Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 18.34.010 (2026)
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Nothing in this chapter shall:
(1) Be construed to limit or restrict a duly licensed physician or optometrist or employees working under the personal supervision of a duly licensed physician or optometrist from the practices enumerated in this chapter, and each such licensed physician and optometrist shall have all the rights and privileges which may accrue under this chapter to dispensing opticians licensed hereunder;
(2) Be construed to prohibit or restrict practice by a regularly enrolled student in a prescribed course in opticianry in a college or university approved by the secretary whose performance of services is pursuant to a regular course of instruction or assignments from an instructor and under the supervision of a licensed dispensing optician, optometrist, or ophthalmologist: PROVIDED, That persons practicing under this section must be clearly identified as students;
(3) Be construed to prohibit an unlicensed person from performing mechanical work upon inert matter in an optical office, laboratory, or shop;
(4) Be construed to prohibit an unlicensed person from engaging in the sale of spectacles, eyeglasses, magnifying glasses, goggles, sunglasses, telescopes, binoculars, or any such articles which are completely preassembled and sold only as merchandise;
(5) Be construed to authorize or permit a licensee hereunder to hold himself or herself out as being able to, or to offer to, or to undertake to attempt, by any manner of means, to examine or exercise eyes, diagnose, treat, correct, relieve, operate, or prescribe for any human ailment, deficiency, deformity, disease, or injury.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5
cases, 1969–2010 · leading case: Day v. Inland Empire Optical, Inc., 456 P.2d 1011 (Wash. 1969).
Day v. Inland Empire Optical, Inc., 456 P.2d 1011 (Wash. 1969). “Yet, this very spatial relationship between the offices of the Spokane Eye Clinic and Inland Empire Optical separated the latter physically from the immediate, direct and personal supervision of the doctors upstairs, a supervision contemplated by RCW 18.34.010. ( See note 2,…”
Columbia Physical Therapy, Inc. v. Benton Franklin Orthopedic Assocs., PLLC, 228 P.3d 1260 (Wash. 2010). “It then noted, however, that a separate statute, RCW 18.34.010, specifically permitted employment of a licensed optician by an ophthalmologist, provided the ophthalmologist provided “personal supervision” of the optician.”
Wright v. Jeckle, 144 P.3d 301 (Wash. 2006). “Any other reading not only ignores crucial terms within the statute itself but also ignores the statute's clear intent.”
Wright v. Jeckle, 158 Wash. 2d 375 (Wash. 2006). “RCW 19.68.010 does prohibit kickbacks. Any other reading not only ignores crucial terms within the statute itself but also ignores the statute’s clear intent.”
Columbia Physical Therapy v. Bfoa, 228 P.3d 1260 (Wash. 2010). “It then noted, however, that a separate statute, RCW 18.34.010, specifically permitted employment of a licensed optician by an ophthalmologist, provided the ophthalmologist provided "personal supervision" of the optician.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 18.34.010(1) — 2 cases
Wright v. Jeckle, 144 P.3d 301 (Wash. 2006). “Any other reading not only ignores crucial terms within the statute itself but also ignores the statute's clear intent.”
Wright v. Jeckle, 158 Wash. 2d 375 (Wash. 2006). “RCW 19.68.010 does prohibit kickbacks. Any other reading not only ignores crucial terms within the statute itself but also ignores the statute’s clear intent.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.