Board of Optometry, Dept. of Professional Regulation v. Florida Medical Ass'n
| Decision Date | 07 February 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. AY-253,AY-253 |
| Citation | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 377,463 So.2d 1213 |
| Parties | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 377 BOARD OF OPTOMETRY, DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, Appellant, and Florida Optometric Association, Inc., James A. Stephens, O.D., and Donnie D. Dance, O.D., Appellants, v. FLORIDA MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, INC., Florida Society of Ophthalmology, and William J. Broussard, M.D., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Susan Tully, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant Bd. of Optometry.
Leonard A. Carson, Carson & Linn, P.A., Tallahassee, for appellants Fla. Optometric Ass'n, James A. Stephens, O.D., and Donnie D. Dance, O.D.
Kenneth G. Oertel and Segundo J. Fernandez, Oertel & Hoffman, P.A., Tallahassee, for appellees.
Before us is an appeal from a challenge to the validity of the Board of Optometry's proposed rule 21Q-3.10 and the Board's 1975 policy statement, both relating to the use and prescription of legend drugs by optometrists. Section 120.54(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1983). The hearing officer held, inter alia, that the petitioners, appellees herein, had standing to challenge the rule and policy statement; that the policy statement is a "rule" within the meaning of section 120.52(15), Florida Statutes (1983), but not adopted in accordance with section 120.54, and therefore an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority; and that the proposed rule is also an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. For the reasons hereinafter set forth, we affirm.
By virtue of section 463.005, Florida Statutes (1983), the Board of Optometry
... is authorized to make such rules not inconsistent with law as may be necessary to carry out the duties and authority conferred upon the board by this chapter and as may be necessary to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public. Such rules shall include, but not be limited to, rules relating to:
(1) A standard of practice for licensed optometrists....
On the strength of that authority, the Board proposed an amendment to rule 21Q-3.10 which would set forth standards for the prescribing and use of legend drugs by optometrists, and provide guidelines for determining the competence of individual optometrists who use such drugs. 1 In so doing, the Board admits it had assumed that chapter 463 authorizes optometrists to use drugs, an assumption arising from its interpretation of section 463.002, Florida Statutes (1981), already embodied in its 1975 policy statement. Appellants' position is that the Board's interpretation of section 463.002, which defines "optometry," is a permissible one, logically flowing from its duty under section 463.005 to promulgate rules necessary to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public, and supported by the chapter's legislative history and the educational evolution of the practice of optometry.
Section 463.002(4) defines "optometry" as meaning
... the diagnosis of the human eye and its appendages; the employment of any objective or subjective means or methods for the purpose of determining the refractive powers of the human eyes, or any visual, muscular, neurological, or anatomic anomalies of the human eyes and their appendages; and the prescribing and employment of lenses, prisms, frames, mountings, contact lenses, orthoptic exercises, light frequencies, and any other means or methods for the correction, remedy, or relief of any insufficiencies or abnormal conditions of the human eyes and their appendages.
In support of their position, appellants point to the fact that in 1939, the legislature omitted the earlier statutory prohibition against optomestrists' utilizing drugs in their practice and performing surgery. Appellants reason that that omission necessarily implied legislative authorization, citing to the rule of statutory interpretation which holds that when the legislature amends a statute by omitting words, it is presumed to have intended the statute to have a meaning different from that accorded it before the amendment. See e.g., Capella v. City of Gainesville, 377 So.2d 658 (Fla.1979); Carlile v. Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, 354 So.2d 362 (Fla.1977). 2
We do not dispute the validity of that venerable rule of statutory construction, but we are convinced that strictly applying it to this context to span the chasm between an omission and a substantive authorization would require a quantum leap in logic. Instead, we approve the hearing officer's approach, that the statute at best neither expressly authorizes nor prohibits the prescription and use of legend drugs by optometrists. The issue of whether the Board has the authority to adopt the rule is resolved by determining whether section 463.002(4) may be permissibly interpreted as authorizing optometrists to use legend drugs. Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medical Examiners v. Durrani, 455 So.2d 515 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Department of Administration v. Nelson, 424 So.2d 852 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).
The legislative purpose behind enacting chapter 463 was to protect the public's health, safety, and welfare by establishing minimum qualifications to shield the public from "unskilled and incompetent" practitioners. Section 463.001, Florida Statutes (1983). We are of the opinion that the Board's interpretation of sections 463.002(4) and 463.005 to authorize the use of legend drugs by optometrists is an impermissible one, one that substantively amends, or adds to, the statute and materially departs from the stated legislative purpose. State, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. McTigue, 387 So.2d 454 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Florida Psychiatric Society, Inc., 382 So.2d 1280 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). There is absolutely no indication in chapter 463 that the legislature could have intended such a result. Although section 463.002(4) utilizes the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Island Harbor Beach Club, Ltd. v. Department of Natural Resources
...not amount to an expansion of the agency's power beyond that authorized in the organic statute. E.g., Board of Optometry v. Florida Medical Ass'n, 463 So.2d 1213 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), pet. for rev. denied, 475 So.2d 693 (Fla., This argument relates to the appropriateness of DNR's constructio......
-
Florida Soc. of Ophthalmology v. State Bd. of Optometry
...hearing officer subsequently invalidated the proposed rule, and this court affirmed that decision. Board of Optometry v. Florida Medical Association, Inc., 463 So.2d 1213 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), pet. for rev. denied, 475 So.2d 693 Subsequent legislative amendments have materially changed the p......
-
State, Bd. of Optometry v. Florida Soc. of Ophthalmology, 88-142
...such rules and policies have the effect of infringing on the right to practice medicine," and citing Board of Optometry v. Florida Medical Association, 463 So.2d 1213 (Fla. 1st DCA), pet. for rev. denied, 475 So.2d 693 (Fla.1985), (hereafter Board of Optometry ), and Florida Medical Associa......
-
Cataract Surgery Center v. Health Care Cost Containment Bd.
...Improvement Trust Fund v. Board of Professional Land Surveyors, 566 So.2d 1358 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Board of Optometry v. Florida Medical Ass'n, 463 So.2d 1213 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), rev. denied, 475 So.2d 693 (Fla.1985). Regulatory jurisdiction of an agency may only be exercised when authori......