help! poly for kids

[abflowers]

Does any one know up to what age we are responsible for fitting children with polycarbonate or the parent has to signs off removing liability from us. I have heard 16 17 18 which is it????

[gemstone]

Poor little children.

[Jacqui]

I didn't know there was one. Maybe I shouldn't have sold so many pairs of Cr-39, 1.60 and 1.67 to the kids over the last few years. And then there are the real glass lenses that the Amish kids get.

[EyeFitWell]

You can search optiboard for a slew of discussions on this.
1. Legally, you're not required to use poly for any person at any time. These same children would have been in glass not too long ago.
2. A waiver is annoying to the patient and will not likely hold up in court.
3. Poly is a poor choice for the best optics, consider Trivex.
So, ask the parent about it after an explanation on why Trivex is the BEST choice, and let them decide.
If they decline an impact resistant material, document it and move on. If you must, a short blurb "I know poly/trivex is less likely to cause eye injury in the case of impact and choose to decline at this time" signed by parents may help you sleep at night.

I think that about sums it all up. Again, I recommend a search, there's a couple really good threads that hashed the he(( out of the issue.
Good luck!

[chip anderson]

When to stop using poly is not a legal requirement. The time to stop using it is when your fear of lawyers is less than your respect for optics.

Chip

[opticianbart]

there is the whole "duty to warn" thing though isn't there?

[Judy Canty]

there is the whole "duty to warn" thing though isn't there?

Yes there is, but it's not mandatory...smart, but not mandatory.

[RT]

there is the whole "duty to warn" thing though isn't there?

From Wikipedia:

A duty to warn is a concept that arises in the law of torts in a number of circumstances, indicating that a party will be held liable for injuries caused to another, where the party had the opportunity to warn the other of a hazard and failed to do so.

In the context of eyeglasses in the United States, "Duty to Warn" was something that the now-defunct Polycarbonate Lens Council promoted to sell poly. The Duty to Warn campaign pre-dated the introduction of Trivex. They DTW advocates pointed out that if you did not warn people that one lens material (poly) was more impact resistant than others, and they were injured due to use of the lower impact resistant materials, you could be liable. Interestingly, the concept was only applied toward impact resistance, and not anything related to the ability to see through the lenses.

You will, of course, want to consult with your own legal adviser, but to the best of my knowledge, there are not any laws that mandate any particular material for any particular group of people. The only laws concern FDA impact resistance, which shouldn't be a problem for any lens materials being dispensed. Practically speaking, Chip nailed it when he said your own fear of lawyers will dictate your business' rules.

In any event, documenting the fact that you've discussed the safety aspects of whatever you dispense is a good idea.

[hipoptical]

"Warning: contents of hot coffee cup may be hot."

[hipoptical]

Warning: of you get hit in the eye with something, your lenses may break, causing unforeseen damage to your eye. However, if you didn't have the glasses in the first place, you would have lost your eye; but I am still under obligation to say that the best thing for your protection is the worst thing for your vision. So, I am going to compromise my integrity as an optician and sell you the thing that will prevent you from suing me and winning, just like McDs and the coffee incident.
(In case you can't tell, I never really likely the "doodie too warm" concept. Other places sell 1.0 glass and I've never heard of a lost eyeball because of them.)

[RT]

You might be interested in the actual facts of the infamous McDonald's hot coffee case.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

[MarcE]

In our state, the Medicaid program will ONLY PAY FOR GLASS OR CR-39. If you submit a claim for poly (even a child), they will reject the claim.

Poor kids with all those "illegal" specs bought by the state.

My advice: Just give them poly. That's right, just give it to the kids. Your competition does. I don't care if they only want to buy CR-39 - They get poly.

Instead of making the parent sign form which will just waste time, annoy them, and make them feel guiltly. Just GIVE them poly and put a little card in the dispensing tray that says:
"YOU GOT A FREE UPGRADE!! You received a thinner and lighter weight lens that is impact-resistant and blocks UV rays. Thank you so much for trusting us with all your family's eyecare needs"

Mommy feels good, you can sleep at night and next year you say "I recommend we keep Johnny in the same type lens".

If you would like to learn more about how to de-stress the eyewear buying experience, impress your clients, make more money, fit lenses in wrap frames and generate referrals - JOIN OPTIBOARD TODAY!

[bt5050]

I always fullfill my duty to worn but I don't think there are really any laws I know of that state a kid must have poly..

However - we do see many ped.. Office pts tfat the Md prescribes poly on their rx forms and when these come thru and I want to use say 1.67 - I always call and just document their name and ok -- not sure if this will do anything special - but we get allot of $$ from the office so I do it out of respect and good buiness relations

I Can not see putting a -14 into a poly for a 13 year old to walk around school with - i know what I went thru as a kid w- a high rx and I do everything I can from getting half way decent glasses to fitting them into cl-s
in which we fit even the very young - if the parents r willing to take a active role for I & r as well as hygene