CO Code § 12-275-108 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 12 - Professions and Occupations|Article 275 - Optometrists|§ 12-275-108. Powers and Duties of the Board - Rules - Limitation on Authority

  In addition to all other powers and duties conferred upon the board by this article 275, the board has the following powers and duties:   To determine acceptability of scores from tests administered by any approved or accredited national testing organization;    To adopt rules pursuant to section 12-20-204. The board shall set the passing score of any examination at a minimum acceptable level of competence for the practice of optometry.    To grant licenses in conformity with this article 275 to applicants found qualified;    To aid the several district attorneys of this state in the enforcement of this article 275 and in the prosecution of all persons, firms, associations, or corporations charged with the violation of any of its provisions;    To establish programs of education for optometrists wishing to enter new, proven, and generally accepted areas of lawful practice involving techniques for which they have not received appropriate education;    To prepare and distribute to consumers as is reasonably necessary written communication providing information concerning the board and the regulation of optometry in Colorado;    To make investigations, hold hearings, and take evidence in accordance with section 12-20-403 in all matters relating to the exercise and performance of the powers and duties vested in the board;    To prescribe rules authorizing optometrists to utilize therapeutic procedures and therapeutic techniques in the practice of optometry. These rules shall in no way expand the practice of optometry, nor shall the rules include the use of therapeutic or cosmetic lasers. The rules shall specify approved programs of education offered by an accreditation organization recognized or approved by the Commission on Recognition of Postsecondary Accreditation or the United States department of education or their successors.       The authority granted the board under the provisions of this article 275 shall not be construed to authorize the board to arbitrate or adjudicate fee disputes between licensees or between a licensee and any other party.     History. Source: L. 2019: Entire title R&RE with relocations,(HB 19-1172), ch. 136, p. 1413, § 1, effective October 1.    Editor's note:   Subsection (1) is similar to former § 12-40-107 (1) ; and subsection (2) is similar to former § 12-40-107.5 , as those sections existed prior to 2019.   ANNOTATION   Annotator's note. The following annotations include cases decided under former provisions similar to this section.   Any regulations by an administrative body charged with the responsibility of implementing the legislative act regulating practice of optometry must reasonably relate to the public health, safety, and welfare. Dixon v. Zick, 179 Colo. 278 , 500 P.2d 130 (1972).   State board of optometric examiners must strictly comply with its enabling statute. Sherrerd v. Johnson, 32 Colo. App. 367, 511 P.2d 923 (1973).   The optometry statute contains no provisions governing the procedures to be followed by the board under the rule-making power. Colo. State Bd. of Optometric Exam'rs v. Dixon, 165 Colo. 488 , 440 P.2d 287 (1968).   The general provisions of the administrative code are therefore applicable. Colo. State Bd. of Optometric Exam'rs v. Dixon, 165 Colo. 488 , 440 P.2d 287 (1968).   Judicial review, including injunctive relief, is available to persons aggrieved by agency “action” including an agency rule, where irreparable damage would otherwise result. Colo. State Bd. of Optometric Exam'rs v. Dixon, 165 Colo. 488 , 440 P.2d 287 (1968).   The trial court is specifically authorized to postpone the effective date of agency action pending review. Colo. State Bd. of Optometric Exam'rs v. Dixon, 165 Colo. 488 , 440 P.2d 287 (1968).   The supreme court could not say as a matter of law that there was an abuse of discretion in revoking the license under the uncontradicted evidence of immoral and unprofessional conduct. Cardamon v. State Bd. of Optometric Exam'rs, 165 Colo. 520 , 441 P.2d 25 (1968).