71 Pa. Commw. 110 | Pa. Commw. Ct. | 1983
Opinion by
Raymond M. Hartman, O.D., (appellant) appeals here from tbe 90-day suspension of bis optometry license based on two violations of tbe Optometry Act
The facts may be briefly stated. Pursuant to complaints received by tbe Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs, tbe appellant was cited for numerous violations of tbe Act. At a bearing held before tbe State Board of Optometrical Examiners (Board), three of bis former patients testified that be bad made but failed to honor certain guarantees concerning tbe fit of their contact lenses. They testified that they bad first become aware of tbe appellant’s services through local newspaper advertisements, one of which guaranteed a “scientific fit”, while another stated “ask about our unconditional
In appeals from the Board, our duty is to affirm its decision unless we find that it violates the appellant’s constitutional rights, that it is not in accordance with law, or that any of the necessary findings of fact are unsupported by substantial evidence. Chaby v. State Board of Optometrical Examiners, 35 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 551, 386 A.2d 1071 (1978).
Hartman’s first contention on appeal is that the Board abused its discretion in finding the testimony of the three patients more credible than his. He further argues that the Board should have accorded more weight to the fact that two of the patients were longtime friends, and that one of the two was at that time trying to collect a judgment from him.
We will, therefore, affirm the order of the Board.
Order
And Now, this 11th day of January, 1983, the order of the State Board of Optometrical Examiners in the above-captioned matter is hereby affirmed.
Inasmuch as all of the appellant’s earnings and property belong to an organization called the Basic Bible Church of America, Inc., P. O. Box 61, Cayman Islands, British West Indies, the patient, Ms. Pletz, had been unable to collect the $488.75 judgment awarded by the Court of Common Pleas of Beaver County in a civil action which she brought against Hartman.
These communications included (1) a motion for request to close discovery filed by the Prosecutor, a copy of which was sent to Hartman, (2) a communication from Counsel to the Board to the Prosecutor informing him that she had received a phone call from Hartman to the effect that he was represented by legal counsel, and (3) an oral communication from the Prosecutor to the Counsel for the Board opposing Hartman’s request for a continuance, which communication had previously been conveyed to counsel for Hartman,