You are on shaky ground even if you get the patient to sign a waiver. Aside from the standard of care argument, attorneys can find many ways to argue assumption of risk. If you are sued, be ready to spend lots of time preparing for and attending depositions. Your insurance company will have to pay for the defense even if you ultimately prevail.
Bottom line, don't do it just because you can. There are lots of things you CAN do that you SHOULDN'T do.
That's a good example of what I mean about "crazy with the lawyers"Originally Posted by gmc
As to the frames, unless things have changed, if you look at a safety frame the major difference is that it is buttresed in the back, so upon impact the lens would not tend to go to the back , but to the front.
As far as litigation goes, yeh its possible, i once got sued by a lady whos claim was i made her lenses too thick. it went to court, and i won, but you have to think if the courts will accept something that dumb, everything else is fair game
Legal crazy??? No such thing. But there is such a thing called guilty and liability. Lawyers rub their hands together when they here this stuff. It is reality...end of story.
Now...lay down that bong and pray to the native gods there are no more floods in the Peg.
Those sound like the things a legal crazed lawyer type person would say.
They say that you can sue a ham sandwich and I believe it. I was sued by an eye care provider for refusing to supply support for a pirated copy of my practice management application. I prevailed but it was a costly victory. A firm where I used to work was twice sued for falls and in both cases the complainant walked away with insurance company money.
As Grandpa Pettibone used to say "Sometimes you eat the bear and sometimes, the bear, he eats you."
Hey! Doesn't the Manitoba government have a campaign going right now called "Workplace..Spot the Hazard"? Or as us neo-cons like to put it...Rat on your neighbour and employer?
I have developed a form letter basically stating that when putting dress lenses into Z87 frame that the patient understands that the lenses does not meet Z87 standard and cannot be use for safety glasses. Then the letter is signed By myself (Optician) the Lab Manager and the patient.
second thought........three thing to remember....Document, document, and document everything
I actually cannot believe this is still being argued. Almost comical.
Guess what - the attorneys will still nail you even with this signed document. They will get around the document, and the Victim, yes Victim, not patient will own your business.
Make sure you increase your liability insurance and it's up to date.
Where??????? is it written, There is criteria for the production of safety lenses....But as I re-read the the requirements...No where I can find References to dress lenses in a Z87 Frame.... And yes our company lawyers have viewed the letter and find it valid and would stand up in court.
Whose responcible for a patient using a dress frame/dress lenses as safety if the patient know there are getting Polycarb lenses..as I see it nothing
Can someone please just go out, wear their safety frames with dress lenses and have an eye injury already? I want to see the results and have some dispenser get nailed to the wall for their stupidity and arrogance.
And when you do get sued, your company lawyers will say Oops! Sorry. Then you and the attorneys hired by your insurance company will be stuck with the problem for several years. Even if you prevail, you will lose.
Unfortunately I can not cite the exact chapter and verse for this requirement nor do I have the time to do your home work for you but I refer you to:
ANSI Z87 standards.
OSHA.
Workman's Compensation Inspection and Ratings Bureaus in your State.
Workman's Compensation insurers in you State.
Company Employee Safety Manuals and policies.
Existing case law.
The fact that glazing a safety frame with dress safety lenses in not mentioned does not mean that it is allowed. It would clearly be against the intent of the law.
Perhaps our resident attorney shanbaum could check in on the sustainability in court of your release letter.
It doesn't matter what the opinion is of ANY attorney. A plaintiff can ALWAYS find an attorney to take their case. And even if the trial court grants summary judgement as they did in our case, you still have costs at the trial and appellate level.
Here's a true horror story that illustrates the point.
I was out of the optical business for several years managing a nonprofit event. During our event we leased space to an individual that ran a mechanical bull ride. A perfectly legal activity. The owner had all the necessary licenses and permits and insurance in the required amount. That insurance named the event as an additional insured. He had in place all appropriate safety precautions. He had an ironclad waiver of liability crafted by his attorney and signed by the plaintiff. In signing the waiver, the plaintiff acknowledged that he could be seriously injured and even killed by participating in this activity. He waived all claims of liability for himself, his heirs and assigns.
He attended our event, rode the bull, fell off, walked away and enjoyed the rest of his evening. Several days later, he went to his doctor claiming he was injured by the bull.
Several months later, we were served with notice of his suit claiming all kinds of negligence imaginable. We referred the claim against our organization to the lessee's insurance company since we were additionally insured. End of story right? Wrong.
The plaintiff's attorney sued our organization on the grounds that by selling him a ticket to our event we were giving him an implied warranty that every activity at the event was safe. The lessee's insurance company rightly refused to defend us on those grounds. They covered our defense based on the actions of their insured. Our insurance company had to pick up the other defense costs.
We prevailed at the trial and appellate levels. However we wasted huge amounts of time for depositions and preparing for trial, even though summary judgement was ultimately granted. After it was over, our insurance company informed us that if we leased space to any type of similarly dangerous activity, they would no longer insure us.
Attorneys can find all kinds of creative ways to get around waivers of liability. Plus putting dress lenses in safety frames CLEARLY does not meet the standard of care for the optical industry.
If nawsman is willing to risk all of this potential trouble and expense for the small profit to be made from such a transaction more power to him.
Or maybe he just wants to make a statement that the government and/or courts shouldn't interfere in transactions between consenting parties. If that's the case, I applaud him. I won't contribute to his defense fund, but I applaud him.
Last edited by gmc; 06-07-2010 at 09:13 PM. Reason: spelling
Just to throw a little gasoline on the fire:
When a Pt. requests an OSHA Rx with glass lenses (3.0mm, monogram, all the good stuff), how many fill the Rx, and how many say, "Sorry, our policy is polycarb only"?
Bonus question #1: Same policy with a dress Rx for kids under 18?
Bonus question #2: How about a monocular Pt?
Wayne
You can certainly put a dress lens in a Z87 frame IF you remove the Z87 markings from the frame and side shields.
We do a fair amount of leaded (x-ray) plano and rx work. A long time ago we made the decision that we'd use POF safety frames ONLY IF we were given permission to remove the Z87 markings. In the medical field where 95% of these lenses are used, the attraction for the side shields is that it helps prevent blood spatter from entering the eye.
I've discussed this with all my accounts, both wholesale labs and doctor/dispensers and they all have agreed to the removal of the Z87 markings. We also attach a note indicating that the removal of the Z87 markings was done on purpose and that the frame and lens "assembly" can no longer be considered a "safety" spectacle.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks