Laserfiche WebLink
h <br /> Petitioner Donald Dixon's license to practice optometry <br /> was revoked by the State Board of Optometric Examiners, and that <br /> order was upheld by the district court. Dixon appeals, asserting <br /> that the proceedings before the Board were procedurally defective, <br /> and that the penalty of revocation was too severe under the facts. <br /> We disagree and therefore affirm the judgment. <br /> In a complaint filed with the Board, Dixon was accused <br /> of violating § 12-40-119 (1) (h) , C.R.S. 1973, which prohibits an <br /> optometrist from practicing his profession with any person not <br /> licensed to practice optometry. Following notice, a hearing was <br /> held at which uncontroverted testimony was presented to the hearing <br /> officer that Dixon employed two unlicensed individuals who, for a <br /> two-month period, performed optometric functions including examining <br /> eyes and prescribing corrective Lenses. Dixon appeared at the <br /> hearing with counsel, but did not testify. The two unlicensed <br /> individuals were subpoenaed but refused to testify on constitutional <br /> grounds . The hearing officer concluded that Dixon had deliberately <br /> and willfully violated the statute and ordered the revocation of <br /> his license . The Board approved the decision and Dixon sought <br /> review of that decision in the Denver District Court. That court <br /> concluded that Dixon's right to appeal the hearing officer's <br /> decision had been curtailed, and therefore remanded the matter to <br /> the Board. <br /> On remand, Dixon sought to have the matter sent back to <br /> the hearing officer so that he might testify. The Board denied the- <br /> motion for remand and affirmed the hearing officer 's order. Dixon <br /> again sought review in the district court which affirmed the decision <br /> of the Board, and this appeal followed. <br /> -2- <br /> . J� -.3:c,"M'• 3!E" ::�F�=.mac <br />