Case Digest: Friedman v. Rogers (1979)

 

Friedman v. Rogers (1979)

Facts.

1. Rogers, (appellant; TOB member but ineligible for TOA due to noncompliance of code of ethics that was required for membership); Texas Optometric Association, (defendant, intervenor on behalf of the individual members); Texas Senior Citizens (intervenor on behalf of Rogers)
2. Rogers challenged the constitutionality of both provisions - Section 5.13(d) and S2.02. He sought declaratory and injunctive relief from the enforcement of S2.02 and S5.13(d).
3. Section 5.13(d) of the Texas Optometry Act prohibited the practice of optometry under trade names. At the same time, S2.02 requires that four of the six members of the Texas Optometry Board which regulates the practice of Optometry in the State, be members of the Texas Optometry Association, the professional organization of optometrists.
4. The three-judge District Court sustained the constitutionality of the statute governing the composition of TOB. It held that S2.02 is related reasonably to the State’s purpose of ensuring enforcement of the Act, and therefore constitutional under the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment...but it also held that the prohibition of the practice of optometry under a trade name ran afoul of First Amendment protection of commercial speech, stating that  S5.13(d) is an unconstitutional restriction of the “free flow of information.”

 

Issue.

Whether/n the use of trade names is constitutional

 

Held.

Yes.

 

Primary holding.

The First Amendment does not prevent states from prohibiting optometrists from advertising and practicing under their trade names.

 

Ruling.

The portion of the District Court’s judgment appealed from in No. 77-1164, sustaining the constitutionality of S2.02, is affirmed. That part of the District Court’s judgment appealed from in Nos 77-1163 and 77-1186, declaring S5.13(d) unconstitutional insofar as it proscribes the use of trade names by optometrists, is reversed. The case is remanded with instructions to dissolve the injunction against the enforcement of S5.13(d).

 

Supplementing facts.

1. ...but S5.13(d) is constitutional as held because (a) the ill-defined associations of trade names with price and quality information can be manipulated and therefore may be used to mislead the public, and (b) such prohibition ensures that information regarding optometrical services will be communicated more fully and accurately to consumers.
2. S2.02 is also constitutional because (a) TOA history shows that it is related reasonably to the State’s legitimate purpose of securing a regulatory board that will administer Act, and (b) Rogers’ challenge to the fairness of the Board does not arise from any disciplinary proceeding against him.
3. He has the constitutional right to a fair and impartial hearing in any disciplinary proceeding conducted against him by the TOB, though.
4. Many of the Act’s business regulations are contained in the S5.13. S5.13(d), in particular, prohibits the practice of optometry under an assumed name, trade name or corporate name.
5. Rogers is an advocate of commercial practice of optometry and a member of the Board.
6. He filed a suit against the other five members of the Board.
7. S2.02 requires that 4/6 members of the Board must be members of a state org affiliated with American Optometric Association (AOA) and the only organization that is, is TOA. (Note: AOA’s membership is restricted to optometrists who comply with AOA’s code of ethics.)
8. Rogers and fellow commercial optometrists were ineligible for TOA membership because their business methods are at odds with AOA code of ethics.
9. He alleged that he is deprived of equal protection and due process because he is only eligible for 2/6 on the Board; also, he is subject to regulation.
10. He alleged that S5.13(d) does not extend to ophthalmologists. For this, he claimed that this disparity of treatment denies him the equal protection of the laws, as he is denied the right to conduct his optometrical practice as he has in the past, under the name “Texas State Optical.”
11. District Court granted two motions to intervene. (1) TOA intervened as a defendant; (2)
12. TSCA claims: its members have a Fourteenth Amendment right to representation; statute discourages optometrists from communicating truthful information. It also urged that prohibition of the practice of optometry under a trade name violates First Amendment rights of its members to receive information about availability of optometrical services.

 

 

Note: Ophthalmologists differ from optometrists in their levels of training and in what they can diagnose and treat. As a medical doctor who has completed college and at least eight years of additional medical training, an ophthalmologist is licensed to practice medicine and surgery. (www.medicaleyecenter.com)