Opinion No. (1986)
Oklahoma Attorney General Reports
1Opinion of the Court
Dear Mr. Foster,
The Attorney General has received your request for an official opinion asking, in effect:
Pursuant to Title 59 O.S. 942 (1981), may an optician or optical supplier, when authorized to fit or adapt contact lenses pursuant to a written prescription furnished to a patient by an optometrist or ophthalmologist, alter or deviate from the prescription so furnished?
Your question implicates certain portions of Title 59 O.S. 942 (1981), as they relate to the fitting of contact lenses. This section provides in pertinent part that:
"persons licensed under the provisions of chapters 11…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- AMF Tubescope Company v. HatchelSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1976
- City & County of San Francisco v. BoydCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
- City of Norman v. LiddellSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1979
- Fort Worth & Denver City Railway Co. v. MastersonTexas Supreme Court · 1902