Saturday, September 10, 2016

Monday, April 11, 2011

Thursday, July 16, 2009

YOU HAVE TO GO OUTSIDE HAWAII

-----Original Message-----From: OfficeoftheOmbudsman@ombudsman.hawaii.govTo: yinsay@aol.comSent: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 8:03 AMSubject: RE: Complaint

1. BE SUSPICIOUS WHEN THEY CALL YOU DEAR

Dear Mr. Balmer:
On December 22, 2006, we received an email in which you complained that
the Regulated Industries Complaints Office (RICO), Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs (DCCA), did not adequately respond to your complaint against Dr. Kimberly Agena and Dr. Sevelyn Lee Au, both of whom are licensed optometrists.

SYNOPSIS, COMES QUICKLY
2.DON'T TRUST HAWAII INVESTIGATIONS


Your complaint against Dr. Agena and Dr. Au stemmed from services that you received from them between July and August of 2006. You complained to RICO about Dr. Au and Dr. Agena on October 3, 2006. RICO investigated your complaint and reported its findings to you in a letter from Investigator Janice Yonamine dated November 6, 2006.

3.BE SUSPICIOUS OF THE TERM - REVIEW

In our investigation, we reviewed pertinent sections of the Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) and the Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR). We also contacted RICO and reviewed the entire RICO case file concerning your complaint.

4.HAWAII SMOKE SCREEN

Chapter 459, HRS, titled "Optometry," governs the practice of optometry and defines specific situations under which a license may be suspended or revoked. The Board of Examiners in Optometry (Board) may suspend or revoke an optometrist's license, or impose any other penalty established by the Board, for the commission of acts listed in Section 459-9, HRS. Similarly, Title 16, Chapter 92, titled "Optometrists," defines situations that may amount to "professional misconduct, gross carelessness or negligence, or manifest incapacity in the practice of optometry," for which the Board may suspend, revoke, or refuse to renew a license, or impose a fine.

5.PRESCRIBE YOUR OWN AT DR. AUS

In your complaint to RICO, you asserted that you did not see as well when you used new eyeglasses that were made and provided to you at no charge by LensCrafters based on Dr. Agena's prescription. Dr. Agena had performed a comprehensive eye exam during your visit and recommended bifocals. After you complained that you could not see with your new prescription, Dr. Au examined you and you were informed about the changes in vision and prescription that occur with age. However, as you insisted that your old prescription be used, Dr. Au complied.

6.ONLY IN HAWAII, THEY DON'T KNOW IT'S TOO MUCH

Thereafter, you requested copies of your examination records and Dr. Au provided you with a handwritten vision certificate summary form. You found the summary to be insufficient and requested photocopies of your records. In a letter dated August 4, 2006, Dr. Au informed you that pursuant to company policy there would be a charge of $2 per page, which in your case amounted to $20. You disagreed with the charge, but made the payment, and a copy of your records was then mailed to you.


7.THE SHAM

Based upon our review of the law and the RICO case file, we believe that RICO's investigation and response to you were reasonable. We note that although RICO did not find your concerns to constitute licensing law violations, RICO attempted to assist you by inquiring with and obtaining a response from Dr. Au.

8.SWEEP-UP COMPLETE, HAWAII STYLE

As we do not believe we can be of further assistance to you in this
matter, we will be closing your case in our files.


9.THEY WANT YOU TO BELIEVE THEY'RE SINCERE

Sincerely yours,
/s/ PAUL K. KANOHO
Analyst

10.THEY'LL THROW IN A SECOND OPINION

Approved by:
ROBIN K. MATSUNAGA
Ombudsman, State of Hawaii


-----Original Message-----
From: yinsay@aol.com [mailto:yinsay@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 1:59 PM
To: Office of the Ombudsman
Subject: Re: Complaint

I filed a complaint on 10/03/2006. After getting a letter acknowledging
my complaint without a signature, I had qualms about the
"investigation". My complaint should be at the DCCA for reference, if
the Ombudsmans office needs it. As I stated in my email to the Board of
Optometry that was referred to Ms. Uchida, my concerns were not directly
responded to and there was no resolution to my questions pertaining to
the descrepency in numbers on my records. I am not a professional
optometrist. I would think the records would be reviewed by someone who
does understand the numbers and records they a looking at. Also, I
believe pertinent issues where not addressed, but glossed over, so as to
leave Ms. Au's un-professional and deceitful actions appearing correct.