http://www.thespec.com/article/457293
Disciplinary hearing for optician
Great Glasses founder faces allegations of professional misconduct
STEVE BUIST
The Hamilton Spectator
TORONTO (Oct 29, 2008)
A Dundas optician's cross-examination of a former customer during a disciplinary hearing yesterday inadvertently raised the possibility that at least one Great Glasses store was engaged in questionable insurance claim practices.
The revelation came during the opening day of a disciplinary hearing by Ontario's College of Opticians against Bruce Bergez, founder of the Great Glasses' chain of eyewear stores, which are known for their "3-for-1" business model.
Bergez, who is representing himself at the hearing, is facing a number of allegations by the college that he committed acts of professional misconduct. Bergez's certificate to practise as an optician has already been under suspension by the college since November 2006.
In his opening remarks, the college's prosecutor pointed to a number of previous court rulings against Bergez, including a decision by Ontario's Court of Appeal earlier this month that unanimously upheld a massive penalty for contempt imposed against Bergez by a Hamilton judge in 2006.
Bergez, his wife and three of their companies have been fined $1 million and a further $50,000 a day for every day since that they haven't been in compliance with Ontario legislation that governs the prescribing and dispensing of eyeglasses and contact lenses.
The outstanding fines dating back to November 2006 now total approximately $34 million.
The first witness called at yesterday's disciplinary hearing testified she went to the Milton Great Glasses location in June 2006 to purchase glasses for the first time in her life.
The woman said she paid a $100 deposit to the store, and was given a receipt for $400, which covered the full cost of her three pairs of glasses. She submitted the receipt to her insurance provider, received a $300 cheque for her insurance claim, paid the balance owing to the store and picked up her glasses.
But the woman said she couldn't see with the glasses and asked for a refund.
She eventually left the store without the glasses or a refund.
"I left there with no glasses, no money and many concerns," the woman testified.
During his cross-examination, Bergez suggested that the woman was only interested in trying to obtain a refund.
"No," she replied, "I was seeking a pair of glasses that worked."
The woman stated that the store's owner had accused her of defrauding her insurance company out of the $300, an allegation that upset the woman.
She then stated that it was actually the store's staff member who had counselled her to submit the receipt for the full $400 amount to her insurance company, even though the woman had only paid a $100 deposit. That way, the staff member told her at the time, she'd have her insurance claim processed by the time her glasses were ready to be picked up in a couple of weeks.
Later, a supervisor of benefits analysis for insurer Green Shield Canada testified that her company filed complaints with the College of Opticians in 2006 and 2007 because of concerns that plan members may not have been receiving eyewear from Great Glasses that was safe and properly dispensed.
The 2007 complaint was also prompted because Bergez's name continued to show up on insurance claim forms, even though he was suspended as an optician at the time.
Two large chunks of the day were tied up dealing with side issues.
After the lunch break, the panel of five adjudicators spent about an hour dealing with an impromptu motion by Bergez seeking to have the panel disqualify itself because two of the members had shared an elevator for two floors with a couple of the college's witnesses.
The motion was tossed out after the panel members said they weren't aware the other passengers in the elevator were witnesses and that any elevator conversation was nothing more than idle chit-chat about Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton's pantsuits.
Another half hour was tied up in discussion at the start of the day when Bergez objected to the college's request for a publication ban on the identity of patients who would be called as witnesses.
During his cross-examination of a second patient, Bergez spent several minutes trying to determine how far her downtown Hamilton home was located from the Great Glasses store on Dundurn Street, and whether her job at McMaster University Medical Centre was a two-minute or four-minute drive from the store, even though the witness said she didn't know how to drive a car.
The hearing continues this morning.
sbuist@thespec.com
905-526-3226
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by optical maven
Disciplinary Hearing Dates
Bookmarks