What RICO Means In Hawaii - Drs Au And Lau Optometrists

                                                             

Thursday, January 25, 2007

My experience with Drs. Au And Lau Optometrists Inc. Located in
LensCrafters

Marvin S. C. Dang - a Honolulu, Hawaii (HI) Real Estate Law Lawyer Marvin S. C. Dang. Firm:, Dang, Marvin S. C.. Address:, P. O. Box 4109 Honolulu, HI 96812-4109. Phone:, (808) 521-8521. Fax:, (808) 521-8522 ...

pview.findlaw.com/view/2783893_1?noconfirm=0 - 18k - Cached - Similar pages

To: Office of the Ombudsman

Again, your office follows the same procedures as any other in Hawaii. Glossing over pertinent issues and using words to twist facts.

1. Along with saying I did not see as well with the new glasses, I said that the prescription that I was given was weaker than the one I had the previous 7, count them seven years. Your office nor the DCCA responded to this charge.

2.The reason I asked Dr. Au to change the prescription was because the NEW one I repeat was weaker in one eye. This was the only alternative Dr. Au gave me other than accepting the weaker prescription.

3. The "Vision Certificate" Dr. Au provide, had no licsense number where it should have been and she did not sign it where it should have been signed.

4. Dr Au refused to give me photocopies of my records and did not give me a reason, per her offices policy, when I asked for them in her office.

5.Dr charged me 2.00 dollars per page, totaling 20.00 dollars, which I believe is exhorbitant.

6.There are conflicting numbers on my records, that I would like explained. This, no one has addressed. And I doubt that my records were reviewed by an impartial optometrist, as any reasonable person would assume to be a part on what your office calls an investigation.

7. I was trespassed from Dr. Au's office for no other reason than asking for copies of my files and in her response to the DCCA she says I was escorted out of her offices by mall security, which is a lie by a optometrist that pracitces deciet.
-----Original Message-----From: OfficeoftheOmbudsman@ombudsman.hawaii.govTo: yinsay@aol.comSent: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 8:03 AMSubject: RE: Complaint

Dear Mr. Balmer:
On December 22, 2006, we received an email in which you complained that
the Regulated Industries Complaints Office (RICO), Department of
Commerce and Consumer Affairs (DCCA), did not adequately respond to your
complaint against Dr. Kimberly Agena and Dr. Sevelyn Lee Au, both of
whom are licensed optometrists. Your complaint against Dr. Agena and
Dr. Au stemmed from services that you received from them between July
and August of 2006. You complained to RICO about Dr. Au and Dr. Agena
on October 3, 2006. RICO investigated your complaint and reported its
findings to you in a letter from Investigator Janice Yonamine dated
November 6, 2006.
In our investigation, we reviewed pertinent sections of the Hawaii
Revised Statutes (HRS) and the Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR). We
also contacted RICO and reviewed the entire RICO case file concerning
your complaint.

Chapter 459, HRS, titled "Optometry," governs the practice of optometry
and defines specific situations under which a license may be suspended
or revoked. The Board of Examiners in Optometry (Board) may suspend or
revoke an optometrist's license, or impose any other penalty established
by the Board, for the commission of acts listed in Section 459-9, HRS.
Similarly, Title 16, Chapter 92, titled "Optometrists," defines
situations that may amount to "professional misconduct, gross
carelessness or negligence, or manifest incapacity in the practice of
optometry," for which the Board may suspend, revoke, or refuse to renew
a license, or impose a fine.

In your complaint to RICO, you asserted that you did not see as well
when you used new eyeglasses that were made and provided to you at no
charge by LensCrafters based on Dr. Agena's prescription. Dr. Agena had
performed a comprehensive eye exam during your visit and recommended
bifocals. After you complained that you could not see with your new
prescription, Dr. Au examined you and you were informed about the
changes in vision and prescription that occur with age. However, as you
insisted that your old prescription be used, Dr. Au complied.

Thereafter, you requested copies of your examination records and Dr. Au
provided you with a handwritten vision certificate summary form. You
found the summary to be insufficient and requested photocopies of your
records. In a letter dated August 4, 2006, Dr. Au informed you that
pursuant to company policy there would be a charge of $2 per page, which
in your case amounted to $20. You disagreed with the charge, but made
the payment, and a copy of your records was then mailed to you.

Based upon our review of the law and the RICO case file, we believe that
RICO's investigation and response to you were reasonable. We note that
although RICO did not find your concerns to constitute licensing law
violations, RICO attempted to assist you by inquiring with and obtaining
a response from Dr. Au.
As we do not believe we can be of further assistance to you in this
matter, we will be closing your case in our files.
Sincerely yours,
/s/ PAUL K. KANOHO
Analyst
Approved by:
ROBIN K. MATSUNAGA
Ombudsman, State of Hawaii


-----Original Message-----
From: yinsay@aol.com [mailto:yinsay@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 1:59 PM
To: Office of the Ombudsman
Subject: Re: Complaint
I filed a complaint on 10/03/2006. After getting a letter acknowledging
my complaint without a signature, I had qualms about the
"investigation". My complaint should be at the DCCA for reference, if
the Ombudsmans office needs it. As I stated in my email to the Board of
Optometry that was referred to Ms. Uchida, my concerns were not directly
responded to and there was no resolution to my questions pertaining to
the descrepency in numbers on my records. I am not a professional
optometrist. I would think the records would be reviewed by someone who
does understand the numbers and records they a looking at. Also, I
believe pertinent issues where not addressed, but glossed over, so as to
leave Ms. Au's un-professional and deceitful actions appearing correct.
-----Original Message-----
From: OfficeoftheOmbudsman@ombudsman.hawaii.gov
To: yinsay@aol.com
Sent: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 10:22 AM
Subject: RE: Complaint
Dear Mr. Balmer:

Thank you for your e-mail below. Please be informed that our office
does not use a complaint form. If you wish to file a complaint in
writing, you may send us an email message, a fax, or a letter to the
following:

Office of the Ombudsman
465 South King Street, 4th Floor
Honolulu, HI 96813
Fax: 587-0773
Email:

In your complaint, please provide us with a description of the complaint
that you filed with RICO and the date you filed it.

Please note that we will await your response before conducting our
investigation.

If you have any questions, feel free to call the undersigned at
587-0770.

Sincerely yours,

/s/ PAUL K. KANOHO
Analyst

For ROBIN K. MATSUNAGA
Ombudsman, State of Hawaii

________________________________
From: yinsay@aol.com [mailto:yinsay@aol.com]
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 2:03 PM
To: Office of the Ombudsman
Subject: Complaint
This is correspondence I sent to the Board of Optometry, that was
forwarded to Ms. Uchida. As you can see I would like to make this a
written complaint about the DCCA not addressing the pertinent issues of
my complaint. Will you, please send the necessary forms.




Dear Mr. Balmer: In order to file a formal written grievance about
your case handling, you will need to contact the Ombudsman's Office. You can
reach them at 587-0770.
Jo Ann Uchida

yinsay@aol.com


12/15/2006 02:20
To
PM JoAnn.M.Uchida@dcca.hawaii.gov


cc


Subject
Re: Grevience






I would still like to make this a formal (written) grievance. I have
learned it is best when dealing with Hawaii's institutions, to document
such matters. It has already been close to two weeks since getting a response
fromdcca, which I gather came to your attention by way of the Board of
Optometry. Unfortunately, I have become familiar with Hawaii's bureaucratic stalling and smoke screening techniques.



-----Original Message-----
From: JoAnn.M.Uchida@dcca.hawaii.gov

To: yinsay@aol.com '');>
Sent: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 2:39 PM
Subject: Fw: Grevience
Dear Mr. Balmer:
Your email to the Optometry Board was forwarded to me for review. I am
the Complaints and Enforcement Officer for the Regulated Industries
Complaints Office. If you have concerns that specific aspects of your
complaint were not addressed, please let me know what those concerns are
and I will review the case file and provide you with a response.
Sincerely,
Jo Ann Uchida
Complaints and Enforcement Officer
Regulated Industries Complaints Office


yinsay@aol.com

11/21/2006 04:21
To
PM optometry@dcca.hawaii.gov

ccSubject
Grevience
Lee Ann TeshimaDCCA-PVLAtt: OPT
P.O. Box 3469
Honolulu, HI 96801

I was supplied with a response that I feel does not address the specific
aspects of a complaint that I submitted to DCCA/RICO. My experience here
inHawaii leaves no surprise, concerning the handling of complaints. Where
theinvestigative body only addresses what it picks and chooses, and uses
language to gloss over other pertinent issues brought to it's attention.
Iwould like to know the grievance procedure.

Vernon BalmerJr.
401 Atkinson DR211
Honolulu, Hawaii 96814
Labels: Hawaii Ala Moana, Optometrists Honolul