41 Cal.App.5th 77
Cal. Ct. App.2019Background
- Anthony Rudick, an optometrist and 49% owner of Ridge Eye Care (a medical corporation also owned by an ophthalmologist), practiced at multiple Ridge locations; his principal place of practice was Paradise and he worked at Ridge’s Magalia office.
- Rudick applied for a statement of licensure under Business & Professions Code §3070 for the Magalia location; the State Board of Optometry denied it and required compliance with branch office licensing under §3077.
- The Board concluded an “office” under §3077 means any place where optometry is practiced, even if the location is a medical corporation also providing ophthalmology services or if the optometrist is a minority owner.
- The trial court denied Rudick’s petition for a writ of mandate and granted summary judgment to the Board; judgment was entered for the Board and this appeal followed.
- The Legislature later amended §3077 (effective 2019) to eliminate branch office license and 50% attendance requirements and to cap offices at 11, but did not change the statutory definition of “office.”
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §3077 requires Rudick to obtain branch office licenses for Ridge locations other than his principal place of practice (versus issuing a §3070 statement of licensure). | Rudick: “Office” should exclude offices that are primarily medical/ophthalmology practices or where optometrists are minority employees/owners; §3077 shouldn’t apply to Ridge locations. | Board: “Office” means any place where optometry is practiced; Ridge locations employing optometrists are subject to §3077 branch-office rules. | Affirmed Board and trial court: “Office” means any place where optometry is practiced; §3077 applied, so branch-office requirements were properly required under the pre-2019 statute. |
| Whether the trial court erred in denying plaintiffs’ writ of mandate compelling the Board to issue a §3070 statement of licensure. | Rudick: Board had a mandatory duty under §3070 to issue the statement upon application and fee. | Board: No mandatory duty; denial was proper under §3077; also plaintiffs failed to preserve appeal of the writ denial. | Plaintiff did not appeal the writ order, so that ruling is not before the court; issue not reviewed on appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Imperial Merchant Servs., Inc. v. Hunt, 47 Cal.4th 381 (statutory interpretation and de novo review)
- Yamaha Corp. of Am. v. State Bd. of Equalization, 19 Cal.4th 1 (consideration of agency statutory interpretations)
- People v. Cole, 38 Cal.4th 964 (professional-employment statutes do not override other professional restrictions)
- People v. Overstreet, 42 Cal.3d 891 (presumption Legislature is aware of existing law when amending statutes)
- Bouley v. Long Beach Mem. Med. Ctr., 127 Cal.App.4th 601 (Legislature presumed to know full text of laws it amends)
- United States v. Mo. Pac. R. Co., 278 U.S. 269 (courts cannot rewrite statutes to avoid inconvenience)
- People v. Bell, 241 Cal.App.4th 315 (courts must not substitute construction for legislation)
- Oxford Preparatory Acad. v. Chino Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 37 Cal.App.5th 413 (exceptions to mootness doctrine)
- E.E.O.C. v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, 135 S. Ct. 2028 (respect for separation of powers and courts’ limited role in making law)