Olympic Optical Inc

Complaint ID ***
RE: *** ***
Olympic Optical's policy is as follows:We will guarantee or lenses against defects or patientnon adapt for months
Our services however, *** non refundable.While we do not agree with how Mr*** hasportrayed the events, we do not have time to keep goingback and forth regarding this matterTherefore if Mr.*** returns the lenses we had made, which hestates he cannot use, he will be refunded $That isthe cost of the lensesAs mentioned above regardingservices, our already discounted exam fee of $is nonrefundable
DrGreg *H*** O.D

Revdex.com:I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to meSincerely, *** ***

12/3/2015Olympic OpticalOlympic Optical Inc.Dr. Greg *. H[redacted]Port Townsend, WA 98368{360}379-6477 phone(360)379-6478 fax
Response to complaint: ID [redacted]
Complaintant: [redacted]. [redacted]
[redacted], a patient since 2012, came in on 9/10/15 for a routine eye...

exam. At this time,his chief complaint was "slight blur at all distances" and that his right eye waters more that theleft.
His habitual glasses {i.e. the glasses he was wearing into the office) were lenses from theoriginal RX written on his first visit 3 years prior. His visual acuities at distance and near wereonly slightly decreased from the previous exam on 4/10/14, but the right eye more than theleft. I explained to him this was normal since he had eye issues that left his right eye with moredecreased vision than the left eye due to a bigger cataract in the right eye. That finding was alsonoted at the exam on 11/13/12.
The RX change from the habitual RX(2012) to the new 9/10/15 refraction was insignificant inthe left eye and a slight significant change in the right eye. He could subjectively see an increasein VA's.
[redacted] decided to replace only one pair of sunglass lenses, using his own frame. My opticalassistant took his existing older pair of sunglasses and made the necessary measurements for aprogressive lense (not a lined bifocal). After receiving the new glasses, he returned on oraround 9/25/15 after wearing them for a few days, and stated he had difficulty reading withthem, but distance was fine.
Upon rechecking the RX In the glasses, it was determined that the RX was correct, and he was infact seeing better with the new RX correction. I remarked then rechecked the lenses andfound the P.D.(pupillary distance) to be off 3 mm. I explained what the discrepancy was andwhy that would have effects on reading at near.
The glasses were sent back to the lab to get remade using the corrected P.D.When the remade glasses came back, [redacted] came in to get them on or around 10/9/15. Heput them on and had the same complaint. Distance was fine, but still had a problem reading atnear, though he did admit it was better. He had to lift the glasses a bit to see at near. With aprogressive lens {which patient habitually wears), if he lifts the lens to see "comfortably" atnear, his distance vision will conversely get worse. That is to say, with a progressive lens, if youraise the lens too high the distance vision will be decreased. I demonstrated that phenomena to him with both his old and new lenses to show that they both decrease VA's by raising the lenses.
So I rechecked the RX again and subjectively let him comp[redacted] the old RX against the new RX.[redacted] said he like the new RX better, (i.e. better Visual Acuities). He also said he still seesbetter out of his old RX than his new RX. They [redacted] very similar, but some patients can't adjust tothe change minor as it may be.
[redacted] claimed his vision was fine with the old glasses RX- (he could see better at near withthem than with the new RX), and that all 3 pair of his old RX glasses- (he got 3 pair of glassesfrom this office in 2012} were working fine. With that information, I told him I would remakethe lenses one last time (3'd time made) and duplicate the old lenses. The lenses he said heliked and could see out of with no problems. Since my optical lab made the original 2012glasses that he liked, I had them duplicate the order.
When the glasses came back again, he came in and put them on, he stated that there was nodifference. At that time I rechecked the RX in the lenses, and found that they were in fact anexact duplicate to his old RX, the one he said he could see better out of. I went so far as to takethe lenses out and put a strip of clear tape on both sides(with dark lenses it can be harder tosee through to the patients eye to make the necessary measurments, clear tape allows forbetter visibility therefore more accurate measurement). With the tape on the frame, I made thecorrect marks, got the measurements from that, replaced the lenses in the frame thenrechecked again the measurements in the lense. Everything was dead on. The measurementsand RX were all correct with what I had found and were an exact duplicate to the previous hewanted duplicated. He also wouldn't allow me to make any adjustments to the frame. At thatpoint I told him that I could not make any other changes that would satisfy him since theselenses were duplicated and remade the same as the old ones as per his request for the 3'dremake. He said he wanted a refund. I explained that after remaking multiple times and lastlyduplicating to the old (habitual) RX, there was nothing more I could do.
I feel I made every effort to accommodate [redacted]. I remade the lenses multiple timesat my own cost, with the end result of duplicating the exact RX he requested (the one hewalkedinto my office wearing and having no problems with on 9/10/15}.
SignedDr. Greg *. H[redacted]

Complaint: [redacted]I am rejecting this response because:
 
I am not qualified to determine the technical reasons for the failure.  However, it would seem to me the RX needs to match the particular frames for the lenses, which were different from the frames I was currently wearing.  Specifically, according to the doctor, the centering would be different.    And, by the way, the frames I wanted the l lenses put into had worked previously from an earlier doctor.  The adjustment to the frames suggested were to put a substantiality large "bridge" at the nose rest, but that would have thrown off the distance calibration.
Regardless of the technical reasons for the failures, I had a reasonable request for lenses that was not disputed, but in the end I came out with nothing of value.  Still, I was charged $540.   I don't believe I should be required to finance the failures.
 
[redacted]
 
Sincerely,[redacted]