 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / December 2004Simple optometrist due diligence question
If a patient sees their optometrist one year after they got a prescription from that optometrist, and that patient states that when they had that prescription filled four months earlier that the new glasses caused blurry vision in one eye, but the next day they seemed okay, but the reason for the appointment is that again that eye's vision is blurred--is the optometrist failing to perform due diligence if he fails to examine the lens of the glasses for that eye? This is not a hypothetical question. In my case the optometrist did not exam the lens, even after I prompted him with the question, "Don't you want to check the lens in the glasses?". The optometrist later discovered that the lens did not match the description. Has that optometrist failed to perform due diligence the day of the exam when he did not look at the lens of the glasses? > If a patient sees their optometrist one year after they got a prescription > from that optometrist, and that patient states that when they had that [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Has that optometrist failed to perform due diligence the day of the exam > when he did not look at the lens of the glasses? What do you mean by the expression "perform due diligence"? (Maybe this is a US term which I'm not familiar with) If I were the optometrist I'd first check your vision with the glasses on, and if it was blurred in one eye then I would check the lens against the prescription. However if your vision with the glasses on was as expected, I would not normally check the glasses. BTW, if the lens was made incorrectly, why was your vision OK the next day, and why did it take you four months to go back to the optometrist? Dom Due diligence, from dictionary.com: 1 : such diligence as a reasonable person under the same circumstances would use : use of reasonable but not necessarily exhaustive efforts called also reasonable diligence NOTE: Due diligence is used most often in connection with the performance of a professional or fiduciary duty, or with regard to proceeding with a court action. Due care is used more often in connection with general tort actions. My vision seemed OK the next day because I checked it indoors at a too short distance, and it seemed OK. I did not know at the time that the distance was too short, and that the lighting factored into it. Then I returned to my hectic work schedule, where it was not likely to show up, as I work with computers. It turns out that the astigmitism was off by six degrees in the lens. The Dr. missed it, and since I could read the 20/20 line, was sure my lenses were okay. But my normal correction is 20/15, so seeing 20/20 with one eye makes it quite blurry by comparison with a 20/15 eye. Reece >> If a patient sees their optometrist one year after they got a >> prescription [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > Dom I would say that the examination of the lenses would not be needed to constitute due diligence in this case as it seems that the prescription was filled 7 months after being issued AND the lenses seemed to work for a significant amount of time that they were being worn. I always check the patients current prescription whenever there is an issue of blurred vision however. The use of the phrase "failed to perform due diligence" suggests that a lawsuit is being considered. This case has no chance of winning any sort of lawsuit, if that is what you are considering. nipidoc > If a patient sees their optometrist one year after they got a prescription > from that optometrist, and that patient states that when they had that [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Has that optometrist failed to perform due diligence the day of the exam > when he did not look at the lens of the glasses? Thank you for your response. I am trying to see what kind of leverage I can bring to bear to get this Dr.'s company to pay for a lens that I ordered to correct the problem that he failed to identify. That I ordered because he failed to identify the lens as the culprit. I would say that at least the Dr. is a terrible troubleshooter. But you are saying that a professional approach to my situation allows for a choice to be made by a Dr. to not check the lenses, and still be considered a professional approach? Are you saying that he was professional in not checking the lens? Reece >I would say that the examination of the lenses would not be needed to >constitute due diligence in this case as it seems that the prescription was [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >> Has that optometrist failed to perform due diligence the day of the exam >> when he did not look at the lens of the glasses? > Thank you for your response. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Reece If you know that there's only one answer that you'll accept, why bother posting the question? Scott Scott, I do troubleshooting for a living. A good troubleshooter looks at all the variables that may be coming into play, and tries to learn as much about the problem as possible. As such, what may seem pigheaded to you is actually an attempt by me for unambiguous clarity in my mind that the problem is clearly understood and that all things are properly weighted. Sometimes a different phrasing of a question brings a different response as well. But I understand that it might appear to you that I am only interested in accepting the answer I want. What I am actually doing is making certain that an answer I might not prefer is correct, when that is put forth as the answer. Reece >> Thank you for your response. >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Scott > I do troubleshooting for a living. A good troubleshooter looks at all > the variables that may be coming into play, and tries to learn as much > about the problem as possible. I would think the first step for a troubleshooter would be to determine if there is trouble. Your complaint seems to be one day of blurry vision that resolved. Now, you want the provider to pay for a new lens a year later. FWIW -- six degrees does not seem like a huge error in an axis of astigmatism, and the 20/20 line seems like a fine place to check your correction. It seems like the doc did fine by you. Scott Perhaps I am not being clear. My complaint was that my lens caused blurry vision the day I got it, that it seemed okay after that, and that in September of this year I noticed that I was seeing blurry out of that eye, relative to my other eye. The O.D. in this exam, which I paid for, did not run any tests with my glasses on other than having me read the 20/20 line. He did not check the lens. He did not have me read the 20/15 line. He simply did not do the simple tests that would have solved the problem. Instead he told me that there was no problem. He later, on a later date, clearly found there was a problem. Clearly the doc did not do fine by me. Would you be happy with such a result, if it caused you to spend an extra $160 for nothing? Had he identified the problem, the eyeglass retailer would have fixed it for free. In fact, when he did identify the problem, the eyeglass retailer did agree to fix it for free. But his error cost me $160 due to his not identifying the error and giving me a "very slightly changed" new prescription, which he did not identify as being for the other eye. Thus I bought a new lens to fix my problem, which still existed after the prescription was filled, and provided me with no benefit. That is the lens I want him to pay for. Now the eyeglass retailer is eating up part of that $160 lens cost, and I want my O.D. to pick up the rest. Do you still think that the doc did fine by me? Reece >> I do troubleshooting for a living. A good troubleshooter looks at all >> the variables that may be coming into play, and tries to learn as much [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Scott "Reece" <neweducation@yahoo.com> wrote in news:FLaid.19522$5b1.2188 @newssvr17.news.prodigy.com: > Do you still think that the doc did fine by me? > > Reece Yes, I do. Scott >"Reece" <neweducation@yahoo.com> wrote in news:FLaid.19522$5b1.2188 >@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Yes, I do. I don't. But then I understand what the OP is saying and am not sure that the rest of you do :-) Ann Thanks, Ann. I am certain that the O.D. didn't do right by me, and have benefited quite a bit from this board. I came in on this issue thinking that the O.D. should have checked the lens. Now I see how to better frame the problem and situation. I pick up my glasses tomorrow at the retail glasses store, and will visit with my optometrist to encourage him to refund to me the extra money that his not checking my lens and not testing me on the 20/15 line cost me. He clearly did not follow best practices, and I don't intend to be the one to pay for his mistake. He discounted the complaint of blurry vision in my right eye when I looked through my glasses, and that was the _exclusive_ reason for my appointment with him. He discounted that complaint since I was able to read the 20/20 line. Oh, well. Reece >>"Reece" <neweducation@yahoo.com> wrote in news:FLaid.19522$5b1.2188 >>@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Ann > He discounted the complaint of blurry > vision in my right eye when I looked through my glasses, and that was > the _exclusive_ reason for my appointment with him. He didn't discount it. YOU TOLD HIM IT RESOLVED!! If your vision was no longer blurry-- remember, you TOLD him it was no longer blurry-- and you tested to 20/20 with the glasses on, you had no complaint. In fact, think of it this way. You buy a piece of gear, you hold on to it for a year, not even bothering to unpack it. When you unpack it, it doesn't work. If you had opened it right away, the vendor likely would have replaced it. A year later, you're SOL. Another thing-- the optician was perfectly capable of telling if the lens matched the prescription, even without the optometrist. Why didn't you just ask the optician to check? It was their mistake, not your optometrist's. In fact, even a year later, if you could demonstrate that you didn't get a correct prescription, I bet most opticians would replace the lens for free. Perhaps you should consider voting with your feet here. Why don't you fill us in on the details, as I don't believe that a 6 degree difference in axis would bother many people. How big is the correction? Scott Scott, In September I was in the retail glasses place to purchase a pair of Rx sunglasses. And I did a quick check of my eyes, and observed that the vision in my right eye through my glasses was blurred. And that is what prompted the appointment with the O.D., whose office is in an open shared space with the retail glasses place. So on the day of the appointment I was having my eyes checked because of the blur I was experiencing wearing the glasses that day. It is additional information that on the day I picked them up, four months earlier, from another branch of that retail glasses chain, that I immediately noticed that my vision was blurred. I noticed this in the parking lot, and returned immediately. It was worse than my old glasses. The salesperson told me that it was the end of the day and that people's eyes are tired, and to try them tomorrow. So the next day I put them on, and indoors they seemed fine. And I rushed off to my hectic work world thinking they were okay after all. But that day in September of this year, they were not okay. And so I made an appointment and had an exam, exclusively because I was seeing blurry _that_ day. I have never considered my O.D. culpable for the fact that my original prescription was goofed up by the lab. He is an independent O.D., not part of the glasses retailer. My complaint with my O.D. is that he did not identify the fact that my glasses were screwed up on the day of that appointment this September. And because of this, when he wrote a prescription that was "not significantly different" than the original prescription, I used it. But the change, which he failed to state, was in my left eye. And so I ordered a new lens to fix my problem, and it of course had no such effect. I was already delighted with the vision in my left eye. And so this new lens order is directly linked to my O.D. failing to identify the fact that my glasses were not as prescribed. And whatever the retailer does not pay for the new lens for my left eye, I expect my O.D.'s company to pay for. Because I didn't need a more perfect lens for my left eye. Reece >> He discounted the complaint of blurry >> vision in my right eye when I looked through my glasses, and that was [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Scott Scott, The correction: Single vision ___ sph cyl Axis od -3.50 -1.50 017 os -3.50 -1.25 167 Reece >> He discounted the complaint of blurry >> vision in my right eye when I looked through my glasses, and that was [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Scott I personally would have checked the lenses, but I would say that the doctor still acted professionaly even though he did not check the lenses. Considering that you filled the prescription 7 months after it was issued, and then waited another 4 months to return them having claimed that they worked well for the majority of the 4 months, then I would say that his due dilligence has been met. However, if it has been determined that your poor vision was the result of the lens and NOT the result of an Rx change, then I would probably remake the lenses for you at no charge. He probably is not under any obligation to do so, since you waited 4 months. But I would have done it. nipidoc > Thank you for your response. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Reece Thanks for your response. This is a case of an independent optomitrist, so he does not have the option of remaking or fixing a lens problem, as he does not sell glasses. This is to say that he supports a major glasses retailer. So the businesses are not integrated as one. When I went in with the blurred vision complaint, and paid for a new exam, he tested my eyes, and said that they were fine, and that there was a slight change in perscription possible, and that it wouldn't be significant. He gave me a lens to demonstrate that it wouldn't be significant change over my current glasses perscription. I tested the difference looking through my glasses with my right eye, and did see a difference. What he did not say was that this change was for my left eye. So I ordered a new lens with this new prescription, which of course failed to fix my blurriness, as it was, unbeknownst to me, for the wrong eye. It is this unnecessary lens order that I want him to pay for. The retailer is fixing their error without charge. Thanks again. >I personally would have checked the lenses, but I would say that the doctor >still acted professionaly even though he did not check the lenses. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >> >> Reece > Thank you for your response. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > lens as the culprit. I would say that at least the Dr. is a terrible > troubleshooter. It is unrealistic to expect the doctor is to refund money that you did not pay to him. You should be looking to the person who made the lens wrong to redo a no charge lens. Also the lens maker should have rechecked the lens against the first prescription and discovered the mistake. The best you can expect from the doctor is a refund of the fee paid for the recheck eye exam. Dr Judy > But you are saying that a professional approach to my situation allows for > a choice to be made by a Dr. to not check the lenses, and still be [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] >>> Has that optometrist failed to perform due diligence the day of the exam >>> when he did not look at the lens of the glasses? Dr Judy, The retail glasses store is fixing the bad lens at no charge. But, when my O.D. failed to identify the lens in the exam that is in discussion, he gave me a new prescription, which he said was insignificantly different than the previous one. And he gave me a glass to look through while I was wearing my glasses to see that there was almost no difference. But there was a difference. But my complaint was about my right eye, and his change was for my left eye. And he failed to state that the prescription was for the left eye, and so I naturally thought that I should order this new lens to solve my problem. That is the lens I want him to pay for--the lens that I never had to buy because it had nothing to do with my problem. Reece >> Thank you for your response. >> [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] >>>> Has that optometrist failed to perform due diligence the day of the >>>> exam when he did not look at the lens of the glasses? Additional question: Is the fact that the Dr. did not test my vision with my glasses on beyond the 20/20 line, when blurriness was the complaint, a failure to perform due diligence? The way I was finally able to convince him that there was a problem, after spending a chunk of change in a misguided attempt to fix the problem, was by not only saying I saw blurry through one eye, which didn't work with him, but by observing that the background on the eye chart was darker with that eye. Then he tested me on the 20/15 line, and viola, I could read nothing with my right eye, and perfectly with my left. Then he decided to check the lens, and discovered that the astigmatism was off by six degrees. Reece >I would say that the examination of the lenses would not be needed to >constitute due diligence in this case as it seems that the prescription was [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >> Has that optometrist failed to perform due diligence the day of the exam >> when he did not look at the lens of the glasses? Did you specifically state that the reason for your visit was to determine whether or not the glasses you had made with a 7 month old prescription were made accurately, or whether or not your prescription had changed one year later? The optometrist may have assumed that you were in for your annual exam. The point would appear to be moot since the problem was discovered by the optometrist anyway. DrG > If a patient sees their optometrist one year after they got a > prescription from that optometrist, and that patient states that when [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Has that optometrist failed to perform due diligence the day of the > exam when he did not look at the lens of the glasses? I stated that I was seeing blurry out of my right eye, and also that I had noticed the same thing when I picked up the glasses. The optometrist did not assume I was in for my annual exam, and understood that I was in the process of ordering prescription sunglasses and that I was complaining that I saw blurry out of my right eye. Additionally, I informed him that I had noticed that problem when I picked up my glasses, but that it seemed to go away. When I say the O.D. later discovered that the glasses were goofed, it was after I spent money to fix them as a result of a slight change in prescription that he gave me on the day that he failed to check my lenses, and my glasses with the new prescription came back still blurry. He failed to tell me that the prescription change was for my left eye, when my complaint, which I clearly stated, was concerning my right eye. This change was unnecessary, since I had no problem with my left eye. There were 8 errors made in relationship to this single pair of glasses. The lab made two mistakes. The retail store made two mistakes. And the O.D. made four mistakes. October 2003 O.D. error 1. Paid Exam 1: Optometrist stated that vision had changed little, without stating that there was no change in prescription. His only information about my vision came from his exam and his determining the prescription of the lenses I came in with. This led me to believe that the prescription had changed, and also that he had a basis for suggesting that change, though little, had occurred. May 2004 Lab error 2. Wrong prescription made Retailer error 3. Sent away from retailer with bad prescription lens, in spite of observation of initial blurriness in right eye, with the suggestion that my eyes were tired (The next day they seemed okay when I tested them indoors before I rushed to my hectic work situation, and I didn't think about them until I wanted to get Rx sunglasses to match my "new" prescription (the prescription that I thought was new). (Am I supposed to be quality control here?) September 2004 Paid Exam 2: In response to current complaint of blurriness in right eye (in Sept. day this year), and informed of the blurriness when they were picked up: O.D. errors 4. Optometrist did not check glasses for prescription match, even when prompted 5. Optometrist did not check below 20/20 line for balanced acuity with glasses on 6. Optometrist did not say that new prescription was for left eye October 2004 Unpaid informal lens check reveals that right lens is faulty. He did this by checking my eyes at the 20/15 line with my glasses on, after I observed that the background of the chart appeared darker with my right eye than my left. Retailer error 7. Did not return original lens, which was requested when placing the new lens order Lab error 8. Both lenses are being redone, implies that new lens never put in, or made wrong Reece > Did you specifically state that the reason for your visit was to determine > whether or not the glasses you had made with a 7 month old prescription [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >> Has that optometrist failed to perform due diligence the day of the >> exam when he did not look at the lens of the glasses? "Most" optometrists will check the prescription on your new eyeglasses if asked. Not sure what happened here. DrG > I stated that I was seeing blurry out of my right eye, and also that I > had noticed the same thing when I picked up the glasses. The [quoted text clipped - 105 lines] >>> Has that optometrist failed to perform due diligence the day of the >>> exam when he did not look at the lens of the glasses? Well, this O.D. has some problems, and is low in professionalism, IMO. I went and picked up my third pair of lenses last week, and of course there was still no balanced acuity. And so I am wearing my old glasses, that I have had for 8 years. And which are much better. I am now in contact with people at the corporation level, and if they do not sort this out nicely, I will file a suit against them. I feel so embarrassed for them, because they have done so many idiotic things, and their checks and balances are all out of whack. It is my opinion that they will discount my problem in favor of the optometrist's assessment of the situation, until they do the research as a result of having to do so to defend against a suit. It is amazing what people can see when they really have to look at a problem. I, of course, will have an expert from one of the teaching schools assess the glasses they gave me, since no one at the optometrists company has responded to my request to solve this problem by providing me with a higher quality optometrist and giving me a refund for what was an appointment that was unnecessary, based on the fact that the O.D. found nothing new, and evidently goofed in the original appointment. And other issues. It is so messy, since there have been so many errors by the O.D. and by the glasses vender. Including a lie, that my glasses seemed to be OK, but then being told to see the Dr. who, when he found that I could make out blurry letters on the 20/20 line, decided I was OK. Until I insisted, and mentioned that the white on the chart was darker out of my blurry eye. Then he checked, and found the astigmatism error. Which may well be only one of the errors. Then the eyeglasses place guy told the optometrist that he had seen the astigmatism error in the glasses. Slightly at variance with my glasses seeming to be OK, which he had stated less than five minutes earlier. One of my complaints in the suit will be that the eyeglasses place did not return a pair of lenses that I had requested when I replaced an order. When the glasses "came back" still very flawed, there was no evidence that they had been changed. The fact that the lenses weren't returned suggest that perhaps they hadn't. If it wasn't so irritating, I would find this whole thing hysterical. Their business model as it pertains to delivering quality services and products is so awful, I have never seen anything like it. Some companies hire "mystery shoppers" to see what their customers experience. I am a misery shopper, and they can read about what I experienced when I file a suit. If a system does many things bad, I expect that it is not going to self-correct at the very end when it hasn't done so yet. Reece > "Most" optometrists will check the prescription on your new eyeglasses if > asked. Not sure what happened here. [quoted text clipped - 110 lines] >>>> Has that optometrist failed to perform due diligence the day of the >>>> exam when he did not look at the lens of the glasses? Well, good luck in that endeavor. The question will be: "Why did you trust this doctor enough to go back"? Anyhow, please keep this NG informed. DrG > Well, this O.D. has some problems, and is low in professionalism, IMO. > [quoted text clipped - 160 lines] >>>>> Has that optometrist failed to perform due diligence the day of >>>>> the exam when he did not look at the lens of the glasses? Closure: The eyeglasses retailer gave me all my money back that I paid them above the original cost of the original order. Which means that they did not charge me for the extra lens. But remuneration from the optometrist's company seems unlikely. But after four times of having these glasses delivered to me, they finally work, so I am done with it. I did get a new written prescription and new lens for the fourth order involving my glasses. So it is over. Thanks to everyone who helped me understand the concepts I needed to know to get an idea what was going on. An ignorant person is inarticulate, and I hate to not understand what I am talking about when I am trying to sort something out with a medical or dental or vision organization. The person who lacks sufficient background is unarmed, and cannot defend against overt or covert deceptions by those he is dealing with. Members of this newsgroup helped me out and so I now know a lot more than I did and I was able to sort many things out in my thinking. Thank you! Reece > Well, good luck in that endeavor. The question will be: "Why did you > trust [quoted text clipped - 168 lines] >>>>>> Has that optometrist failed to perform due diligence the day of >>>>>> the exam when he did not look at the lens of the glasses? What are your damages other than the exam and the lens you bought? That's all you're going to be able to recover in a suit. nipidoc > Well, this O.D. has some problems, and is low in professionalism, IMO. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I am now in contact with people at the corporation level, and if they do > not sort this out nicely, I will file a suit against them. Greetings all, Someone from the retailer, at the district level called me today, and this is today's outcome: Today I saw another O.D. in the same group as the O.D. that I didn't consider professional, and he gave me this prescription: New prescription given to me by Dr. Not-very-honest: sph cyl axis OD -3.75 -1.50 13 The previous prescription was: sph cyl axis OD -3.50 -1.50 017 Given to me by Dr. Not-very-professional. The reason I say he was not very honest, is because I asked him if my 8 year old glasses prescription matched the prescription of the latest bad version. (I was actually trying to determine whether Dr. Not-very-professional had pulled an incorrect prescription off of my original glasses, and that this was an ongoing source of error, since the right eye prescription that Dr. NVP gave me supposedly matched my original lens, even though it never did after it came back from the lab.) He said yes it did match. Since I knew this was worm droppings, I went to another O.D. down the block for an independent verification of the accuracy of this statement. That optometrist stated that the prescription in my old glasses was 1/8th diopter stronger than in my new glasses, and mentioned an astignatism variation as well. I confirmed this with the manager at the store where Dr. Not-very-honest had his office, and the manager observed that the axis on one pair was 10 and on the other pair was 18, for the right eye. When he came back from his break and saw me in the store, I told him of this, and he said that 1/8th diopter difference is an acceptable amount to be off, in delivered lenses. Is that true? So today it was confirmed that the third-try lenses were not as prescribed. Now, does anyone think that two competent, capable O.D.'s could come up with the variation we see on the right lens prescriptions noted above? One prescription was given 9/14 and the other 11/11. Also, Dr. Not-very-honest said that the reason he didn't balance my eye is because at my prescription level that balancing was something that one wouldn't expect to work. So that is why he didn't do balancing today using green/red, etc. Is this true? Is there any evidence, (my other eye is -3.50 -1.50 167 , according to the prescription given me by Dr. Not-very-professional) based on my prescriptions that could suggest that this statement by Dr. Not-very-honest is true? What is wonderful is that the manager of this third store (the retail store, not in charge of the O.D. side, which is made up of independent O.D.s) within the chain that has given me two or three lenses not as prescribed, actually worked with me. Was actually helpful. And competent. Comments always welcome. Reece > New prescription given to me by Dr. Not-very-honest: > sph cyl axis [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > sph cyl axis > OD -3.50 -1.50 017 Given to me by Dr. Not-very-professional. Oh geeze! You get refracted twice and they're only off by 0.25D and an incredible 4' on axis? Your not-so-nice nicknames betrays some anger. This will make your scrip change, most likely because your blood pressure or better/worse responses will be off. -- Robert Thank you for your concern, Robert, but my nicknames came after realizations of errors and deceptions, not before or during eye exams. Second, because of goofs made by the lens lab, and in the different O.D.s not identifying these errors, it could leave a person, who is now waiting for their fourth set of lenses, a bit annoyed. Finally, I am not an O.D., and these numbers don't mean a whole lot to me. What is big or what is small and the effects these numbers have on the end result are not clear to me. As you could see, I am posing questions, not assigning values to those differences, as I am not an expert in this area. What is clear to me, however, is that my eight-year old glasses have given me significantly better vision than version 1, version 2, and version 3 of what the combination of the lab and the optometrists have been able to provide. Since there is no evidence that I ever got a lens for the right eye back from the lab in conformance with the prescription, and clear, verified evidence in two of the three cases that the lenses did not conform to the prescription, it is difficult for me to see what role the actual prescription is playing in this mess. The big problem, Robert, is that there are some good O.D.s and good labs, and they make the others, whether the others be very few or just few, look bad. And another thing--some people may be more discerning about their visual experiences than others. I bought the finest printer in 1994, with perfect letter quality print, when most printers lacked that, and most people didn't look that closely. My computer monitors are always the best available, visually speaking. On my last project, I bought a monitor rather than use the one supplied by the client. I do visual things. Photography. Videoing--with a high end camera, of course. So, I am particular about the way things look and appear to me. Reece >> New prescription given to me by Dr. Not-very-honest: >> sph cyl axis [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > -- Robert > What is clear to me, however, is that my eight-year old > glasses have given me significantly better vision than > version 1, version 2, and version 3 of You didn't give your old glasses scrip, but I'm guessing you're around 40 and your myopia has actually lessened. The old scrip was probably around -4.00 or even higher with less cyl. Your old glasses probably currently overcorrect and as someone (Mike T?) has recently posted, this gives outstanding distance acuity because the slight accommodation can correct for all sorts of refractive variables. Nothing is free, and this overcorrection costs near vision and some people become irritable or get headaches from the constant stress. It _will_ be difficult to adjust to a new scrip. > So, I am particular about the way > things look and appear to me. This is undoubtedly part of the problem. You _know_ you are more visually discerning, so must seek out corresponding practitioners and expect to pay them premium prices for premium service. One size does not fit all. The chains undoubtedly have many excellent ODs and technicians, but that is matter of personal pride and not required by their high-volume business model. -- Robert Thanks, Robert. My age is 48. And actually, my old glasses scrip was supposedly the same scrip as version 1 of my new glasses was: sph cyl axis My 8 year old lens -3.50 -1.50 17 new (today) -3.75 -1.50 13 But my confidence in these O.D.s is low. When I had my original appointment, the O.D. said my vision had changed little. Later he said my prescription had not changed at all from my 7 year old glasses (they were 7 years old a year ago, which was when I had my first appointment. Thanks for the bad news that I will have to go to pay premium prices for premium service. If I knew what a mess I was getting into with this big chain/O.D. pairing, I would have run to pay premium prices for premium service, as it would have been a much better deal. I will have to do that in the future. My old O.D. gave me a prescription 8 years ago, but it was too strong then, so I had him pull it back in strength before I ordered the glasses. I was 40 then. The O.D. today only looked at my right eye for the most part, and didn't even ask me if the final lens selection was comfortable, nor did he have me look through both lenses to ask how it felt. If it is too strong, I will go to a "real" O.D. and have them write a prescription, and then bring it back to the chain eyeglasses retailer to implement at no charge. And then bring all new versions to that O.D. to ensure that they were correctly made, until they are made correctly. I guess I will figure it may take a few more months for them to get it right. Reece >> What is clear to me, however, is that my eight-year old >> glasses have given me significantly better vision than [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > -- Robert |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.