DO pays penalty for testing optometrist

A dispensing optician who illegally carried out an eye examination was struck off last week. The unnamed patient, who is an optometrist, gave written evidence to the January 21 hearing.

The decision to erase David Semmens' name from the Register by a GOC disciplinary panel followed his conviction for the criminal offence in September 2004. He was fined £300, and ordered to pay £235 towards prosecution costs at South Devon Magistrates Court for testing sight when not registered.  

At the GOC hearing last week, Semmens, a former Brixham Yacht Club commodore, said he was 'very repentant', and told of the disgrace that the magistrates court case has provoked.

'The publicity this has generated has brought shame on myself and my family,' he said, and admitted that his wife had suffered the embarrassment of 'sniggering' behind her back at the yacht club. 

Last week's disciplinary hearing was told that the optometrist involved, who is based in Warwickshire, attended Spex Opticians in Brixham, Devon last March for the appointment after suffering headaches and finding it difficult to focus after using a computer.

The optometrist was tested by Semmens, and later offered a 17-point statement to the GOC about the experience. The optometrist noted that Semmens did not conduct several tests that in his judgement he should have carried out.

When asked why he had carried out the sight test, Semmens said:  'Stupidity. I did not do it for £18. An optometrist chose to arrange to have an eye test and it is evident that he would be seeing me the way the appointment was made.'

Committee chairman David Pyle said Semmens' actions were a 'very serious breach' of section 24 of the Opticians Act 1989.

'The public are entitled to be protected by qualified individuals who test sight and expect a high standard of professional service,' he commented.
'You deliberately tested sight on a patient when you knew you were not qualified to do so. Therefore you put the patient at risk, and in so doing the confidence of the public would have been seriously weakened.

'In view of these factors and the lack of support from written testimonials we have decided to issue an erasure order.'


Statement from the Optometrist
'I am a qualified and registered optometrist based in Warwickshire. I hold a bachelor of science honours degree in optometry, a doctorate in new clinical techniques for the early detection of primary open-angle glaucoma and I am a member of the College of Optometrists.

'It had been approximately one year since my last eye examination and it was therefore appropriate that a further sight test should be carried out.

At the time I was experiencing some headaches and found difficulty focusing after using a VDU.

'[During the test] I was not asked for any details of my family history although I have a significant family history in that two of my grandparents had glaucoma and experienced macular degeneration.

'Although I was prescribed a prism following a fixation disparity test, the man did not conduct a cover test, accommodative function, mobility test or "near the point of convergence" test which I would have expected to form the basis for his determination of whether I had any muscle imbalance which required a prism.

'The man then performed a visual field test. Having completed the test he looked at my results and told me everything was normal. I commented that I found my left eye more difficult to conduct the test. I was handed a sheet of the test result. The test lasted approximately 45 minutes.

'At the conclusion of the test, I was handed a copy of my prescription in reception by the man who had tested my sight. In general conversation, I asked him whether the business was his and he replied it was. The prescription letterhead gave his name as David J Semmens FADO.'