Florida Statute 484.002 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research

The 2024 Florida Statutes

Title XXXII
REGULATION OF PROFESSIONS AND OCCUPATIONS

Chapter 484
DISPENSING OF OPTICAL DEVICES AND HEARING AIDS

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 484.002

484.002 Definitions.—As used in this part:

(1) “Department” means the Department of Health.

(2) “Board” means the Board of Opticianry.

(3) “Opticianry” means the preparation and dispensing of lenses, spectacles, eyeglasses, contact lenses, and other optical devices to the intended user or agent thereof, upon the written prescription of a licensed allopathic or osteopathic physician or optometrist who is duly licensed to practice or upon presentation of a duplicate prescription. The selection of frame designs, the actual sales transaction, and the transfer of physical possession of lenses, spectacles, eyeglasses, contact lenses, and other optical devices subsequent to performance of all services of the optician shall not be considered the practice of opticianry; however, such physical possession shall not be transferred until the optician has completed the fitting of the optical device upon the customer. The practice of opticianry also includes the duplication of lenses accurately as to power, without prescription. A board-certified optician qualified and operating under rules established by the board may fill, fit, adapt, or dispense any soft contact lens prescription. Such optician may fill, fit, adapt, or dispense any extended wear or hard contact lens prescription to the extent authorized to do so by the prescribing allopathic or osteopathic physician or optometrist.

(4) “Optician” means any person licensed to practice opticianry pursuant to this part.

(5) “Direct supervision” means supervision where the licensee remains on the premises while all work is being done and gives final approval to any work performed by an employee.

(6) “Board-certified optician” means an optician licensed in this state who:

(a) Has passed the National Contact Lens Registry Examination;

(b) Has successfully completed a board-approved course of at least 20 contact hours covering the competencies required in fitting, adapting, and dispensing of contact lenses;

(c) Has met any other requirements established by the board to assure competence in the fitting, adapting, and dispensing of contact lenses;

(d) Has completed the application form and remitted a nonrefundable application fee set by the board not to exceed $100; and

(e) Has been issued a certificate by the department.

(7) “Optical establishment” means any establishment in the state which offers, advertises, and performs opticianry services for the general public.

(8) “Contact lenses” means a prescribed medical device intended to be worn directly against the cornea of the eye to correct vision conditions, act as a therapeutic device, or provide a cosmetic effect.

(9) “Optical dispensing” means interpreting but not altering a prescription of a licensed physician or optometrist and designing, adapting, fitting, or replacing the prescribed optical aids, pursuant to such prescription, to or for the intended wearer, duplicating lenses, accurately as to power without a prescription, and duplicating nonprescription eyewear and parts of eyewear. “Optical dispensing” does not include selecting frames, transferring an optical aid to the wearer after an optician has completed fitting it, or providing instruction in the general care and use of an optical aid, including placement, removal, hygiene, or cleaning.

History.—ss. 1, 5, ch. 79-275; ss. 2, 3, ch. 81-318; s. 83, ch. 83-329; ss. 2, 11, 12, ch. 86-254; s. 27, ch. 88-205; s. 57, ch. 89-162; s. 29, ch. 91-220; s. 4, ch. 91-429; s. 1, ch. 94-192; s. 177, ch. 94-218; s. 138, ch. 98-166; s. 117, ch. 2001-277.

F.S. 484.002 on Google Scholar

F.S. 484.002 on Casetext

Amendments to 484.002

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 484.002

Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 484.002.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 484.002

Total Results: 17

Loza v. Marin

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2016-08-12

Snippet: 53 So. 3d at 1116 (citing Kern, 360 So. 2d at 484).2 Accordingly, we hold the trial court did not have

Loza v. Marin

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2016-08-12

Citation: 198 So. 3d 1017, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 12185, 2016 WL 4261396

Snippet: 1116 (citing Kern, 360 So.2d at 484). 2 Accordingly, we hold the trial court did

Ago

Court: Florida Attorney General Reports | Date Filed: 1993-09-14

Snippet: availability or physical presence of optometrist); s. 484.002(5) (opticians); s. 484.0445(2) (hearing aid specialists);

United States Shoe Corp. v. Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Opticianry

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1991-04-11

Citation: 578 So. 2d 376, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 3801

Snippet: supervision, however, is the provision in Section 484.002(5) defining “Direct supervision” as “supervision

US Shoe Corp. v. DEPT. OF PRO. REG.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1991-04-11

Citation: 578 So. 2d 376

Snippet: supervision, however, is the provision in Section 484.002(5) defining "Direct supervision" as "supervision

Fla. Optometric Ass'n v. DEPT. OF PRO. REG., BD. OF OPTICIANRY

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1990-09-05

Citation: 567 So. 2d 928

Snippet: Section 120.565, Florida Statutes. [2] Section 484.002(3), Florida Statutes. [3] Section 484.013(3),

Miami-Dade Optical Dispensary, Inc. v. Florida State Board of Optometry

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1977-08-30

Citation: 349 So. 2d 753, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 16563

Snippet: Optometry, 238 So.2d 839 (Fla.1970): . . . Fla.Stat. § 484.02, F.S.A. provides that a dispensing optician may

Ago

Court: Florida Attorney General Reports | Date Filed: 1976-08-30

Snippet: no application. See Ballard v. Cowart, 238 So.2d 484 (2 D.C.A. Fla., 1970); and Straughn v. Amoco Production

Ago

Court: Florida Attorney General Reports | Date Filed: 1975-02-04

Snippet: 102 So.2d 574 and Ballard v. Cowart, 238 So.2d 484 (2 D.C.A. Fla., 1970); see also, 30 Fla. Jur. Statutes

Ago

Court: Florida Attorney General Reports | Date Filed: 1974-10-14

Snippet: primaries or general. Cf. Ballard v. Cowart, 238 So.2d 484 (2 D.C.A. Fla., 1970). See also Bowden v. Carter,

City of Miami v. Florida East Coast Railway Co.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1973-11-27

Citation: 286 So. 2d 247

Snippet: Railway Company, Fla.App. 1972, 262 So.2d 480, 484.[2] Secondly, Dania is not controlling in the case

Juhl v. Florida State Board of Dispensing Opticians

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1973-02-27

Citation: 274 So. 2d 596, 1973 Fla. App. LEXIS 7200

Snippet: this is a function of an optometrist. See F.S. § 484.02 F.S.A. and Opticians Rules 21 P-1.02. Therefore

Florida Ass'n of Dispensing Opticians v. Florida State Board of Optometry

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1970-07-29

Citation: 238 So. 2d 839, 1970 Fla. LEXIS 2691

Snippet: Florida Constitution, F.S.A. Under Fla.Stat. § 484.02, F.S.A., a dispensing optician is defined: “[A]s

Florida Ass'n of Dispensing Opticians v. Florida State Board of Optometry

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1969-10-28

Citation: 227 So. 2d 736, 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 5175

Snippet: compliance with Florida Statute Chapter 484.01 and 484.02 [F.S.A.].” The Board’s answer denied that Chapter

Carapezza v. Pate

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1962-07-17

Citation: 143 So. 2d 346, 1962 Fla. App. LEXIS 3036

Snippet: rule. See Dezen v. Slatcoff, Fla.1953, 65 So.2d 484.2 Appellant also argues that there was no evidence

Hart v. Marbury

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1921-10-24

Citation: 82 Fla. 317, 90 So. 173

Snippet: accessible means of information.” 2 Kent’s Com. 484; 2 Parsons on Contracts (3rd Ed.) 270. We regard the

Thomas v. Williams

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1860-07-01

Citation: 9 Fla. 289

Snippet: Paige 178, Earl of Pomfret vs. Lord Windsor, 2 Ves. 484, 2 Vernon 342, 1 P. W. 119. And it seems that if a