<PAGE>   1


                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             Washington, D.C. 20549
                                    FORM 10-Q

          Quarterly Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities
          Exchange Act of 1934.

               For the quarterly period ended: September 30, 1996
                                               ------------------

                         Commission File Number: 0-16937
                                                 -------

                             Summit Technology, Inc.
                             -----------------------
             (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)


                       Massachusetts                        04-2897945
                       -----------------------------------------------
             (State or other jurisdiction of             I.R.S. Employer
              incorporation or organization)            Identification No.)


                   21 Hickory Drive     Waltham, MA            02154
                   -------------------------------------------------
               (Address of principal executive offices)     (Zip Code)


                                  617-890-1234
                                  ------------
              (Registrant's telephone number, including area code)

                                       N/A
                                       ---
            (Former name, former address and former fiscal year, if
                          changed since last report.)

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required
to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during
the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was
required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing
requirements for the past 90 days.

                                [X] Yes   No [ ]

APPLICABLE ONLY TO CORPORATE ISSUERS:

Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the issuer's classes of
stock, as of the latest practicable date.

On September 30, 1996, 30,963,392 shares of common stock, par value $.01 per
share were outstanding.


<PAGE>   2



PART I:  FINANCIAL INFORMATION
ITEM 1:  FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

SUMMIT TECHNOLOGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS                                                SEPTEMBER 30,       DECEMBER 31,
(IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT SHARE AND PER SHARE AMOUNTS)                             1996               1995
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           (UNAUDITED)

<S>                                                                          <C>                <C>     
ASSETS

     Current assets:
         Cash and cash equivalents                                           $ 49,626           $ 74,632
         Short-term investments                                                27,077             21,607
         Accounts receivable, net                                               8,758             16,312
         Inventories, net                                                      20,265             15,703
         Prepaid expenses and other current assets                              4,413              3,271
         Due from related party                                                 1,237                238
         Note receivable from former officer                                      322                381
                                                                             --------           --------
             Total current assets                                             111,698            132,144
                                                                             --------           --------

     Long-term investments                                                     14,587             13,531
     Property and equipment, net                                               18,119              9,300
     Patents, net                                                               6,480              6,795
     Other assets, net                                                          1,530              1,479
     Restricted cash                                                            1,505              1,535
                                                                             --------           --------
             Total assets                                                    $153,919           $164,784
                                                                             ========           ========

LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS' EQUITY

     Current liabilities:
         Accounts payable                                                    $  5,183           $  7,771
         Accrued expenses                                                       8,073             10,018
         Current maturities of long-term debt                                   5,154              3,429
         Deferred revenue                                                       1,973              3,425
         Due to related party                                                   2,583                583
                                                                             --------           --------
             Total current liabilities                                         22,966             25,226

     Long-term debt, less current maturities                                   11,630              1,247
     Deferred Taxes                                                                70                 70

     Stockholders' equity:
     Common stock, $.01 par value. Authorized 60,000,000
       shares;  Issued 30,969,517 shares in 1996
       and 30,934,827 in 1995                                                     310                309
     Additional paid-in capital                                               170,889            170,393
     Accumulated deficit                                                      (51,786)           (32,329)
                                                                             --------           --------
                                                                              119,413            138,373
     Treasury stock, at cost, 6,125 shares in 1996 and
     5,284 shares in 1995                                                        (160)              (132)
                                                                             --------           --------
             Total stockholders' equity                                       119,253            138,241
                                                                             --------           --------
             Total liabilities and stockholders' equity                      $153,919           $164,784
                                                                             ========           ========
</TABLE>


See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.


                                       2
<PAGE>   3



PART I:  FINANCIAL INFORMATION
ITEM 1:  FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

SUMMIT TECHNOLOGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES                         THREE MONTHS                   NINE MONTHS
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS                         ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,            ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,
(IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS; UNAUDITED)        1996              1995            1996          1995
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

<S>                                                      <C>               <C>             <C>            <C>    
Net revenues                                             $21,009           $27,278         $ 64,411       $69,726
Cost of revenues                                          15,692            17,497           49,083        46,324
                                                         -------           -------         --------       -------

         Gross profit                                      5,317             9,781           15,328        23,402

Operating expenses                                        10,048             9,250           37,908        26,627
                                                         -------           -------         --------       -------

         Operating income (loss)                          (4,731)              531          (22,580)       (3,225)

Other income                                                 790                25            3,105           336
                                                         -------           -------         --------       -------

     Income (loss) before provision
       for income taxes                                   (3,941)              556          (19,475)       (2,889)

     Provision for
         income taxes                                          -                20                -           622
                                                         -------           -------         --------       -------

         Net Income (loss)                               $(3,941)          $   536         $(19,475)      $(3,511)
                                                         =======           =======         ========       =======

Net Income (loss) per share                              $  (.13)          $   .02         $   (.63)      $  (.13)
                                                         =======           =======         ========       =======

Weighted average number of common
shares and common share
equivalents outstanding                                   30,963            27,349           30,950        26,936
                                                         =======           =======         ========       =======
</TABLE>


See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.


                                       3

<PAGE>   4




PART I:  FINANCIAL INFORMATION
ITEM 1:  FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

SUMMIT TECHNOLOGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES                                            NINE MONTHS
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS                                            ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,
(IN THOUSANDS;  UNAUDITED)                                                  1996                   1995
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     <S>                                                                  <C>                    <C>     
     Cash flows used by operating activities:
     Net loss                                                             $(19,475)              $(3,511)
     Adjustments to reconcile net loss to net cash
          used by operating activities:
         Depreciation and amortization                                       2,494                 2,648
         Bad debt recovery                                                    (268)                  (75)
         Changes in operating assets and liabilities:
                Accounts receivable, net                                     7,822                (5,250)
                Inventories                                                 (4,562)               (3,257)
                Prepaid expenses and other current assets                   (1,042)                 (637)
                Accounts payable                                            (2,589)                 (555)
                Accrued expenses                                            (1,457)                  732
                Deferred revenue                                            (1,450)                  749
                Related party, net                                           1,001                     -
                Other, net                                                       -                    14
                                                                          --------               -------
     Net cash provided used by operating activities                        (19,526)               (9,142)
                                                                          --------               -------

     Cash flows from investing activities:
     Decrease  (increase) in short-term investments                         (5,470)                6,560
     Decrease (increase)  in long-term investments                          (1,056)                    -
     Additions to property and equipment, net                              (11,281)               (2,306)
     Restricted cash                                                            30                (1,497)
     Other                                                                    (281)               (1,139)
                                                                          --------               -------

     Net cash provided (used) by investing activities                      (18,058)                1,618
                                                                          --------               -------


     Cash flows from financing activities:
     Net proceeds repayments of long-term debt                              12,109                 2,673
     Proceeds from exercise of stock options                                   469                   957
                                                                          --------               -------
     Net cash provided by financing activities                              12,578                 3,630
                                                                          --------               -------

     Decrease in cash and cash equivalents                                 (25,006)               (3,894)

     Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period                       74,632                 8,698
                                                                          --------               -------

     Cash and cash equivalents at end of period                           $ 49,626               $ 4,804
                                                                          ========               =======

     Supplemental cash flow information:

     Interest paid                                                        $    894               $   384
                                                                          ========               =======

     Income taxes paid                                                    $     49               $   617
                                                                          ========               =======
</TABLE>


     See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.


                                       4
<PAGE>   5


PART I:  FINANCIAL INFORMATION
ITEM 1:  FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)
         SUMMIT TECHNOLOGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
         NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(1)      Nature of Business
         ------------------

         Summit Technology, Inc. (the "Company") develops, manufactures and
         markets ophthalmic laser systems designed to correct common vision
         disorders such as nearsightedness, farsightedness and astigmatism. The
         Company also participates in per procedure royalties payable to Pillar
         Point Partners, a partnership, formed by the Company and VISX, Inc.
         ("VISX") to hold certain U.S. patents covering excimer laser systems
         and procedures. Through its wholly owned subsidiary, Refractive Centers
         International, Inc. ("RCII"), the Company owns and operates vision
         correction centers. The Company has discontinued its vision correction
         centers in the U.K. and operates 19 U.S. vision correction centers
         ("Summit Vision [Registered Trademark] Centers"), many of which are
         affiliated with prestigious national teaching hospitals. In addition,
         through its wholly owned subsidiary, Lens Express, Inc., the Company
         sells contact lenses and related products.

(2)      Summary of Significant Accounting Policies
         ------------------------------------------
         Basis of Presentation
         ---------------------

         The accompanying consolidated financial statements have been prepared
         by the Company without audit, pursuant to the rules and regulations of
         the Securities and Exchange Commission. In the opinion of the Company,
         these consolidated financial statements contain all adjustments
         (consisting of only normal, recurring adjustments) necessary to present
         fairly the consolidated financial position of Summit Technology, Inc.
         and subsidiaries at September 30, 1996 and the results of operations
         for the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 1996 and 1995
         and cash flows for the nine month periods ended September 30, 1996 and
         1995.

         The accompanying consolidated financial statements and related notes
         should be read in conjunction with the Company's Annual Report on Form
         10-K for the year ended December 31, 1995. The results of operations
         for the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 1996 are not
         necessarily indicative of the results to be expected for the full year.
         In May of 1996, the Company acquired Lens Express, Inc. The acquisition
         has been accounted for as a pooling of interests and accordingly, the
         consolidated financial statements have been restated to include the
         accounts of Lens Express, Inc.

         Net Income (Loss) Per Share
         ---------------------------

         Net income per share is computed based on the weighted average number
         of common shares outstanding adjusted for the dilutive effect of stock
         options. Net loss per share is computed based on the weighted average
         number of common shares outstanding.


                                       5

<PAGE>   6



PART I:  FINANCIAL INFORMATION
ITEM 1:  FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)
         SUMMIT TECHNOLOGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
         NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

<TABLE>

(3)      Inventories (in thousands)
         --------------------------
         Inventories consist of the following:
<CAPTION>

                                       September 30,         December 31,
                                           1996                 1995
                                           ----                 ----

         <S>                              <C>                  <C>    
         Raw materials and
         subassemblies (net)              $ 5,975              $ 5,802
         Work in process                      691                2,231
         Finished goods                    13,599                7,670
                                          -------              -------

                                          $20,265              $15,703
                                          =======              =======
</TABLE>


 (4)     Restatement and Reclassifications
         ---------------------------------

         The 1995 consolidated financial statements reflect retroactive
         restatement of a dividend of one share of the Company's common stock
         for every two shares of outstanding common stock paid on December 1,
         1995 and restatement for 1.71 million shares issued to acquire Lens
         Express, Inc. (see note 2). Certain reclassifications were made to the
         1995 consolidated financial statements to conform to the 1996
         presentation.

(5)      Cash Equivalents, Short and Long Term Investments
         -------------------------------------------------

         Cash equivalents consist of certificates of deposit and highly liquid
         investment grade corporate bonds with a maturity of three months or
         less.

         Short-term investments consist of investments with original maturities
         between three and twelve months. Long-term investments consist of
         investments with original maturities greater than twelve months. The
         Company has the intent and the ability to hold these investments to
         maturity. Investments are carried at cost plus accrued interest, which
         approximates market. These investments consist of U.S. Government
         Securities and investment grade corporate bonds.


                                       6
<PAGE>   7



PART I:   FINANCIAL INFORMATION
ITEM 1:   FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)
          SUMMIT TECHNOLOGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
          NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(6)      Contingencies
         -------------

         There are a number of U.S. and foreign patents covering methods and
         apparatus for performing corneal surgery with excimer lasers and
         holmium lasers that are not owned by the Company. If patents held by
         others were considered valid and interpreted broadly in an adversarial
         proceeding, they could be deemed to cover one or more aspects of the
         Company's excimer laser systems ("Excimer System") or the Company's
         holmium laser systems ("Holmium System") or their use to perform one or
         more procedures. While the Company either owns or has obtained from
         Pillar Point Partners (a partnership formed by the Company and VISX to
         hold certain U.S. patents) a license to what it believes are the
         important U.S. patents on laser vision correction to treat
         nearsightedness, also known as photorefractive keratectomy, or PRK,
         there can be no assurance that the Company will not be subject to one
         or more claims for infringement.

         In the event one of the Company's products is adjudged to infringe a
         patent in a particular market with the likely consequence of a damage
         award, the Company and its customers may be enjoined from making, using
         and selling such products in such market or be required to obtain a
         royalty-bearing license, if available on acceptable terms.
         Alternatively, in the event a license is not offered, the Company might
         be required to redesign those aspects of the products held to infringe
         so as to avoid infringement. Any redesign efforts undertaken by the
         Company might be expensive and could necessitate FDA review.
         Furthermore, they could delay the re-introduction of the Company's
         products into certain markets, or may be so significant as to be
         impractical. If redesign efforts were impractical, the Company could be
         prevented from manufacturing and selling the infringing products, which
         would have a material adverse effect on the Company's business,
         financial condition and results of operations.

         Failure to maintain the protection afforded by certain of the Company's
         patents and the patents licensed to the Company and VISX by Pillar
         Point Partners would have a material adverse effect on the Company's
         future revenues and earnings. Further, there can be no assurance that
         the Company's patents (or those licensed from Pillar Point Partners)
         will ultimately be found to be valid, or that the Company's patent
         rights (or those licensed from Pillar Point Partners) will deter others
         from developing substantially equivalent or competitive products. Even
         if an unlicensed competitor's products infringe upon the Company's
         patents or those of Pillar Point Partners, it may be costly to enforce
         such rights. An infringement action may require the diversion of funds
         from the Company's operations and may require management to expend
         effort that might otherwise be devoted to the Company's operations.
         Furthermore, there can be no assurance that the Company or


                                       7
<PAGE>   8


PART I:   FINANCIAL INFORMATION
ITEM 1:   FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)
          SUMMIT TECHNOLOGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
          NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

         Pillar Point Partners will be successful in enforcing its patent
         rights. Any failure by the Company or Pillar Point Partners to prevail
         in patent infringement actions against others, or any success by
         another company in enforcing a patent infringement claim against the
         Company could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business,
         financial condition and results of operations.

         U.S. Patent Litigation against VISX

         On August 29, 1995, the Company filed suit in the U.S. District Court
         for the District of Delaware against VISX for infringement of a certain
         U.S. patent with a priority date of 1985, which was purchased by the
         Company in 1993 ("the Azema Patent"). The Company is seeking damages
         for past infringement for all excimer lasers manufactured by VISX in
         the U.S. for use outside the U.S. In addition, the Company is seeking
         to enjoin VISX from manufacturing and selling excimer lasers for any
         purpose other than U.S. clinical trials. On October 10, 1995, VISX
         filed an answer to the Company's complaint. There can be no assurance
         that the Company will prevail in this proceeding.

         German Patent Litigation

         On August 3, 1995, a German court determined that the Schwind Keratom
         ophthalmic excimer laser system distributed by Coherent, and the Chiron
         Technolas Keracor 116 ophthalmic excimer laser system distributed by
         Chiron Technolas, infringe the German counterpart of the Azema Patent.
         The court has entered cease and desist orders against Schwind and
         Chiron Technolas and has ordered them to pay damages to the Company for
         past infringements. Both the Schwind and Chiron Technolas excimer laser
         systems are manufactured in Germany. On September 5, 1995, the Company
         posted the requisite bond in Germany to enforce the injunction issued
         against Chiron Technolas by the German court, as a result of which
         Chiron Technolas is now prohibited from manufacturing, selling or using
         its Keracor 116 ophthalmic excimer laser systems in Germany, where its
         production facility is located. Chiron Technolas and Schwind appealed
         the judgment. On October 17, 1996, Schwind agreed to dismiss its appeal
         and pay the Company 1.23 million German marks (approximately $800,000)
         in satisfaction of the Company's judgment. If the Chiron Technolas
         appeal is decided against the Company, its infringement verdict in
         Germany will be overturned and it will be liable for damages which may
         or may not exceed the amount of the bond. This bond is included in
         non-current assets as restricted cash of $1.5 million at September 30,
         1996.

                                       8

<PAGE>   9

PART I:  FINANCIAL INFORMATION
ITEM 1:  FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)
         SUMMIT TECHNOLOGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
         NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

         Canadian Patent Litigation

         On September 5, 1995, VISX sued the Company and eight Canadian
         ophthalmologists who use or have used the Company's Excimer System, in
         the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, asserting that the Excimer
         System infringed certain Canadian patents held by VISX. In such suit,
         VISX seeks, among other things, damages for past infringement and a
         permanent injunction preventing the Company and the other defendants
         from manufacturing, marketing, selling, using and inducing others to
         use the Excimer System in Canada. The Company believes that it has
         valid defenses to VISX's suit and intends to defend such action
         vigorously; however, there can be no assurance that the Company will be
         successful. The Company does not believe that the Canadian market is
         material to its business. There can be no assurance that additional
         patent infringement claims in the United States or in other countries
         will not be asserted against the Company, or, if asserted, that the
         Company will be successful in defending against such claims.

         Pillar Point Partners

         There can be no assurance that the agreements between the Company and
         VISX relating to Pillar Point Partners will preclude patent disputes
         with VISX with respect to technology not included in Pillar Point
         Partners in the U.S. or with respect to any technology outside the
         U.S., or that the Company's activities will not infringe patents held
         by other parties. Under the agreements establishing Pillar Point
         Partners, the Company must pay Pillar Point Partners a royalty fee each
         time its Excimer System is used to perform LVC in the U.S., regardless
         of whether the Company performs the procedure.

         The Company intends to maintain contractual arrangements permitting it
         to collect such royalty fees from purchasers of its Excimer Systems,
         but there can be no assurance that it will be able to collect such
         fees.

         On August 28, 1996, an affiliate of VISX, purporting to act on behalf
         of Pillar Point Partners, commenced a lawsuit against the Company in
         the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The
         suit alleges that the Company owes equipment royalties to Pillar Point
         Partners of not less than $4.5 million together with interest, costs
         and attorneys' fees.

         FTC Investigation

         On October 13, 1995, the Company received notice that the Federal Trade
         Commission ("FTC") initiated an investigation to determine whether
         Pillar Point Partners, VISX, and the Company or any of their
         predecessors, alone or in conjunction with others, is engaging or has
         engaged in any unfair methods of competition in violation of the
         Federal

                                       9
<PAGE>   10


PART I:   FINANCIAL INFORMATION
ITEM 1:   FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)
          SUMMIT TECHNOLOGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
          NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

         Trade Commission Act, relating to certain arrangements concerning
         patents of devices and procedures, and/or practices relating to the
         sale or distribution of certain ophthalmic surgical devices. The FTC
         has issued subpoenas to the Company and others (including one officer
         of the Company and David F. Muller, the Company's former Chairman and
         Chief Executive Officer) for testimony and to produce certain materials
         and information relating to the subject matter of the investigation. In
         forming Pillar Point Partners, the Company has taken measures to
         structure the partnership in a manner consistent with U.S. antitrust
         laws. The compliance of Pillar Point Partners with these laws will
         depend upon the activities of the partners, a determination of what
         constitutes the relevant market for purposes of such laws, the number
         and relative strength of competitors in such markets and numerous other
         factors, many of which are presently unknown or are beyond the control
         of Pillar Point Partners. There can be no assurance that the FTC's
         investigation will ultimately lead the FTC to agree that Pillar Point
         Partners complies with the U.S. antitrust laws. The Company is
         accordingly unable to predict whether or not, or when, any proceeding
         may be brought by the FTC following such investigation, or the scope of
         relief, if any, that may ultimately be ordered in the event that any
         such proceeding were determined adversely to the Company and/or Pillar
         Point Partners.


         Antitrust  Litigation

         In June 1996, a Texas ophthalmologist, Robert G. Burlingame sued Pillar
         Point Partners, VISX, the Company and certain affiliates of VISX and
         the Company in the Federal District Court for the Northern District of
         California alleging that the defendants have violated and are violating
         federal and state antitrust laws. The plaintiff seeks damages of an
         unspecified amount, treble damages, attorneys' fees and a permanent
         injunction against future violations. On September 5, 1996, a Nevada
         ophthalmologist, John R. Shepard, through his professional corporation,
         commenced a similar lawsuit against the same parties, in the same
         Court, alleging substantially similar claims and seeking substantially
         similar relief.

         Pillar Point Partners Patent Litigation

         In March 1995, Pillar Point Partners sued LaserSight, Inc. for patent
         infringement in the Federal District Court for Delaware. Although the
         suit is based on a patent licensed to Pillar Point Partners by VISX,
         the Company will share in the expenses of this litigation. In addition,
         the defendant, LaserSight, Inc. has entered a declaratory judgment
         counterclaim challenging Pillar Point Partners' ability to enforce its
         rights under one of its patents, which counterclaim asserts, among
         other things, that the alleged pooling of patents by Pillar Point
         Partners constitutes patent misuse. Any successful challenge to the


                                       10
<PAGE>   11


PART I:   FINANCIAL INFORMATION
ITEM 1:   FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)
          SUMMIT TECHNOLOGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
          NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

         structure and operation of Pillar Point Partners or to its patents
         could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business,
         financial condition and results of operations.

         Pillar Point Partners has also commenced patent infringement litigation
         against certain ophthalmologists believed to be using homemade laser
         systems not licensed under patents held by Pillar Point Partners, as
         well as an individual believed to be inducing infringement of such
         patents. In one such action, the defendants have asserted a
         counterclaim seeking a declaration that the patents in suit are
         invalid. In addition, the Company is pursuing litigation against
         certain other parties engaged in similar activities, including an
         importer, a service provider and certain other ophthalmologists, some
         of whom have asserted antitrust and other counterclaims against the
         Company.

         In October, 1996, Autonomous Technologies Corporation ("Autonomous")
         sued Pillar Point Partners, the Company and VISX (and certain
         affiliates of the Company and VISX) in the Federal District Court for
         Delaware. In this action, Autonomous seeks, INTER ALIA, a declaratory
         judgment that it does not infringe a certain United States Patent held
         by Pillar Point Partners, or, alternatively, a judgment ordering that
         all U.S. patents held by Pillar Point Partners, together with their
         foreign counterparts, be deemed unenforceable and/or be licensed to
         Autonomous.

         Seriani Litigation

         On October 26, 1992, Joseph Seriani brought suit against Lens Express,
         Inc. ("Lens") and certain of its former shareholders in the Florida
         Circuit Court. The suit alleges violations of the Florida Civil
         Remedies for Criminal Practices Act - the Florida civil RICO statute -
         based on events which allegedly occurred in the mid-1980's. Seriani's
         claims against Lens have been dismissed several times for failure to
         state a viable claim, but in each instance with leave to amend and
         refile. On May 15, 1996, the date of the Company's acquisition of Lens,
         Seriani and his wife Rhonda Seriani filed, but have yet to serve on the
         Company, an amended complaint which includes the Company as an
         additional defendant. The amended Seriani complaint alleges, among
         other things, that the Company is liable for the alleged actions of the
         other defendants by virtue of its acquisition of Lens. The amended
         Seriani complaint seeks damages of an unspecified amount, treble
         damages and attorneys' fees. Lens' current motion to dismiss the suit
         is presently pending. The Company believes the Serianis' suit against
         the Company and Lens is without merit and intends to contest it
         vigorously.


                                       11

<PAGE>   12
PART I:   FINANCIAL INFORMATION
ITEM 1:   FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)
          SUMMIT TECHNOLOGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
          NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Shareholder Securities Law Class Action Litigation

Between August 2, 1996 and October 8, 1996, fourteen actions were commenced
against the Company and, in some instances, against certain of its officers in
the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The actions
are the following:
 
         Pearl v. Summit Technology, Inc. et al., Civil Action 
         -----------------------------------------------------
         No. 96-11589-JLT
         ----------------
         Locke et al. v. Summit Technology, Inc. et al., Civil Action 
         ------------------------------------------------------------
         No. 96-11633-JLT
         ----------------
         Kaliser et al. v. Summit Technology, Inc. et al., Civil Action 
         --------------------------------------------------------------
         No. 96-11647-JLT
         ----------------
         Kleiman v. Summit Technology, Inc. et al., Civil Action 
         -------------------------------------------------------
         No. 96-11648-JLT
         ----------------
         Raphael v. Summit Technology, Inc. et al., Civil Action 
         -------------------------------------------------------
         No. 96-11664-JLT

         Grover v. Summit Technology, Inc. et al., Civil Action 
         ------------------------------------------------------
         No. 96-11731-JLT
         ----------------
         Shear et al. v. Summit Technology, Inc. et al., Civil Action 
         ------------------------------------------------------------
         No. 96-11747-JLT
         ----------------
         Kaye v. Summit Technology, Inc., et al., Civil Action 
         -----------------------------------------------------
         No. 96-11809-JLT
         ----------------
         Markewich et al. v. Summit Technology, Inc., et al., Civil Action 
         -----------------------------------------------------------------
         No. 96-11845-JLT
         ----------------
         Teachers' Retirement System of Louisiana v. Summit Technology, Inc., 
         -------------------------------------------------------------------- 
         et al., 
         -------
         Civil Action No. 96-11899 JLT
         -----------------------------
         Hyman v. Summit Technology, Inc., et al., Civil Action 
         No. 96-11976-JLT
         ----------------------------------------
         Aitken, et al. v. Summit Technology, Inc., et al., Civil Action 
         ------------------------------------------
         No. 96-11977-JLT

         Wallander v. Summit Technology, Inc., et al., Civil Action 
         ------------------------------------
         No. 96-12031-JLT

         Merlino v. Summit Technology, Inc., et al., Civil Action 
         ------------------------------------------
         No. 96-12044-JLT
         
Plaintiffs in these actions claim to have been purchasers of the Company's
common stock at various times between August, 1995 and July, 1996. Plaintiffs
claim violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 arising out of allegedly false and misleading public statements made by
the Company or its officers which plaintiffs allege artificially inflated the
market price of the Company's stock. Plaintiffs claim that these public
statements made material misrepresentations of fact, or failed to disclose
material information necessary to make statements made not misleading,
concerning a wide variety of matters -- including, for example, the alleged
inflation of the Company's publicly reported revenues and earnings through the
sale of laser systems for uses beyond FDA approval, the alleged obtaining of
FDA approval for


                                       12
<PAGE>   13



PART I:   FINANCIAL INFORMATION
ITEM 1:   FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)
          SUMMIT TECHNOLOGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
          NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

         the Company's Excimer System on the basis of flawed clinical data, the
         alleged adverse side effects of use of the Company's laser products,
         the alleged size of the market for LVC systems and procedures in the
         United States, the alleged competitive position (including cost,
         quality and safety) of the Company's Excimer System compared with
         excimer systems under development or sold by competitors, and the
         alleged position of LVC procedures compared with competitive procedures
         for vision correction. Among the statements which plaintiffs claim to
         have been misleading or to have unlawfully omitted material information
         are statements contained in a number of the Company's filings with the
         SEC pursuant to the reporting and other requirements of the Securities
         Exchange Act of 1934 or other provisions of federal securities laws.

         In addition, in one action plaintiff claims violations of Section 20A
         of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by certain officers of the
         Company due to sales of common stock of the Company while allegedly in
         the possession of material non-public information.

         The Company expects that all of these actions will be consolidated by
         the Court. If the cases are consolidated, the Company expects that
         plaintiffs will file a single consolidated complaint which may restate,
         modify, delete, or supplement the claims asserted in the nine
         individual actions.

         Plaintiffs seek certification of these actions as class actions,
         purportedly on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's common stock,
         other than defendants, during certain periods of time beginning as
         early as March 31, 1995 and running through July 4, 1996 in the case of
         claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and for the period of time
         between November 30, 1995 and May 10, 1996 in the case of claims under
         Section 20A. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, interest, costs and
         expenses.

         On October 1, 1996, an additional action was commenced against the
         Company, certain of its officers and directors and the four
         underwriters to the Company's October 1995 stock offering. The action
         is captioned:

         Burke v. Summit Technology, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 96-11969 JLT
         -----------------------------------------------------------------------

         The plaintiff in the action claims to have purchased shares of the
         Company's common stock pursuant to the Company's Registration Statement
         on Form S-3 dated October 23, 1995, and declared effective by the
         Securities and Exchange Commission on or about October 24, 1995 (the
         "October Registration Statement"). He claims violations of Sections 11,
         12(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 arising out of alleged
         material misstatements of fact in the October Registration Statement or
         failures to disclose


                                       13
<PAGE>   14


PART I:   FINANCIAL INFORMATION
ITEM 1:   FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED)
          SUMMIT TECHNOLOGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
          NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

         material information necessary to make statements made in the
         Registration Statement not misleading. He claims misrepresentations or
         omissions concerning a wide variety of matters -- including, for
         example, the alleged obtaining of FDA approval for the Company's
         Excimer System on the basis of flawed clinical data, the alleged
         adverse side effects of use of the Company's laser products, the
         alleged scope of FDA approval of the Company's Excimer System and its
         applicability to the Company's products, the alleged sale by the
         Company of its products in contravention of FDA regulations and alleged
         royalty payments owed by the Company.

         The Company expects that this action will be coordinated with the ten
         actions alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) by the Court.

         The plaintiff seeks certification of the action as a class action,
         purportedly on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's common stock
         pursuant to the October Registration Statement, other than defendants,
         members of the Company's Board of Directors, members of the immediate
         family of each of the individual defendants, and any entity in which
         any defendant has a controlling interest or which is affiliated with
         any of the defendants, and the legal representatives, heirs,
         successors-in-interest or assigns of any such excluded party.

         The Company believes that the allegations in these complaints are
         without merit, and it intends to defend the actions vigorously. There
         can be no assurance that the Company will not be served with additional
         complaints of a similar nature in the future, that the Company will
         ultimately prevail in the pending or any further actions, or that the
         actions, individually or in the aggregate, will not have a material
         adverse effect on the Company.


PART I:  FINANCIAL INFORMATION
ITEM 2:  MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
         FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
         SUMMIT TECHNOLOGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

         The Company is a worldwide leader in the development, manufacture and
         sale of ophthalmic laser systems designed to correct common refractive
         vision disorders such as nearsightedness, farsightedness and
         astigmatism. On October 20, 1995, the Company's Excimer System became
         the first excimer laser system in the world to be approved by the Food
         and Drug Administration for commercial sale in the United States for
         laser correction of nearsightedness. Use of the Company's Excimer
         System to treat astigmatism and farsightedness has not been approved by
         the FDA.


                                       14
<PAGE>   15


PART I:  FINANCIAL INFORMATION
ITEM 2:  MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
         FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
         (CONTINUED)
         SUMMIT TECHNOLOGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

         The Company's current strategy is to become an integrated vision
         correction business by (i) manufacturing and selling laser systems and
         related products to correct vision disorders; (ii) participating in per
         procedure royalty from its ownership in Pillar Point Partners; (iii)
         operating vision correction centers; and (iv) selling contact lenses
         and related products. The Company believes that this strategy will
         position it to participate in revenues derived from the sale of Excimer
         Systems and revenues generated from laser correction of
         nearsightedness. There can be no assurance, however, that the Company
         will be successful in achieving these goals. The Company is evaluating
         its operations and strategies, which may result in the total or partial
         disposition of one or more of the Company's businesses, or the
         acquisition by the Company of one or more additional businesses.


RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

1996 as compared with 1995

         Revenues

         Revenues for the three months ended September 30, 1996 decreased 23 %
         to $21.0 million from $27.3 million for the three months ended
         September 30, 1995. Revenues for the nine months ended September 30,
         1996 decreased 8% to $64.4 million from $69.7 million for the nine
         months ended September 30, 1995. These decreases were primarily
         attributable to lower sales of laser systems. These decreases were
         offset in part by an increase in per procedure royalties. During the
         nine months ended September 30, 1996, the Company also introduced
         several per procedure leasing programs, revenue from which will be
         recognized over the lease term. At the end of the quarter, the Company
         had 19 Vision Correction Centers (of which 14 were open at the
         beginning of the quarter) in operation which had revenues of $1.0
         million.


                                       15
<PAGE>   16



PART I:  FINANCIAL INFORMATION
ITEM 2:  MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
         FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS   
         (CONTINUED)
         SUMMIT TECHNOLOGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

         Due to uncertainty regarding acceptance of laser correction of
         nearsightedness by the ophthalmic community and the general population,
         uncertainty regarding the success of the Company's U.S. vision
         correction centers, the long sales cycle for laser systems, a decrease
         in U.S. demand for the Company's laser systems and continued
         competition, quarterly revenues are likely to remain unpredictable. In
         addition, U.S. FDA approval of VISX's excimer laser system for laser
         correction of nearsightedness in March 1996 has resulted in increased
         competition that has negatively impacted laser system sales.


         Cost of revenues

         Cost of revenues as a percentage of revenues for the three months ended
         September 30, 1996 increased to 75 % from 64% for the three months
         ended September 30, 1995. Cost of revenues as a percentage of revenues
         for the nine months ended September 30, 1996 increased to 76% from 66%
         for the nine months ended September 30, 1995. The increase in cost of
         revenues as a percentage of revenues was attributable to unabsorbed
         fixed overheads due to lower sales of laser systems, lower average
         selling price of laser systems, and costs incurred in connection with
         the Company's U.S. vision correction centers. These increases were
         partially offset by lower cost of revenues as a percentage of revenues
         associated with per procedure royalties.

         Operating Expenses

         Operating expenses for the three months ended September 30, 1996
         increased 9% to $10.0 million from $9.3 million for the three months
         ended September 30, 1995. Operating expenses for the nine months ended
         September 30, 1996 increased 42% to $37.9 million from $26.6 million
         for the nine months ended September 30, 1995. The increases are
         primarily related to costs incurred in connection with the Company's
         U.S. vision correction centers, one-time costs incurred in category
         development consumer advertising and legal expenses. In addition, in
         the second quarter, the Company had one-time costs incurred in the
         acquisition of Lens Express, Inc. These increases are offset in part
         by the Schwind settlement (see footnote 6 to the Consolidated
         Financial Statements) of $800,000 which has been accounted for as a
         reduction of operating expenses in the third quarter of 1996.


                                       16
<PAGE>   17



PART I:  FINANCIAL INFORMATION
ITEM 2:  MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
         FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS                
         (CONTINUED)
         SUMMIT TECHNOLOGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

         Net Income (Loss)

         Net loss for the three months ended September 30, 1996 was $3.9
         million. Net income for the three months ended September 30, 1995 was
         $.5 million. Net loss for the nine months ended September 30, 1996 was
         $19.5 million compared to a net loss for the nine months ended
         September 30, 1995 of $3.5 million. The increases in net loss were
         primarily due to lower revenues and higher operating expenses. The
         Company does not expect to achieve profitability in the fourth quarter
         of 1996.

         LIQUIDITY AND CAPITAL RESOURCES
         -------------------------------

         The Company's liquidity requirements have been met through external
         financing. As of September 30, 1996, the Company's cash, cash
         equivalent balances and short-term investments decreased $19.5 million
         to $76.7 million from $96.2 million as of December 31, 1995. Cash used
         by operations of $19.5 million resulted primarily from the net
         operating loss of $19.5 million. In addition, accounts receivable
         decreased $7.8 million and inventory increased $4.6 million.

         Cash used by investing activities of $18.1 million resulted primarily
         from an increase of $6.5 million in short and long-term investments,
         additions to property and equipment of $11.3 million and an increase in
         other assets of $.3 million.

         Cash provided by financing activities of $12.6 million resulted from
         net proceeds of long-term debt obligations of $12.1 million and
         proceeds from the exercise of stock options of $.5 million.

         In March of 1996, the Company obtained a $20.0 million unsecured
         revolving credit facility. The facility expires in March 1999 and
         allows the Company to borrow at LIBOR plus 75 basis points or Prime
         Rate. There have been no borrowings under this facility. Also in March
         1996, RCII obtained a $20.0 million unsecured term loan. The term loan
         is payable over 16 equal quarterly installments at LIBOR plus 125 basis
         points or Prime Rate. The term loan is guaranteed by the Company. At
         September 30, 1996, $16.3 million of borrowings were outstanding under
         this facility.


                                       17

<PAGE>   18



PART II:  OTHER INFORMATION
ITEM 1:   LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
          SUMMIT TECHNOLOGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

ITEM 1.   LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
          -----------------

         U.S. Patent Litigation against VISX

         On August 29, 1995, the Company filed suit in the U.S. District Court
         for the District of Delaware against VISX for infringement of a certain
         U.S. patent with a priority date of 1985, which was purchased by the
         Company in 1993 ("the Azema Patent"). The Company is seeking damages
         for past infringement for all excimer lasers manufactured by VISX in
         the U.S. for use outside the U.S. In addition, the Company is seeking
         to enjoin VISX from manufacturing and selling excimer lasers for any
         purpose other than U.S. clinical trials. On October 10, 1995, VISX
         filed an answer to the Company's complaint. There can be no assurance
         that the Company will prevail in this proceeding.

         German Patent Litigation

         On August 3, 1995, a German court determined that the Schwind Keratom
         ophthalmic excimer laser system distributed by Coherent, and the Chiron
         Technolas Keracor 116 ophthalmic excimer laser system distributed by
         Chiron Technolas, infringe the German counterpart of the Azema Patent.
         The court has entered cease and desist orders against Schwind and
         Chiron Technolas and has ordered them to pay damages to the Company for
         past infringements. Both the Schwind and Chiron Technolas excimer laser
         systems are manufactured in Germany. On September 5, 1995, the Company
         posted the requisite bond in Germany to enforce the injunction issued
         against Chiron Technolas by the German court, as a result of which
         Chiron Technolas is now prohibited from manufacturing, selling or using
         its Keracor 116 ophthalmic excimer laser systems in Germany, where its
         production facility is located. Chiron Technolas and Schwind appealed
         the judgment. On October 17, 1996, Schwind agreed to dismiss its appeal
         and pay the Company 1.23 million German marks (approximately $800,000)
         in satisfaction of the Company's judgment. If the Chiron Technolas
         appeal is decided against the Company, its infringement verdict in
         Germany will be overturned and it will be liable for damages which may
         or may not exceed the amount of the bond. This bond is included in
         non-current assets as restricted cash of $1.5 million at September 30,
         1996.

                                       18
<PAGE>   19


PART II:  OTHER INFORMATION
ITEM 1:   LEGAL PROCEEDINGS (CONTINUED)
          SUMMIT TECHNOLOGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

         Canadian Patent Litigation

         On September 5, 1995, VISX sued the Company and eight Canadian
         ophthalmologists who use or have used the Company's Excimer System, the
         Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, asserting that the Excimer
         System infringed in certain Canadian patents held by VISX. In such
         suit, VISX seeks, among other things, damages for past infringement and
         a permanent injunction preventing the Company and the other defendants
         from manufacturing, marketing, selling, using and inducing others to
         use the Excimer System in Canada. The Company believes that it has
         valid defenses to VISX's suit and intends to defend such action
         vigorously; however, there can be no assurance that the Company will be
         successful. The Company does not believe that the Canadian market is
         material to its business. There can be no assurance that additional
         patent infringement claims in the United States or in other countries
         will not be asserted against the Company, or, if asserted, that the
         Company will be successful in defending against such claims.

         FTC Investigation

         On October 13, 1995, the Company received notice that the Federal Trade
         Commission ("FTC") initiated an investigation to determine whether
         Pillar Point Partners, VISX, and the Company or any of their
         predecessors, alone or in conjunction with others, is engaging or has
         engaged in any unfair methods of competition in violation of the
         Federal Trade Commission Act, relating to certain arrangements
         concerning patents of devices and procedures, and/or practices relating
         to the sale or distribution of certain ophthalmic surgical devices. The
         FTC has issued subpoenas to the Company and others (including one
         officer of the Company and David F. Muller, the Company's former
         Chairman and Chief Executive Officer) for testimony and to produce
         certain materials and information relating to the subject matter of the
         investigation. In forming Pillar Point Partners, the Company has taken
         measures to structure the partnership in a manner consistent with U.S.
         antitrust laws. The compliance of Pillar Point Partners with these laws
         will depend upon the activities of the partners, a determination of
         what constitutes the relevant market for purposes of such laws, the
         number and relative strength of competitors in such markets and
         numerous other factors, many of which are presently unknown or are
         beyond the control of Pillar Point Partners. There can be no assurance
         that the FTC's investigation will ultimately lead the FTC to agree that
         Pillar Point Partners complies with the U.S. antitrust laws. The
         Company is accordingly unable to predict whether or not, or when, any
         proceeding may be brought by the FTC following such investigation, or
         the scope of relief, if any, that may ultimately be ordered in the
         event that any such proceeding were determined adversely to the Company
         and/or Pillar Point Partners


                                       19
<PAGE>   20


PART II:  OTHER INFORMATION
ITEM 1:   LEGAL PROCEEDINGS (CONTINUED)
          SUMMIT TECHNOLOGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

         Antitrust Litigation

         In June 1996, a Texas ophthalmologist, Robert G. Burlingame, sued
         Pillar Point, VISX, the Company and certain affiliates of VISX and the
         Company in the Federal District Court for the Northern District of
         California alleging that the defendants have violated and are violating
         federal and state antitrust laws. The plaintiff seeks damages of an
         unspecified amount, treble damages, attorneys' fees and a permanent
         injunction against future violations. On September 5, 1996, a Nevada
         ophthalmologist, John R. Shepard, through his professional corporation,
         commenced a similar lawsuit against the same parties, in the same
         Court, alleging substantially similar claims and seeking substantially
         similar relief.

         Pillar Point Partners Patent Litigation

         In March 1995, Pillar Point Partners sued LaserSight, Inc. for patent
         infringement in the Federal District Court for Delaware. Although the
         suit is based on a patent licensed to Pillar Point Partners by VISX,
         the Company will share in the expenses of this litigation. In addition,
         the defendant, LaserSight, Inc. has entered a declaratory judgment
         counterclaim challenging Pillar Point Partners' ability to enforce its
         rights under one of its patents, which counterclaim asserts, among
         other things, that the alleged pooling of patents by Pillar Point
         Partners constitutes patent misuse. Any successful challenge to the
         structure and operation of Pillar Point Partners or to its patents
         could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business,
         financial condition and results of operations.

         Pillar Point Partners has also commenced patent infringement litigation
         against certain ophthalmologists believed to be using homemade laser
         systems not licensed under patents held by Pillar Point Partners, as
         well as an individual believed to be inducing infringement of such
         patents. In one such action, the defendants have asserted a
         counterclaim seeking a declaration that the patents in suit are
         invalid. In addition, the Company is pursuing litigation against
         certain other parties engaged in similar activities, including an
         importer, a service provider and certain other ophthalmologists, some
         of whom have asserted antitrust and other counterclaims against the
         Company.

         In October, 1996, Autonomous Technologies Corporation ("Autonomous")
         sued Pillar Point Partners, the Company and VISX (and certain
         affiliates of the Company and VISX) in the Federal District Court for
         Delaware. In this action, Autonomous seeks, inter alia, a declaratory
         judgment that it does not infringe a certain United States Patent held
         exclusively by Pillar Point Partners, or, alternatively, a judgment
         ordering that all U.S. patents held by Pillar Point Partners, together
         with their foreign counterparts, be deemed enforceable and/or be
         licensed to Autonomous.


                                       20
<PAGE>   21


PART II:  OTHER INFORMATION
ITEM 1:   LEGAL PROCEEDINGS (CONTINUED)
          SUMMIT TECHNOLOGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

         Seriani Litigation

         On October 26, 1992, Joseph Seriani brought suit against Lens Express,
         Inc. ("Lens") and certain of its former shareholders in the Florida
         Circuit Court. The suit alleges violations of the Florida Civil
         Remedies for Criminal Practices Act - the Florida civil RICO statute -
         based on events which allegedly occurred in the mid-1980's. Seriani's
         claims against Lens have been dismissed several times for failure to
         state a viable claim, but in each instance with leave to amend and
         refile. On May 15, 1996, the date of the Company's acquisition of Lens,
         Seriani and his wife Rhonda Seriani filed, but have yet to serve on the
         Company, an amended complaint which includes the Company as an
         additional defendant. The amended Seriani complaint alleges, among
         other things, that the Company is liable for the alleged actions of the
         other defendants by virtue of its acquisition of Lens. The amended
         Seriani complaint seeks damages of an unspecified amount, treble
         damages and attorneys' fees. Lens' current motion to dismiss the suit
         is presently pending. The Company believes the Serianis' suit against
         the Company and Lens is without merit and intends to contest it
         vigorously.

         Shareholder Securities Law Class Action Litigation

         Between August 2, 1996 and October 8, 1996, fourteen actions were
         commenced against the Company and, in some instances, against certain
         of its officers in the United States District Court for the District of
         Massachusetts. The actions are the following:


                  Pearl v. Summit Technology, Inc. et al., Civil Action 
                  -----------------------------------------------------
                  No. 96-11589-JLT              
                  -----------------     
                  Locke et al. v. Summit Technology, Inc. et al., Civil 
                  -----------------------------------------------------
                  Action No. 96-11633-JLT
                  -----------------------
                  Kaliser et al. v. Summit Technology, Inc. et al., Civil 
                  -------------------------------------------------------
                  Action No. 96-11647-JLT
                  -----------------------
                  Kleiman v. Summit Technology, Inc. et al., Civil Action 
                  -------------------------------------------------------
                  No. 96-11648-JLT
                  ----------------
                  Raphael v. Summit Technology, Inc. et al., Civil Action 
                  -------------------------------------------------------
                  No. 96-11664-JLT
                  ----------------
                  Grover v. Summit Technology, Inc. et al., Civil Action 
                  ------------------------------------------------------
                  No. 96-11731-JLT
                  ----------------
                  Shear et al. v. Summit Technology, Inc. et al., Civil 
                  -----------------------------------------------------
                  Action No. 96-11747-JLT
                  -----------------------
                  Kaye v. Summit Technology, Inc., et al., Civil Action 
                  -----------------------------------------------------
                  No. 96-11809-JLT
                  ----------------
                  Markewich et al. v. Summit Technology, Inc., et al., 
                  ----------------------------------------------------
                  Civil Action No. 96-11845-JLT
                  -----------------------------
                  Teachers' Retirement System of Louisiana v. Summit 
                  --------------------------------------------------
                  Technology, Inc., et al.,   
                  -------------------------
                  Civil Action No. 96-11899 JLT
                  Hyman v. Summit Technology, Inc., et al., 
                  ----------------------------------------
                  Civil Action No. 96-11976-JLT           
                  Aitken, et al. v. Summit Technology, Inc., et al., 
                  -------------------------------------------------
                  Civil Action No. 96-11977-JLT                    
                  Wallander v. Summit Technology, Inc., et al., 
                  --------------------------------------------
                  Civil Action No. 96-12031-JLT               
                  Merlino v. Summit Technology, Inc., et al., 
                  ------------------------------------------
                  Civil Action No. 96-12044-JLT



        Plaintiffs in these actions claim to have been purchasers of the        
        Company's common stock at various times between August, 1995 and July,
        1996. Plaintiffs claim violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
        Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising out of allegedly false and
        misleading public statements made by the Company or its officers


                                       21
<PAGE>   22


PART II:  OTHER INFORMATION
ITEM 1:   LEGAL PROCEEDINGS (CONTINUED)
          SUMMIT TECHNOLOGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

         which plaintiffs allege artificially inflated the market price of the
         Company's stock. Plaintiffs claim that these public statements made
         material misrepresentations of fact, or failed to disclose material
         information necessary to make statements made not misleading,
         concerning a wide variety of matters -- including, for example, the
         alleged inflation of the Company's publicly reported revenues and
         earnings through the sale of laser systems for uses beyond FDA
         approval, the alleged obtaining of FDA approval for the Company's
         Excimer System on the basis of flawed clinical data, the alleged
         adverse side effects of use of the Company's laser products, the
         alleged size of the market for LVC systems and procedures in the United
         States, the alleged competitive position (including cost, quality and
         safety) of the Company's Excimer System compared with excimer systems
         under development or sold by competitors, and the alleged position of
         LVC procedures compared with competitive procedures for vision
         correction. Among the statements which plaintiffs claim to have been
         misleading or to have unlawfully omitted material information are
         statements contained in a number of the Company's filings with the SEC
         pursuant to the reporting and other requirements of the Securities
         Exchange Act of 1934 or other provisions of federal securities laws.

         In addition, in one action plaintiff claims violations of Section 20A
         of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by certain officers of the
         Company due to sales of common stock of the Company while allegedly in
         the possession of material non-public information.

         The Company expects that all of these actions will be consolidated by
         the Court. If the cases are consolidated, the Company expects that
         plaintiffs will file a single consolidated complaint which may restate,
         modify, delete, or supplement the claims asserted in the nine
         individual actions.

         Plaintiffs seek certification of these actions as class actions,
         purportedly on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's common stock,
         other than defendants, during certain periods of time beginning as
         early as March 31, 1995 and running through July 4, 1996 in the case of
         claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and for the period of time
         between November 30, 1995 and May 10, 1996 in the case of claims under
         Section 20A. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, interest, costs and
         expenses.

         On October 1, 1996, an additional action was commenced against the
         Company, certain of its officers and directors and the four
         underwriters to the Company's October 1995 stock offering. The action
         is captioned:

                                       22
<PAGE>   23


PART II:  OTHER INFORMATION
ITEM 1:   LEGAL PROCEEDINGS (CONTINUED)
          SUMMIT TECHNOLOGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

         Burke v. Summit Technology, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 96-11969 JLT
         -----------------------------------------------------------------------

         The plaintiff in the action claims to have purchased shares of the
         Company's common stock pursuant to the Company's Registration Statement
         on Form S-3 dated October 23, 1995, and declared effective by the
         Securities and Exchange Commission on or about October 24, 1995 (the
         "October Registration Statement"). He claims violations of Sections 11,
         12(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 arising out of alleged
         material misstatements of fact in the October Registration Statement or
         failures to disclose material information necessary to make statements
         made in the Registration Statement not misleading. He claims
         misrepresentations or omissions concerning a wide variety of matters --
         including, for example, the alleged obtaining of FDA approval for the
         Company's Excimer System on the basis of flawed clinical data, the
         alleged adverse side effects of use of the Company's laser products,
         the alleged scope of FDA approval of the Company's Excimer System and
         its applicability to the Company's products, the alleged sale by the
         Company of its products in contravention of FDA regulations and alleged
         royalty payments owed by the Company.

         The Company expects that this action will be coordinated with the ten
         actions alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) by the Court.

         The plaintiff seeks certification of the action as a class action,
         purportedly on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's common stock
         pursuant to the October Registration Statement, other than defendants,
         members of the Company's Board of Directors, members of the immediate
         family of each of the individual defendants, and any entity in which
         any defendant has a controlling interest or which is affiliated with
         any of the defendants, and the legal representatives, heirs,
         successors-in-interest or assigns of any such excluded party.

         The Company believes that the allegations in these complaints are
         without merit, and it intends to defend the actions vigorously. There
         can be no assurance that the Company will not be served with additional
         complaints of a similar nature in the future, that the Company will
         ultimately prevail in the pending or any further actions, or that the
         actions, individually or in the aggregate, will not have a material
         adverse effect on the Company.

  
                                       23

<PAGE>   24


PART II:  OTHER INFORMATION
ITEM 5:   OTHER INFORMATION
          SUMMIT TECHNOLOGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

ITEM 5.   OTHER INFORMATION
          -----------------

          On September 5, 1996, David F. Muller, the Company's Chairman and
          Chief Executive Officer, was terminated from all positions with the
          Company and its subsidiaries. D. Verne Sharma, the Company's
          President, was elected interim Chief Executive Officer. There can be
          no assurance that disputes will not arise between Dr. Muller and the
          Company relating to his termination or that, if such disputes were to
          occur, they could be resolved without litigation.

          On October 7, 1996, the Company's Registration Statement No. 333-03765
          dated October 3, 1996 was declared effective by the Securities
          Exchange Commision. The information contained in such Registration
          Statement, which is on file with the Securities Exchange Commision, is
          incorporated herein by reference.


PART II:  OTHER INFORMATION
ITEM 6:   EXHIBITS AND REPORTS ON FORM 8-K
          SUMMIT TECHNOLOGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

ITEM 6.   EXHIBITS AND REPORTS ON FORM 8-K
          --------------------------------

     a.   Exhibits
          --------


          11   Statement Re: Computation of per share earnings

          99   The Company's Registration Statement No. 33-03765 dated October
               3, 1996*


*On file with the Securities Exchange Commission and incorporated herein by 
reference.

                                       24

<PAGE>   25



PART II:  OTHER INFORMATION
ITEM 6:   EXHIBITS AND REPORTS ON FORM 8-K
          SUMMIT TECHNOLOGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

     b.   Reports on Form 8-K
          -------------------

          On May 24, 1996, the Company filed a Form 8-K related to its
          acquisition of Lens Express, Inc. for 1,708,500 shares of the
          Company's common stock. On July 31, 1996, the Company filed an
          amendment to this 8-K. On October 16, 1996, the Company filed a Form
          8-K disclosing that it had been served with four shareholder actions
          in addition to those described in its Registration Statement on Form
          S-3 (No. 333-03765).


Cautionary Statement under "Safe Harbor" Provisions of the Securities
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Litigation Reform Act of 1995
-----------------------------

         Statements made in this report may contain information about the
         Company's future business prospects. Some of these statements may be
         considered "forward looking". These statements are subject to risks and
         uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from
         those set forth in or implied by such forward-looking statements. For
         further information regarding cautionary statements and factors
         affecting future operating results, please refer to Summit's annual
         report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1995 and its
         Registration Statement No. 333-03765 dated October 3, 1996 on file with
         the Securities Exchange Commission.


                                       25

<PAGE>   26


                                   SIGNATURES


Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned thereunto duly authorized.

                                          SUMMIT TECHNOLOGY, INC.


Date:                               By:
      ---------------                     ----------------------------
                                          D. Verne Sharma
                                          President and Chief Executive Officer

Date:                               By:
      ---------------                     ----------------------------
                                          Rajiv Bhatt
                                          Executive Vice President and
                                          Chief Financial Officer



                                       26