Conduct and Discipline

Board Decisions at the Disciplinary Inquiries (on or before 11 December 2013)

The Optometrists Board decided in December 2010 to publish on the Board's website the Board's decisions made at disciplinary inquiries where the registered optometrist was found guilty and the order published in the HKSAR Government Gazette. The following information relating to the case will be published -

• Month/year of the disciplinary inquiry;
• Disciplinary charge(s) of the case; and
• Disciplinary sanctions administered.

No personal data of the registered optometrist concerned will be included.

Details of the Board’s decisions made for the disciplinary inquiries since 1996 are shown as below –

Month/year Allegation(s) Board's order September 1997 The respondent was alleged to have sold to his client contact lenses which were not commensurate with his visual ability. The respondent was reprimanded and such order was published in the gazette. November 1998 The respondent was alleged to have - provided a wrong refractive prescription of the client; and failed to provide proper after-care service to his client when he felt sick and dizzy by wearing the pair of spectacles prescribed. The respondent's name was removed from the register for 1 month and such order was published in the gazette. August 1999 The respondent was alleged to have provided the second pair of spectacles to his client with the refractive power, astigmatic axis and optical centration distance which were not appropriate to his client's eyes conditions. A warning letter was served to the respondent and such order was published in the gazette. August 2003 The respondent was alleged to have failed to comply with the condition in relation to his registration in Part IV of the register, namely, he was not allowed to perform any functions or engage in any activity other than work relating to refraction and prescribed contact lenses to his client. The respondent's name was removed from the register for six months and such order was published in the gazette. November 2003 The respondent was alleged to have - provided misleading information to the public by stating in an advertisement materials which could not be substantiated, namely, orthokeratology procedure was devoid of any complications ; and announced in advertisement materials discount on professional services A warning letter was served to the respondent and such order was published in the gazette. December 2003 The respondent was alleged to have disregarded his professional responsibilities to his client by allowing an unqualified person to conduct eye examination on the client for the purpose of prescribing a pair of spectacles to him. A warning letter was served to the respondent and such order was published in the gazette. April 2004 The respondent was alleged to have - prescribed a pair of spectacles to his client that was not appropriate to his eye conditions; and failed to take proper action when the client complained that the spectacles was not appropriate to his eyes conditions. The respondent was served a warning letter and such order was published in the gazette. January 2005 and March 2005 and May 2005 The respondent was alleged to have made statements in leaflets about treatment and prevention of myopia which could not be substantiated. The respondent was served a warning letter and such order was published in the gazette. June 2005 The respondent was alleged to have - prescribed and dispensed a pair of spectacles and 3 pairs of contact lenses to a client which prescriptions were not appropriate to his eyes conditions; and failed to give proper explanation or appropriate action to the client when he complained about the visual problems to him for wearing the spectacles and contact lens prescribed by him. The respondent's name was removed from the register for three months and such order was published in the gazette. July 2005 The respondent was alleged to have - depreciated the professional skill, knowledge, services or qualifications of optometrists whose names were entered in Part IV of the register of optometrists, contrary to paragraph 2.3 of Part III of the Code of Practice; claimed superiority over other practitioners or depreciated the services of other practitioners, contrary to paragraph 5.3 of Part III of the Code of Practice; and failed to act in a way which brought credit on himself and the profession, contrary to paragraph 1.1 of Part III of the Code of Practice. The respondent was served a warning letter and such order was published in the gazette. October 2006 The respondent was alleged to have failed to keep adequate records of his customer, thereby contravening item 1.5 in Part III of the Code of Practice. The respondent was served a warning letter and such order was published in the gazette. November 2006 The respondent was alleged to have failed to comply with the condition in relation to his registration in Part IV of the register, namely, he was not allowed to perform any functions or engage in any activity other than work relating to refraction and prescribed contact lenses to his client. The respondent's name was removed from the register for three months and such order was published in the gazette October 2007 The respondent was alleged to allow or acquiesce to his appearance in an advertisement of an establishment with a business name in a magazine, by which the following offers were made, contrary to item 5.4 of Part III of the Code of Practice - We provide a special offer to our readers: Student Vision Care Exam Scheme ORIGINAL $888 NOW $538 up SPECIAL PRICE INCLUDING: Routine eye examination (one pair of glasses and a spare pair of multi-coated plastic lenses) An extra routine eye examination"; and "Now, we provide another special offer on Advance Ortho-K treatment to our readers. ORIGINAL $12000 NOW $9600up". The respondent was reprimanded and such order was published in the gazette. June 2008 The respondent was alleged to have conducted ocular health assessment for his patient and informed the patient that she might be suffering from cataract, and by so doing, he had not provided a standard of care commensurate with the training he had received and with his registration in Part IV of the register; A warning letter was served to the respondent and such order was published in the gazette. October 2009 and December 2009 The respondent was alleged to have failed to provide the patient with proper explanation when he complained to the respondent of poor vision and tiredness to his eyes after wearing the lenses the respondent prescribed contrary to sections 1.2 and 6.5 of the Code of Practice. The respondent was reprimanded and such order was published in the gazette. May 2010 The respondent was alleged to have instigated, sanctioned, acquiesced in or failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the publication of an advertisement placed in a magazine in which a discount of eye examination was offered. A warning letter was served to the respondent and such order was published in the gazette. July 2011 The respondent was alleged to have failed to sufficiently supervise and control unqualified person(s) assisting in his practice of the profession in keeping adequate records of the patient and failed to properly manage the patient's ocular problems. The respondent's name was removed from the register for 3 months and such order was published in the gazette. August 2011 The respondent was convicted at the Eastern Magistrates' Courts in Hong Kong on 28 January 2010 for the theft contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance, Charter 210, Law of Hong Kong, which is an offence punishable with imprisonment. The respondent was reprimanded and such order was published in the gazette. November 2012 The respondent was alleged to have – failed to provide information as to the degree of myopia of the patient to her mother (the complainant), despite her request; and failed to advise the patient and/or the complainant the necessity and/or desirability for the patient to obtain a pair of spectacles. The respondent was reprimanded and such order was published in the gazette.