The Attorney General of Texans 

January 23, 1981 

MARK WHITE 

Attorney Gecierel 

John W. Davis, O.D., Chairman 

Texas Optometry Board 

Commerce Park, Suite Ii-101 

5555 North Lamar 

Austin, Texas 78751 

Opinion No. MN-292 

Re: Optometry Act requirement 

that the business of anoptician be 

separate from the practice of an 

optometrist 

Dear Mr. Davis 

You ask four questions regarding the interpretation ~of article 4552-5.15 

of the Texas Optometry Act. V.T.C.S. article 4552-5.15. These provisions 

require the separation of an optometrist’s premises from those of a 

dispensing optician, where both occupy space ln the same building. You have 

described four instances where an optometrist’s premises are adjacent to the 

premises of a d&en&g optician, and you ask whether the physical layouts 

of the offices comply with subsections (a) and (b) of article 4552-5.15 of the 

Texas Optometry Act. In answering these questions, we will apply the law 

to the facts as given w you, since we do not resolve fact questions in the 

opinion process. 

Article 4552-515 provides in. pertinent part: 

(a) The purpose of this section is to insure that 

the practice of optometry shall be carried out in such 

a manner that it ls completely and totally separated 

from the business of any dispensing optician, with no 

control of one by the other and no solicitation for one 

by the other, except as hereinafter set forth. 

(b) If en optometrist occupies spece for the 

practice of optometry in a buildhig or premises in 

which any person, film, or corporation engages ln the 

business of a dispensing optician, the space occupied 

by the optometrist shall be separated from the space 

occupied ty the dispensing optician by solid partitions 

or walls from floor to celling. The space occupied by 

the optometrist shall have a patient’s entrance 

opening on a public street, hall, lobby, corridor, or 

other public thoroughfare. An entrance is not a 

patient’s entrance within the meaning of this subsection unless actually used as an entrance by the 

optometrist’s patients. 

p. 932 
,John W. Davis - Page Two ~@v-2%‘) 

In your first question, you provide the following facts: An optometrist practices 

next &or to a dispensing optician. The optometrist leases his space from the 

dispensing optician. The patient’s entrance to the optometrist’s office opens on a hall, 

leading to a lobby which has a &or opening on a public street. A door from the 

dispensing optician’s space opens to the lobby. A solid wall separates the dispensing 

optician’s space from the hallway leading to the optometrists office. Thirty-six inch 

high glass panels are set into the wall thity inches from the floor. The rest of the 

wall is opaque. Doors from both the optometrist’s space and the dispensing optician’s 

space lead into the contact lens room. In considering whether the physical layout of 

these offices complies with subsections (a) and (b) of article 4552-5.15 you wish us to 

pay particular attention to the following details: 

(a) The common lobby area; 

(b) The fact that the partition separating the dispensing 

optician’s space from the hallway which leads to the 

optometrist’s office is partially constructed of solid glass; 

(c) The presence of the door in the wall leading from the 

optician’s office into the contact lens room which is part 

of the optometrist’s space. 

In determining the meaning of “solid” wall, we may consult a dictionary. See 

Board of Insurance Commissioner’s v. Duncan, 174 S.W. 2d 326 (Tex. Civ. AwT 

Amarillo 1943, writ ref’d), Websters Third International Dictionary defines solid as 

“not interrupted by any breaks or opening.” In cur opinion, a solid wall within 

subsection (b) of. article 4552-5.15 may include transparent or trruwlucent panes of 

glass When the legislature wished premises used by optometrists to have opaque 

walls, it said so. See V.T.C.S. art. 4552-5.14(d) (premises leased by optometrists from 

mercantile establi%ent must be separated by solid, opaque walls). However, a solid 

wall may not be broken by windows that open or by doors. 

Therefore, we do not believe that any violation of the act occurs because the 

partition separating the dispensing optician’s space from the hallway is partly made of 

glass. We do, however, believe there is a violation of the Act in that a door opens 

from the optician’s office into the contact lens room which is part of the optometrist’s 

space. Because of that door, the premises of the two business entities are not 

completely separated by a solid partition. 

The two businesses open on to a common lobby area. The Act requires the 

patient’s entrance to the optometrist’s office open on a public lobby or other public 

thoroughfare. Whether or not it is a public lobby is a question of fact which cannot be 

resolved in the opinion process. 

We do not believe the facts presented in question 2 are sufficiently different 

from those presented in question 1 to require separate treatment. 

p. 933 
John W. Davis - Page Three (Mw292) 

You inform us that the office layouts under consideration in question 3 are 

virtually identical to those presented in questions 1 and 2. The only difference of 

which you inform us is that the lobby &es not have a door opening on a public 

thoroughfare. You do not inform us where the lobby leads to. As already stated, the 

statute requires that the optometrist’s office shall have a patient’s entrance opening on 

“a public . . . lobby, corri&r, or other public thoroughfare.” V.T.C.S. art. 4552-5.15, 

Sb. We cannot determine whether the lobby in question 3 is a public lobby without 

resolving fact questions, which cannot be done in the opinion process. 

Question 4 concerns sn optometrist’s office next door to a dispensing optician. 

Both businesses are located in a mall The storage room of each office opens into a 

common restroom. Thus, the two offices are not separated by a solid partition, since 

. each office has access to the other through doors leadmg out of the storage areas into 

the common restroom. We believe these premises are in violation of subsection (b) of 

article 4552-5.15. 

SUMMARY 

Article 4552-5.&(b) of the Texas Optometry Act, requires 

premises occupied by an optometrist to be separated from 

premises occupied by a dispensing optician by solid partitions or 

walls. Such solid partitions or walls may contain glass panels 

but may not be broken by a door or window which opens. 

# zx& 

MARK WHITE 

Attorney General of Texas 

JOHN W. FAINTER, JR. 

First Assistant Attorney General 

RICHARD E. GRAY III 

Executive Assistant Attorney General 

Prepared by Susan Garrison 

Assistant Attorney General 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMlTTEE 

Susan L. Garrison, Acting Chairman 

C. Robert Heath 

p. 934