Can a Georgia dispensing optician still duplicate eyeglasses or contact lenses without a prescription, given a 2016 statute that bars dispensing without one?

Plain-English summary

When a 2016 amendment to the Georgia Contact Lens Law (O.C.G.A. § 31-12-12) added a prohibition that "[a] person shall not dispense or adapt contact lenses or spectacles without first receiving authorization to do so by a written prescription," dispensing opticians worried it had silently repealed their longstanding authority under O.C.G.A. § 43-29-14(b) to duplicate lenses without a prescription. The State Board of Dispensing Opticians asked the Attorney General whether the two statutes conflicted.

AG Chris Carr said no. Three statutory-construction principles led to that conclusion.

First, repeals by implication are disfavored under Georgia law. Sutton v. Garmon and Kilpatrick v. State establish that a later statute repeals an earlier one by implication only when the two are "clearly and indubitably contradictory" and "cannot reasonably stand together." Here, the two statutes addressed different acts.

Second, the Contact Lens Law's text said nothing about lens duplication. The word "duplicate" does not appear anywhere in § 31-12-12. The new prohibition addressed dispensing and adapting, two activities that are different from duplicating an existing lens. Because the Contact Lens Law was silent on duplication, it could not be read to override the express duplication authority elsewhere in the Code.

Third, two separate statutes in Title 43, Chapter 29 (the dispensing-optician chapter) gave dispensing opticians the duplication authority. § 43-29-14(b) said directly that "a dispensing optician may duplicate lenses without prescription." § 43-29-18(e) made the same point in different words: optical-dispensing services and appliances must be on prescription, "but duplications, replacements, reproductions, or repetitions may be done without prescription." The presence of two parallel provisions made it harder to argue that the General Assembly meant to silently repeal both with a single line in a different statute.

The reading rests on the principle that the General Assembly is presumed to know the existing state of the law when enacting new legislation (In the Interest of M.D.H.). Had the General Assembly meant to take away the long-standing duplication authority, it would have done so explicitly.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2017. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: What's the practical scope of "duplicate"?
A: Per 1980 Op. Att'y Gen. 80-19, a dispensing optician could duplicate "a contact lens from an original contact lens, without [an] examination," and could "duplicate, replace or reproduce, without a prescription, only those lenses of a like character." So the optician could make a copy of an existing lens but could not change the prescription strength.

Q: What's the difference between dispensing and duplicating?
A: Dispensing is the original act of providing lenses to fit a written prescription. Duplicating is reproducing an existing pair of glasses or contact lenses without changing the underlying optical specification. The Contact Lens Law's prohibition on dispensing without a prescription does not reach duplication of an existing pair.

Q: Could a dispensing optician duplicate a contact lens that the patient brought in from out of state?
A: The opinion does not directly address out-of-state lenses. The general rule is that a dispensing optician can duplicate lenses "of a like character" without a prescription. The optician still cannot diagnose disease, determine refractive powers, or prescribe.

Q: What if the new prescription is needed because the eye condition has changed?
A: That would not be duplication, it would be dispensing a new prescription. The 2016 amendment squarely prohibits that without a written prescription based on an eye examination.

Q: Why did the General Assembly enact the 2016 amendment in the first place?
A: The Contact Lens Law in § 31-12-12 was originally enacted in 1991 as a consumer-protection measure regulating who could sell contact lenses (only licensed dispensing opticians, optometrists, and licensed physicians). The 2016 amendment tightened the prescription requirement to address sales of lenses without an eye exam.

Q: What about a dispensing optician being asked to substitute contact lenses for spectacles?
A: That's a different act, separately addressed by § 43-29-14(b). The same provision that allows duplication also says "a dispensing optician shall not substitute contact lenses for spectacles, eyeglasses, or other optical devices except as otherwise authorized in this chapter."

Background and statutory framework

The licensed-dispensing-optician profession sits at a regulatory intersection. Optometrists examine eyes, diagnose conditions, write prescriptions, and themselves dispense optical appliances. Ophthalmologists are physicians who do all of the above plus surgery. Dispensing opticians do not examine eyes; they take a written prescription from an optometrist or physician and produce optical appliances to fit that prescription.

The duplication authority in § 43-29-14(b) and § 43-29-18(e) recognizes that consumers often need a replacement pair of glasses or a duplicate set of contact lenses without going back to the optometrist for another exam. The lens specifications are already known; the dispensing optician is only reproducing what's already been prescribed.

The 1991 Contact Lens Law in § 31-12-12 was enacted to keep mass-market sellers and unlicensed retailers out of the lens business. The 2016 amendment, by adding a prescription-required clause, responded to an evolving market in which online and mail-order sellers were dispensing lenses without verifying prescriptions.

The 2017 opinion's reading aligns the two statutes by recognizing that the new prescription requirement targets dispensing of new prescriptions (the gap the 2016 amendment was meant to close), not duplication of existing prescriptions (the long-standing dispensing-optician authority).

Citations and references

Statutes:
- O.C.G.A. § 43-29-2 (definition of dispensing optician)
- O.C.G.A. § 43-29-14 (scope of dispensing optician's authority)
- O.C.G.A. § 43-29-18 (services and appliances; duplication exception)
- O.C.G.A. § 31-12-12 (Contact Lens Law; 2016 amendment)

Cases and prior opinions:
- Sutton v. Garmon, 245 Ga. 685 (1980) (implied repeals disfavored)
- Kilpatrick v. State, 243 Ga. 799 (1979) (same)
- In the Interest of M.D.H., 300 Ga. 46 (2016) (legislature presumed to know existing law)
- 1980 Op. Att'y Gen. 80-19 (dispensing optician's duplication authority)

Source

• Landing page: https://law.georgia.gov/opinions/2017-2

Original opinion text

The State Board of Dispensing Opticians (hereinafter the "Board") has requested my official opinion regarding whether there is a conflict between O.C.G.A. § 31‑12‑12(c) (Supp. 2016), which prohibits dispensing contact lenses or spectacles without a prescription, and O.C.G.A. § 43‑29‑14(b) (2016), which authorizes a licensed dispensing optician to duplicate lenses without a prescription. Based on my review of the relevant statutes, I conclude that there is no conflict, and a licensed dispensing optician is still authorized to duplicate and dispense lenses without a prescription. The current law regulating dispensing opticians is found in O.C.G.A. §§ 43‑29‑1 through 43‑29‑22 (2016). Under this law, a "dispensing optician" is defined as "an individual who is duly licensed to prepare and dispense lenses, spectacles, eyeglasses, contact lenses, and optical devices to the intended user thereof as specifically directed or authorized on the written prescription" of a physician or optometrist. O.C.G.A. § 43‑29‑2(2) (2016). Previously, this office issued an opinion to the then Georgia State Board of Examiners of Optometry[1] advising that a dispensing optician has the authority to duplicate "a contact lens from an original contact lens, without [an] examination," and that "a dispensing optician may duplicate, replace or reproduce, without a prescription, only those lenses of a like character." 1980 Op. Att'y Gen. 80-19, at 43, 44. Shortly after issuance of this office's opinion, the General Assembly amended the law for dispensing opticians. That amendment reflects the current law, O.C.G.A. § 43‑29‑14(b) (2016), regarding a dispensing optician's authority to duplicate lenses. That provision states: A dispensing optician may duplicate lenses without prescription, provided that a dispensing optician shall not substitute contact lenses for spectacles, eyeglasses, or other optical devices except as otherwise authorized in this chapter or engage in the diagnosis of diseases of the human eye or attempt to determine the refractive powers of the human eye or in any manner attempt to prescribe remedies for or treat diseases or ailments of human beings. O.C.G.A. § 43‑29‑14(b) (2016). In 1991, the General Assembly enacted O.C.G.A. § 31‑12‑12, commonly referred to as the "Contact Lens Law." 1991 Ga. Laws 1003. The Contact Lens Law prohibited the sale or dispensing of contact lenses by any person other than a licensed dispensing optician, an optometrist, or a licensed physician. 1991 Ga. Laws 1003. You have pointed out that a portion of the Contact Lens Law currently states that "[a] person shall not dispense or adapt contact lenses or spectacles without first receiving authorization to do so by a written prescription, except when authorized orally to do so by a person licensed and regulated by Chapter 30 [optometrists] or 34 [physicians] of Title 43." O.C.G.A. § 31‑12‑12(c) (Supp. 2016). The question presented by your inquiry is whether O.C.G.A. § 31‑12‑12(c) (Supp. 2016), which prohibits dispensing or adapting contact lenses or spectacles without a prescription, and the language found in O.C.G.A. § 43‑29‑14(b) (2016), which authorizes a dispensing optician to duplicate lenses without a prescription, are in conflict or whether the two provisions can be read in pari materia. See Sutton v. Garmon, 245 Ga. 685, 687 (1980). Applying rules of statutory construction, I conclude that there is no conflict between the two aforementioned provisions, and a licensed dispensing optician may still duplicate and dispense lenses without a prescription. First, "'[r]epeals by implication are not favored by law, and a subsequent statute repeals prior legislative acts by implication only when they are clearly and indubitably contradictory, when they are in irreconcilable conflict with each other, and when they cannot reasonably stand together.'" Id. at 687 (quoting Kilpatrick v. State, 243 Ga. 799 (1979)). Second, "'[w]hen a statute contains clear and unambiguous language, such language will be given its plain meaning . . . .'" McKinney v. Fuciarelli, 298 Ga. 873, 874 (2016) (quoting Opensided MRI of Atlanta v. Chandler, 287 Ga. 406, 407 (2010)). The plain language of O.C.G.A. § 31‑12‑12 (Supp. 2016) says nothing about a licensed dispensing optician's authority to duplicate and dispense lenses. In addition, the entire statute does not mention the term "duplicate" in any form or any similar term. Consequently, the last sentence in O.C.G.A. § 31‑12‑12(c) (Supp. 2016) does not address duplication of lenses or a licensed dispensing optician's authority to duplicate and dispense lenses without a prescription. In contrast, Chapter 29 of Title 43, which is designed to regulate the practice of a licensed dispensing optician, expressly outlines the scope of a licensed dispensing optician's authority. As stated above, O.C.G.A. § 43‑29‑14(b) provides, in part, "a dispensing optician may duplicate lenses without prescription . . . ." O.C.G.A. § 43‑29‑14(b) (2016). This provision, without question, authorizes a licensed dispensing optician to duplicate lenses without a prescription. Although the question posed to this office by the Board is limited to the relationship between O.C.G.A. § 31‑12‑12(c) (Supp. 2016) and O.C.G.A. § 43‑29‑14(b) (2016), the authority of a licensed dispensing optician to duplicate lenses is not limited to the latter Code section. The authority to duplicate lenses is also found in O.C.G.A. § 43‑29‑18(e) (2016). That Code section states: The services and appliances relating to optical dispensing shall be dispensed, furnished, or supplied to the intended wearer or user thereof only upon prescription issued by a physician or an optometrist; but duplications, replacements, reproductions, or repetitions may be done without prescription, in which event any such act shall be construed to be optical dispensing the same as if performed on the basis of an original prescription. O.C.G.A. § 43‑29‑18(e) (2016) (emphasis added). When interpreting a statute using rules of statutory construction, "we must presume that the General Assembly [has] full knowledge of the existing state of the law and [enacts a] statute with reference to it." In the Interest of M.D.H., 300 Ga. 46, 53 (2016). Accordingly, with two separate statutes authorizing a licensed dispensing optician to duplicate lenses without a prescription, it would be unreasonable to attribute to the General Assembly an intention to repeal both provisions with merely the language found in the last sentence of O.C.G.A. § 31‑12‑12(c) (Supp. 2016). This is particularly so in light of the fact that O.C.G.A. § 31‑12‑12 (Supp. 2016) is silent on a licensed dispensing optician's authority to duplicate lenses. Furthermore, the last sentence in O.C.G.A. § 31‑12‑12(c) (Supp. 2016), which lays out the prohibition on dispensing without a prescription, does not specifically reference licensed dispensing opticians. Accordingly, it is my official opinion that there is no conflict between O.C.G.A. § 31‑12‑12(c) (Supp. 2016), which prohibits dispensing contact lenses or spectacles without a prescription, and O.C.G.A. § 43‑29‑14(b) (2016), which authorizes a licensed dispensing optician to duplicate lenses without a prescription, and a licensed dispensing optician still has the authority to duplicate and dispense lenses without a prescription. Prepared by: Wylencia Hood Monroe Senior Assistant Attorney General [1] In 1994, the General Assembly changed the name to the "State Board of Optometry." 1994 Ga. Laws 853, 854.