Visionix

5th Circ. Nixes $1.4M Penalty In Wal-Mart Optometrist Row - Law360 (subscription)

ODwire.org NewsBot

ODwire.org NewsBot

NewsBot
Staff member
Jul 30, 2007
8,253
56
0
School/Org
Newsbot U
City
Barre
State
VT
what do you make of this? guilt with no damages?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tom Byers OD
OK...I have zero experience in the whole WalMart thing.
But look...they "pressured" them into staying open longer. So, they "made" more money.
And now they want "more" money for being forced to "make more money".

A friend went to work at Lenscrafter many years ago.
They dictated his hours. He called the Texas Board.
What did the board tell him...

Its a free country and you chose where to work. If you don't like it ...go somewhere else. Don't expect us to tell Lenscrafters when to open or close.

Suing for staying open...now that takes the cake.

I could easily understand if they cut your hours and you made less money. But it is still your choice to accept or not to accept their terms. We have an oversupply of O.Ds..well, if there is an oversupply in other professions, they work whatever they have to. We on the other hand want someone else to protect us from working too hard. Give me a break.
 
Cutting hours and making less money is the same as forcing more hours on an office where there are no patients. They were probably forced to stay open in a dead location, where they could be elsewhere making more money.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tom Vaxmonsky OD
You swim with the sharks, you get bit.

I think they wanted the ODs to shack up with that teenager that created campsites in the aisles.
 
Scott Caughell said:
"Independent Contractor" is violated by almost all of those commercial chains.
Click to expand...


Then don't work there!

Surely there is somewhere else that "some" of them can work.

If the pay is so awful, and the hours are so bad...what exactly is good.

I know! No responsibility and a steady stream of patients you didn't have to impress.

I don't think they are independent contractors..they aren't PAID by box stores.

Its a matter of choice. I realize that all cannot find jobs...yeah that's the word..jobs.
And I realize that not all can afford 250K to start up..but there are opportunities around the country that they don't want. OK...just don't expect the courts to straighten up your choice.

What are we coming to when you need to sue your landlord for putting requirements on you to "live" in their world.

Lets say you wanted to "rent" a house from me...my latest adventure.
Lets say I don't accept pets. You moved in knowing that..now you want a pet. I don't want one. Are you going to sue me to make me accept pets?

Live in my house....live by my rules. If you don't like it...Get out.

Lots of folks are reading this and saying...I feel just that way. But few step up and voice their opinion.
 
Allan Panzer said:
OK...I have zero experience in the whole WalMart thing.
But look...they "pressured" them into staying open longer. So, they "made" more money.
And now they want "more" money for being forced to "make more money".

A friend went to work at Lenscrafter many years ago.
They dictated his hours. He called the Texas Board.
What did the board tell him...

Its a free country and you chose where to work. If you don't like it ...go somewhere else. Don't expect us to tell Lenscrafters when to open or close.

Suing for staying open...now that takes the cake.

I could easily understand if they cut your hours and you made less money. But it is still your choice to accept or not to accept their terms. We have an oversupply of O.Ds..well, if there is an oversupply in other professions, they work whatever they have to. We on the other hand want someone else to protect us from working too hard. Give me a break.
Click to expand...

Taking it to the extreme, what if Walmart forced the OD to open until 3am (in a 24hour Walmart) but the OD only made $75 from 10pm to 3am. Sure the OD made more money but it's not worth the OD's time to make so little while having to stay till 3am. I do agree with you about the oversupply of ODs though.
 
There is a reason "Independent" has quotation marks around it when referring to corporate location O.D.s

Its lawsuits like this that keep some semblance of independence.
 
Strange ruling. I'm not sure why the OD would have to show damages. Isn't the penalty supposed to go to the state board or the general fund?
 
I just read the entire decision. It's really quite simple. There are two issues liability and damages/punitive damages. As to liability the court said Walmart violated the plain language of the law which expressly said that they cannot attempt to influence the office hours. As to the damages the doctors said that they did not suffer any actual losses or damages. They sued seeking the civil penalties there were expressly provided for in the statute. What the court said was that the civil penalties were essentially punitive damages in Texas law does not allow recovery of punitive damages where there were no actual damages. Because of that they overturned the civil penalties. This portion of the ruling regarding damages really had nothing to do with the Texas optometry act or optometry at all, it was simply an interpretation and application of Texas law to the civil penalties provisions.

I will say that I have seen a number of cases or situations I should say where optometrists in similar work situations have had a higher optometrist to cover for them in order to work the hours that were required and may very well have suffered economic losses as a result. Some commercial environments require the doctor's office to be open seven days a week as many as 10 hours a day which most people are not willing or able to do. So being open more hours does not necessarily equate to making more money. In this case however, the doctors never claimed to have suffered an economic loss they were simply trying to impose a penalty on Walmart for violating Texas optometry law.

The problem with the court's decision is that it largely eliminates any remedy for future violations by any corporate entity.
 
For what it is worth, I am surrounded by both a Walmart and a Sam's. Both of which close two days per week. Sunday...probably the busiest day there. Costco closed as well.
So, I don't really understand it.
 
Craig Steinberg OD JD said:
I just read the entire decision. It's really quite simple. There are two issues liability and damages/punitive damages. As to liability the court said Walmart violated the plain language of the law which expressly said that they cannot attempt to influence the office hours. As to the damages the doctors said that they did not suffer any actual losses or damages. They sued seeking the civil penalties there were expressly provided for in the statute. What the court said was that the civil penalties were essentially punitive damages in Texas law does not allow recovery of punitive damages where there were no actual damages. Because of that they overturned the civil penalties. This portion of the ruling regarding damages really had nothing to do with the Texas optometry act or optometry at all, it was simply an interpretation and application of Texas law to the civil penalties provisions.
Click to expand...

So does this mean that any "civil penalty" in the state of Texas is null and void as long as no damages occurred?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
New Sight Capital
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Webinars
CEwire 2024
Menu