Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448As used in this chapter, the term:
shall be certified to use pharmaceutical agents for treatment purposes.
Any injectables training program approved by the board pursuant to this subparagraph shall, prior to its approval by the board, be subject to the guidance of the Department of Public Health as to the appropriate curriculum necessary to safeguard the public health of the people of this state.
Doctors of optometry using such pharmaceutical agents shall be held to the same standard of care imposed by Code Section 51-1-27 as would be applied to a physician licensed under Chapter 34 of this title performing similar acts; provided, however, that a doctor of optometry shall not be authorized to treat systemic diseases.
(Ga. L. 1916, p. 83, § 1; Code 1933, § 84-1101; Ga. L. 1956, p. 94, § 1; Ga. L. 1980, p. 47, § 1; Ga. L. 1988, p. 34, § 1; Ga. L. 1994, p. 853, § 1; Ga. L. 1994, p. 996, § 1; Ga. L. 1995, p. 351, § 1; Ga. L. 2007, p. 551, § 1/SB 17; Ga. L. 2013, p. 639, § 1/HB 235; Ga. L. 2017, p. 680, § 1/SB 153; Ga. L. 2018, p. 251, § 1/SB 382.)
The 2017 amendment, effective July 1, 2017, substituted the present provisions of subparagraph (2)(C) for the former provisions, which read: "A doctor of optometry shall not administer any pharmaceutical agent by injection."; in the introductory paragraph of subparagraph (2)(D), deleted "and administered orally" following "treatment purposes", substituted "analgesics, hydrocodone administered orally," for "analgesics and hydrocodone" in subdivision (2)(D)(i)(I); in division (2)(D)(ii), substituted "Other pharmaceutical" for "Antibiotics, antivirals, corticosteroids, antifungals, antihistamines, or antiglaucoma" at the beginning, and deleted the proviso at the end, which read: "; provided, however, that a doctor of optometry shall not be authorized to administer pharmaceutical agents by injection".
The 2018 amendment, effective July 1, 2018, added the ending undesignated paragraph of subparagraph (2)(C).
- Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, in 2013, "and" was deleted from the end of division (2)(E)(ii).
- For comment on Pearle Optical of Monroeville, Inc. v. Georgia State Bd. of Exmrs., 219 Ga. 364, 133 S.E.2d 374 (1963); 219 Ga. 856, 136 S.E.2d 371 (1964), see 16 Mercer L. Rev. 349 (1964).
Optometry is a learned profession because a valid statute of state declares it to be. The declaration is not a mere effort on the part of the General Assembly to establish a fact by legislative fiat; it is the province of the lawmaking body to adjudge the sufficiency of the factual foundation necessary to support the statutes the legislature enacts into law. Pearle Optical of Monroeville, Inc. v. Georgia State Bd. of Exmrs. in Optometry, 219 Ga. 364, 133 S.E.2d 374 (1963).
- From description of practice contained in the law relating thereto it is also evident that there is the close and confidential relationship between practitioner and patient that separates learned professions of the law from other pursuits or professions that may require great learning or scholarship, but are not classified as learned professions. Pearle Optical of Monroeville, Inc. v. Georgia State Bd. of Exmrs. in Optometry, 219 Ga. 364, 133 S.E.2d 374 (1963).
Relation between optometrist and patient is personal and confidential and subject to reasonable legislative regulation in common interest. Pearle Optical of Monroeville, Inc. v. Georgia State Bd. of Exmrs. in Optometry, 219 Ga. 364, 133 S.E.2d 374 (1963).
Practice of optometry is subject to regulation to protect public against ignorance, incapacity, deception, and fraud, equally with practice of ophthalmology and other learned professions, a category originally confined to theology, law, and medicine, but long since broadened in keeping with diffusion of scientific learning and need of specialized knowledge in functioning of the ever-expanding and complex society. Pearle Optical of Monroeville, Inc. v. Georgia State Bd. of Exmrs. in Optometry, 219 Ga. 364, 133 S.E.2d 374 (1963).
- It would seem that the public has as much need to be protected from quacks and charlatans in optometry as in dentistry or any other subdivision of medicine. One who consults an optometrist for ocular examination is entitled to the same undivided loyalty that a patient should receive from a physician. The fact that the optometrist is employee of an optical concern whose main interest is the sale of optical goods tends to be a distracting influence which may adversely affect the optometrist's loyalty to the interests of the patient. Pearle Optical of Monroeville, Inc. v. Georgia State Bd. of Exmrs. in Optometry, 219 Ga. 364, 133 S.E.2d 374 (1963).
- Absent express statutory authority, a corporation or individual not licensed to practice optometry cannot practice optometry through a licensed employee. Lee Optical of Ga., Inc. v. Georgia State Bd. of Exmrs. in Optometry, 220 Ga. 204, 138 S.E.2d 165 (1964).
- Duly licensed optometrist, who keeps and furnishes optical supplies solely for use by own patients in connection with work as an optometrist and does not engage in separate business of selling them to public, is exempt from municipal tax imposed on dealers in optical supplies. Tinley v. City Council, 55 Ga. App. 153, 189 S.E. 413 (1937).
- Insurer's requirement that independent optometrists obtain covered materials from the insurer violated O.C.G.A. § 33-24-59.12(c)(2) because: (1) insureds were required to obtain the materials from the insurer even though O.C.G.A. § 43-30-1(2)(A) allowed the optometrists to provide this service; and (2) the subsection's intent was not merely to avoid the necessity of a physician's referral. Spectera, Inc. v. Wilson, 317 Ga. App. 64, 730 S.E.2d 699 (2012), aff'd in part, reversed in part (2013 Ga. LEXIS 899).
- Statute setting limitation and repose for medical malpractice actions applied to alleged professional negligence by an optometrist. Zechmann v. Thigpen, 210 Ga. App. 726, 437 S.E.2d 475 (1993).
Cited in Tinley v. City Council, 55 Ga. App. 153, 189 S.E. 413 (1937); Wall v. American Optometric Ass'n, 379 F. Supp. 175 (N.D. Ga. 1974); Fulton-DeKalb Hosp. Auth. v. Hadley, 174 Ga. App. 503, 330 S.E.2d 432 (1985).
- Physician licensed in this state is unrestricted in the eye care and treatment afforded the physician's patients, including the fabrication and use of contact lenses, medicine, drugs, and surgery. An optometrist may employ any means, except drugs, medicine, or surgery, in the treatment of the human eye, including contact lenses. A dispensing optician may prepare and dispense optical devices upon the prescription of a physician or optometrist, or may duplicate lenses without a prescription. 1980 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 80-19.
Definition of "optometry" embraces the practice of opticianary. 1952-53 Op. Att'y Gen. p. 160.
Fitting contact lenses is the practice of optometry. 1945-47 Op. Att'y Gen. p. 495.
Preliminary determination of a pathological condition of the eye is within the scope of a license to practice optometry. 1983 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 83-52.
- 61 Am. Jur. 2d, Physicians, Surgeons and Other Healers, §§ 37 et seq., 58.
- 70 C.J.S., Physicians, Surgeons, and Other Health-Care Providers, §§ 1 et seq., 22, 23.
- What constitutes practice of "optometry", 88 A.L.R.2d 1290; 82 A.L.R.4th 816.
Fitting of contact lenses as practice of optometry, 77 A.L.R.3d 817.
Total Results: 3
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2023-02-07
Snippet: (4th ed. 2007, updated Aug. 2022), §§ 1.43.10, 1.43.30, 1.43.31. Those instructions informed the jury that
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2013-11-04
Citation: 294 Ga. 23, 749 S.E.2d 704, 2013 Ga. LEXIS 899
Snippet: human visual organism, other than surgery.” OCGA § 43-30-1 (2) (A). The IPP agreement limits independent participating
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2005-01-10
Citation: 607 S.E.2d 559, 278 Ga. 836, 2005 Fulton County D. Rep. 146, 2005 Ga. LEXIS 34
Snippet: Suggested Pattern Jury Instructions, Vol. II, §§ 1.43.30, 1.43.31; Miller v. State, 249 Ga. 96, 98, 287 S