This article is more than 5 years old. Information may no longer be current.
South Carolina court order dismisses Opternative lawsuit
The American Optometric Association and the South Carolina Optometric Physicians Association applaud the order by a South Carolina court to dismiss a lawsuit initiated by Opternative, the developer of an online vision app designed to conduct eye examinations and produce eyeglass prescriptions.
Opternative brought a declaratory judgment action to challenge the constitutionality of the Eye Care Consumer Protection Law (ECCPL) in South Carolina, arguing that the ECCPL is protectionist legislation and unconstitutional on the grounds of due process and equal protection, according to the court order.
Opternative argued that as a direct result of the passage of the ECCPL, the use of its technology has been effectively prohibited in South Carolina. Prior to the adoption of the legislation, a South Carolina ophthalmologist wrote corrective lens prescriptions for the state’s residents on behalf of Opternative, according to the order.
As a direct result of the passage of ECCPL, eye care providers in South Carolina are legally prohibited from working with Opternative to provide prescriptions for the state’s residents, according to the order.
The order states that no one may dispense spectacles or contact lenses to a patient without a valid prescription from a provider (specified as “an individual licensed by the South Carolina Board of Examiners in Optometry or the South Carolina Board of Medical Examiners”). To be valid, the prescription must contain an expiration date on spectacles or contact lenses of 1 year from the date of examination by the provider or a statement of the reasons why a shorter time is appropriate based on the medical needs of the patient.
The prescription must take into consideration medical findings made and refractive error discovered during the eye examination. If a provider determines a patient is a suitable candidate for a prescription for contact lenses or spectacles, a provider may not thereafter refuse to issue a prescription to a patient, as stated in the order.
It further states that a prescription for spectacles or contact lenses may not be based solely on the refractive eye error of the human eye or be generated by a kiosk.
The court denied Opternative’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case based on the company’s failure to demonstrate standing to bring the claim.
“In-person, comprehensive eye exams are the gold standard when it comes to protecting and preserving patients’ eye and vision health,” Christopher J. Quinn, OD, AOA president, said in an announcement from the AOA. “AOA, South Carolina Optometric Physicians Association and doctors of optometry across the country will continue to advocate for our patients and their health.”