Does anyone have an example of a consent form for a patient who wants to put dress CR39 lenses in a safety-stamped Z87 frame?
Thanks!
-Steve
Does anyone have an example of a consent form for a patient who wants to put dress CR39 lenses in a safety-stamped Z87 frame?
Thanks!
-Steve
just say no, the sale can't be worth the possible hassle down the road.
For my own self interest, why CR-39?
If it's illegal what's the point of a consent form. You still hanging out there and you have no defence. You can't even claim it was and accident or you didn't know better if you have the concent form. If you do it at all, I would suggest you have as little paper trail as possible.
Chip
Steve-
I hate to be as negative as the above naysayers....but.....Why bother?
I have all but given up on safety work. The hassle all the way around was not worth it. I found that most companies in my area did not want a safety eyewear program, or had one with one of the mega-safety companies, the employees didn't want to buy another pair of glasses that they would get like $100 reimbursement, the cries of I want glass executive trifocals, etc.
With the legal issues, the fact that waiver don't mean squat really, and the hassle factor-go with Trivex and be done with it!
Good luck!
:cheers::cheers::cheers::cheers:
It's not illegal, but I was just wanting to see what other people are doing.
Inbetween the time of me posting and checking for replies, I simply told our optician it has to be safety thickness poly or nothing.
-Steve
I've been told and I think I have read the Z-87 frames cannot be filled with anything but poly, reguardless of useage. Of course this was before Trivex~Phoenix. I have been told this was OSA, FDA and FTC regulations.
Last edited by chip anderson; 07-18-2007 at 08:41 AM. Reason: further comment
Check the Titmus websight for any questions!
www.titmus.com
According to ANSI a lens that only meets the basic impact requirements (ie CR-39, glass) have to have a warning that accompanies the glasses when dispensed. This warning is intended for the wearer. It needs to say that the glasses only meet basic impact requirements and will not survive a high impact incident.
The OLA or an OLA lab can supply you with all types or notices and disclaimers.
http://www.ola-labs.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=1 If you surface lenses you should join.
I wouldn't do it, personally. I know people say "I don't work at that job anymore, I just want something for mowing the yard or working in the garage" ...
R I G H T ... that it, until the rock flys thru the mower and they lose an eye and they meet with an injury lawyer ... :finger: I don't think it's wise to take that chance for a few dollars!
(suggested reading: Chip's post in the "just conversation" section about the latest lawsuit involving Catepillar)
The ANSI Z87.1-2003 Standard is the most recent version of the standard. A CR-39 lens can be put in a frame marked Z87-2, however it must be 3.0mm at the thinnest point, whereas polycarbonate can be 2.0mm at the thinnest point. CR-39 is a good option for those with pol non-adapt, but poly is the most impact resistant material by a factor of 10. Only reason to use CR-39 is a non-adapt or if the lens you need is not available in poly. Trivex, since it is a hard resin (and not poly) must also be 3.0mm, so poly is still your best bet.
As a footnote, the liability falls on the lab that puts their mark on the lens. You can practically eliminate your liability by having a safety lab, such as U.S. Safety http://www.ussafety.com process your safety work.
Regarding the Basic Impact issue, the lab is responsible for attaching a hang tag warning the user that the product does not meet High Impact requirements.
Last edited by safetyguy; 07-27-2007 at 10:55 PM. Reason: Add info on Basic Impact
ANSI Z87.1-1989 is incorporated by reference in the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations [29 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1910.133]. Yes it is the law, if the frame is marked Z87 the lenses in it NEED to meet these imapct standards and should be marked. CR-39 can be used, but not at the same thickness you would for dress eyewear. As far as I know the Z87+ is not referenced so it is kinda in the grey area right now, but I would expect that to change and as such these shouldn't be done to dress specs either, but it's not the law yet.
1st* HTML5 Tracer Software
1st Mac Compatible Tracer Software
1st Linux Compatible Tracer Software
*Dave at OptiVision has a web based tracer integration package that's awesome.
My lawyer told me a consent form can be used as an admission of my negligence. I don't use them. I use NO instead.Consent form for CR39 in Safety frames?
your lawyer is absolutely correct
I dont' believe it. The lawyers are going after the ones w/ the liability insurance. Normally that is the Dr. I just can't imagine my lab stepping up to bat for me in the professional liability case. Can anyone else?
Regarding Trivex, It is actually more impact resistant than poly, right? So has the law just not caught up to allow 2.0mm Trivex, or is it just not as impact as poly at that thickness.
I believe the other posts are right. I can't find a lab that would put a non-safety lens in a safety frame, and you shouldn't either. I also believe the that the consent form would definately be used against you. You can't have a patient consent to allow you to do something illegal.
Brendan Bohl, ABOC
http://bbohl71.wix.com/vizionz
Safety frame, safety lenses...
Me, I just offer to make them a free prosthetic eye if the safety glasses result in eye loss.
I think the second question you raised regarding Trivex is a very good one. In terms of optics, it is superior to polycarbonate (Trivex abbe = 45 vs. polycarbonate abbe = 30). It is also naturally more scratch resistant and has the same UV protection properties as poly.
Regarding the safety issue, neither ANSI Z87.1-1989 nor ANSI Z87.1-2003 includes any particular lens material as part of the requirements for High Impact. It is strictly performance-based. If Trivex is in fact capable of meeting the High Impact requirements as outlined in either of the above referenced standards (including proper testing), then it could be used as such, as long as the lab is willing to apply their manufacturer's mark (logo) and a "+" to the lens (and of course mount it in a frame marked Z87-2).
Younger optics, which makes the Trilogy lens (in Trivex material), has an interesting informative piece that is worth reading.
http://www.youngeroptics.com/product...aightTalk.html
I think the main reason Trivex is not used regularly in the safety environment is cost. This material costs significantly more than polycarbonate. Employers are typically very cost-conscious about their safety eyewear programs, and Trivex would simply add to that cost without a measurable safety benefit. As with anything else, the cost will probably come down with time.
And....you are 100% right on your final point. Whatever you do, don't ever put a non-safety lens in a safety frame and don't bother with a consent form. It either meets the standard or it doesn't, and if your mark is on the lens, just make sure you know the standard and you've done the proper testing (or had it done independently).
Odd that Polyurethane (Trivex/Phoenix) is cheap enough to make rollerskate wheels out of, Polycarbonate is cheap enough to make packageing out of. But both are more expensive than CR-39 isn't it.
Trivex is most definitely NOT polyurethane. Thanks for playing.
RT
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks