Kelley ex rel. Michigan Bd. of Examiners in Optometry v. Peterson
| Decision Date | 25 October 1966 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 346,346,No. 3,s. 346,3 |
| Citation | 145 N.W.2d 386,4 Mich.App. 612 |
| Parties | Frank J. KELLEY, Attorney General for the State of Michigan, ex rel. MICHIGAN BOARD OF EXAMINERS IN OPTOMETRY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Martin C. PETERSON and Forest W. Sattler, individually and d/b/a the Optical House, an assumed name, Defendants-Appellants. Frank J. KELLEY, Attorney General for the State of Michigan, ex rel. MICHIGAN BOARD OF EXAMINES IN OPTOMETRY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Judson L. SMEELINK and Elaine D. Smeelink, individually and d/b/a Smeelink Optical Service, Inc., Defendants-Appellants. Cal.1/2, 349 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Woodrow A. Yared, Grand Rapids, for Peterson and Sattler.
Berton Sevensma, Wierenga & Sevensma, Grand Rapids, for Smeelinks.
Frank J. Kelly, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Joseph B. Bilitzke, Maurice M. Moule, Asst. Attys. Gen., Lansing, for appellee.
Before BURNS, P.J., and FITZGERALD and WATTS, JJ.
Although the late Judge Watts heard oral arguments on this case, his death occurred prior to preparation of the opinion.
The above 2 cases were consolidated for trial and also on appeal. The appellants are opticians in the city of Grand Rapids. Prior to the innovation of contact lenses appellants were primarily engaged in the business of fabricating eyewear for ordinary eye glasses from prescriptions received from ophthalmologists.
With the advent of contact lenses they took additional training in the field of contact lenses and entered into a working arrangement with several ophthalmologists in the city of Grand Rapids. The general procedure was for the patient to have an eye examination by a duly licensed ophthalmologist to determine the necessary refraction for visual acuity, after which the ophthalmologist gave the necessary prescription to the patient and referred him to one of the appellants.
The appellants then examined and measured the patient's eyes and advised and patient as to whether he could wear contact lenses or not. The appellants determined the size, degree of curvature, type of bevel, and all other characteristics of the lenses, except the refraction. After the manufacture of the lenses the appellants fitted and adjusted them.
Plaintiff-appellee is the chief law enforcement officer of the State of Michigan. The Michigan Board of Examiners in Optometry is charged with administering the optometry act, P.A. 1909, No. 71, as amended, .
A bill of complaint was filed on September 28, 1962, to enjoin the appellants from the above described practice. A temporary injunction was issued by the trial court on November 5, 1962, and after extensive hearings the injunction was made permanent on November 9, 1964.
The trial judge made the following findings of fact which are substantiated by the record:
'Defendants have admitted that for a period of years prior to the said preliminary injunction they measured the eyes of persons for contact lenses with a keratometer or ophthalmometer without supervision of a licensed optometrist, oculist or ophthalmologist.
'The defendants for a period of years prior to said preliminary injunction inserted, fitted and adjusted contact lenses in the eyes of persons without the supervision of a licensed optometrist, oculist or ophthalmologist, and gave advice to persons as to whether they can wear contact lenses.
'After a patient had been examined by an ophthalmologist for a nominal fee, the patient dealt solely with the defendants in regard to the manufacture, measuring, fitting and adjustment of the contact lenses; and the defendants received the entire purchase price for the contact lenses.'
The expert testimony accepted by the trial court was that there is a reasonable relationship between the public health and welfare and the requirement of the optometry act with respect to contact lenses.
C.L.S. 1961, § 338.257(d) (Stat.Ann. 1965 Cum.Supp. § 14.647(d)) includes in its definition of the practice of optometry the following:
'The examination of the human eye for contact lenses and the fitting or insertion of contact lenses to the eye.'
The trial court enjoined he defendants from:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Attorney General ex rel. Michigan Bd. of Optometry v. Peterson
...remedy provided by the optometry act was inadequate. Permanent injunction issued November 9, 1964. 1 The Court of Appeals affirmed (4 Mich.App. 612. The optometry act (P.A.1909, No. 71 as amended) was amended by P.A.1961, No. 113, to include in the definition of the practice of 'The practic......
-
Attorney General v. Kenco Optics, Inc.
...Examiners v. Economy Optical Co., 522 S.W.2d 444, 445 (Ky.1975) (explicit statute); Attorney Gen. ex rel. Bd. of Examiners in Optometry v. Peterson, 4 Mich.App. 612, 615--616, 145 N.W.2d 386 (1966), aff'd, 381 Mich. 445, 164 N.W.2d 43 (1969) (explicit statute); State ex rel. Danforth v. Dal......
-
Fields v. District of Columbia
...when acting under the direct supervision of legally qualified personnel. See, e.g., Kelley ex rel. Michigan Board of Examiners in Optometry v. Peterson, 4 Mich.App. 612, 145 N.W.2d 386, 388 (1966); State ex rel. Reed v. Kuzirian, 228 Or. 619, 365 P.2d 1046, 1050, 88 A.L.R.2d 1284 25 We have......
-
Fields v. District of Columbia
...it was conceded by a group of opticians that fitting contact lenses was an act of optometry; Kelley ex rel. Michigan Bd. of Exam. in Optometry v. Peterson, 4 Mich. App. 612, 145 N.W.2d 386 (1966), enjoining unsupervised opticians from fitting contact lenses, even though a separate criminal ......