††††††††††††††††††††††† Awaiting Board determination†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† 1


For Board Determination:


I-OPT-2008-3C alleged that R, a novelty shop, sold a 15-year-old patient ďhypnoticĒ plano contact lenses that caused problems with the patientís visual health.Investigation revealed that since the complaint was filed, R was issued a cease and desist letter by the Attorney Generalís Office in a related matter and has stopped stocking or selling the lenses.IBOL recommends that the Board authorize closure.


I-OPT-2010-9C alleged that R ďpushedĒ C into vision therapy that R should have known would not help C due to Cís Parkinsonís disease.Investigation revealed that C attended a vision therapy workshop at Rís clinic to learn more about vision therapy.C then made an appointment with R to address Cís complaint of blurred and double vision.Rís records reflect that C was seen once by R and that, in addition to Parkinsonís, C was diagnosed with hypermetropia, regular astigmatism, presbyopia, cortical senile cataract, nonexudative senile macular degeneration of the retina, and hypertropia.After a medically oriented exam, R determined that C was not a candidate for vision therapy and referred C to resume care under an ophthalmologist.R stated that his office did not attempt to proceed with vision therapy for C and that vision therapy would not correct Cís vision problems.Rís office manager informed the investigator that C had questions regarding vision therapy and another person was brought in to explain vision therapy and the associated costs.However, C was never scheduled for a consultation with the therapist and was simply referred to the ophthalmologist.The investigation did not reveal any evidence to support the allegation that R attempted to ďpushĒ C into vision therapy; therefore, IBOL recommends that the Board authorize closure.