# Optical Forums > General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum >  Is it a law that poly must be sold to minors?

## HarryC

This is a question that was brought to my attention by an associate of mine.
Our company had a $99 complete sale which included cr-39 lenses. Customer wanted
the sale price for her young daughter, however she didn't want to pay the extra charge for polycarb lenses.  The associate stated that this was "law" and she was forced to buy poly. 
What associate didn't know was that the mother was an attorney. She scoured through the Connecticut statutes and could find no such law and demanded that we refund her money and downgrade her daughters glasses to plastic. We decided to offer her a refund for the difference and allow her to keep the poly lenses this one time with the understanding that future purchases must have poly lenses at standard cost.
This situation got me thinking. As an optician I wouldn't give a child plastic out of principal, and I have never heard of any state that had an actual written law saying that you had to offer polycarb. I would like to know if there is a state that mandates polycarbonate
to minors, and if anyone does know if Connecticut does have some form of a law.
Also, has anyone else run into a similar situation where the parent took the issue to the level that this went to?

----------


## Striderswife

I'm pretty sure it's not the law that they HAVE to have poly, but it is the law that the Optician has to offer it.  That's where Duty to Warn comes in.  We stock prism lenses at my office, and these are used primarily for children.  Every time I fit them, I always say to the parent, "If these glasses were meant to be worn all the time, like out on the playground or riding bikes or whatever, we'd recommend an impact-resistant material."  We make it clear that the lenses are for indoor activities, like reading, at the computer, or in class--not for horsing around with siblings, either.

Even in full-time glasses, I let the parent know we recommend poly, and while it is their choice, I promote the benefits of an impact-resistant lens.  I'm really careful about my wording, what to say and what not to say.

Several years ago, in WI, we had a parent *insist* on GLASS lenses for his child.  We let him know it was against our professional recommendation, but there was nothing preventing us from selling glass for his kid's glasses.  We made sure do make lots of comments and document that fact.

----------


## gmc

This was addressed in Eyecare Business magazine.

http://www.eyecarebusiness.com/artic...?article=50054

While it isn't required a plaintiff's attorney could certainly make a standard of care argument. At the very least have them sign a waiver acknowledging they have been informed of the availability of impact resistant lenses.

----------


## rbaker

I can't think of any jurisdiction that requires the use of polycarbonate lenses with the possible exception of San Francisco, CA. Also, I don't think that "duty to warn" is a legal requirement in any state. 

Why does everything have to be codified in the law. What ever hapned to common sense. If you feel that using a cetrtain product is not in your best interest - dont sell it.

----------


## Now I See

Probably not a Law, but a company policy.  Maybe, next time the associate, manager, or the licensed-on-duty could just upgrade them @ no charge, explain to the patient's mom that it is a one-time deal done as a courtesy and put a note in the file as to why that decision was made.  That way nobody gets reprimanded for double-discounts, and you guys/gals can feel assured that you sold the item that was in the best interest of the child.

----------


## tigerlilly

What kind of a mother is too cheap to put her kid in the safest lens choice? Seriously, if she's such an excellent attorney, surely she's got enough money that she doesn't have to haggle over a $99 glasses special. I really hate people like that, and I feel sorry for her kid/s.

To actually answer the question, I don't know if it's a law anywhere that minors get poly. Many companies have a policy mandating poly, but that's not the same as a law. Some actually go as far as refusing an order if the parent won't upgrade to poly. My current employer allows either Trivex or Poly, but that's it. Nobody ever fights it because they actually charge less than they'd charge an adult for the same lens, but if someone refused poly we'd have to decline the order.

There was a discussion here once (that I am too lazy to search, btw :D) where the usefulness of waivers was discussed. I remember some folks being adamantly against using them, claiming that it could actually be turned against you as proof of knowingly selling a risky product. I don't remember the winning side in that dogfight, but it might be an interesting read if you can find the thread.

----------


## Flat Eric

God bless America's legal system XXX  No further need for responsible parenting or common sense when you can hire someone to sue people.

----------


## Speed

First they came up with this cheap, abundant, inferior materal.  Hmm, visual acuity is not optomised by this. How do we get an industry that is all about improving vision to sell this stuff? Then the marketing gurus had to come up with a plan to sell it.  It was all a pretty sharp plan.  Only question I still have is, if Mommy is going to sue you for not putting poly on the kid, don't you think you'd better put a pair on Mommy?

----------


## DragonLensmanWV

> God bless America's legal system XXX  No further need for responsible parenting or common sense when you can hire someone to sue people.


You mean the legal system based on the UK's?

----------


## canaanlilli

> What kind of a mother is too cheap to put her kid in the safest lens choice? Seriously, if she's such an excellent attorney, surely she's got enough money that she doesn't have to haggle over a $99 glasses special. I really hate people like that, and I feel sorry for her kid/s.
> 
> To actually answer the question, I don't know if it's a law anywhere that minors get poly. Many companies have a policy mandating poly, but that's not the same as a law. Some actually go as far as refusing an order if the parent won't upgrade to poly. My current employer allows either Trivex or Poly, but that's it. Nobody ever fights it because they actually charge less than they'd charge an adult for the same lens, but if someone refused poly we'd have to decline the order.
> 
> There was a discussion here once (that I am too lazy to search, btw :D) where the usefulness of waivers was discussed. I remember some folks being adamantly against using them, claiming that it could actually be turned against you as proof of knowingly selling a risky product. I don't remember the winning side in that dogfight, but it might be an interesting read if you can find the thread.


not sure if this is the thread you're talking about, but here is the one I have.

http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...iver-I-can-use

my input...always have parents sign waiver on plastic lenses. In Mo and Ks, it is not a law on the books to use such, but is you sell a non-impact resistant lens to a child or person who works in a hazardous field and they choose to sue you if you don't have a signed waiver of warn/consent then you are going to loose the lawsuit. Found this out the hard way.

----------


## opticianbart

> This was addressed in Eyecare Business magazine.
> 
> http://www.eyecarebusiness.com/artic...?article=50054


sounds more like "We're not positive, but we're pretty sure that it's not."

----------


## finefocus

Legal, smeagle, who cares? Civil law is rarely about clear rights and wrongs, it is about that day's judgement by some judge or jury. You like exposure, is risk your raison d'etre? Put the kid in CR-39, or better yet, glass. Yes, that's all we had back in the day, but now you can be proven imprudent for using them. It's a bad idea.

----------


## digitalrevolution

If you are promoting a special package to minors with frame and lenses, why did you price the package with CR39 lenses in the first place?

If you are not in favor of selling the package at $99 with frame and SV CR39 lenses, why don't you add whatever the upcharge (let's  pretend it is $30) to the package price and make it standard and advertise it at that. So your package is actually $129 and it's what the practice recommends and what you personally believe in. 

Now you are not selling an "upgrade" and you avoided this entire argument. Just a thought.

----------


## jimrask

Never known so much pro-poly propaganda...
Poly might be more impact-resistant then CR-39, but still, when you drop a pair of glasses with poly, the lenses will be more scratched then CR-39, which won't break either. 
I never had a client asking for poly lenses, as most people here prefer (high index) plastic lenses for the better optical qualities these lenses offer.

In Europe, poly is only used for safety-glasses for companies who are too greedy to buy quality glasses for their employees. I work in an optical store that has been around for 30 years, wich has very richly documented client charts. I never even sold poly, kids' glasses are sometimes made with CR-39 if a parent wants it cheap, but mostly it's 1.60/42 AS lenses for kids and adults alike here. We never had a kid comming back with a broken lens (occasionally happens only in rimless frames from time to time, but most kids don't wear those). Even then, these lenses are covered for breakage in the standard guaranty for 30  months here in Europe.

----------


## Uilleann

> Never known so much pro-poly propaganda...
> Poly might be more impact-resistant then CR-39, but still, when you drop a pair of glasses with poly, the lenses will be more scratched then CR-39, which won't break either. 
> I never had a client asking for poly lenses, as most people here prefer (high index) plastic lenses for the better optical qualities these lenses offer.
> 
> In Europe, poly is only used for safety-glasses for companies who are too greedy to buy quality glasses for their employees. I work in an optical store that has been around for 30 years, wich has very richly documented client charts. I never even sold poly, kids' glasses are sometimes made with CR-39 if a parent wants it cheap, but mostly it's 1.60/42 AS lenses for kids and adults alike here. We never had a kid comming back with a broken lens (occasionally happens only in rimless frames from time to time, but most kids don't wear those). Even then, these lenses are covered for breakage in the standard guaranty for 30  months here in Europe.


Wow.  Some of us might say the same about your high index kool-aid!  ;)  

Poly works just fine for kids (and for millions of adults as well).  It works in countless high precision and general optical applications.  In the USA, it is inexpensive, comes in a huge range of stock powers from a myriad of manufactures, carries fair scratch and UV protection, is available photochromic, and many labs will warrant the pair against defects for one to two years.  

Bear in mind that the US has different requirements in regards to impact than Europe.  It might be possible that while your practices excellent performance with high index materials could not be as effectively implemented here.  Regardless...you're doing very well there.  CONGRATS!:cheers::cheers::cheers:

----------


## tigerlilly

My personal opinion is that kids need poly or Trivex because they're idiots. I know this because I was one once, and I have several children of my own now that I'm an adult so I see the idiocy firsthand every day. They shoot each other in the face with projectiles, throw rocks or ice-laden snowballs, play army with bb guns and paint guns, swing sticks wildly, wave around golf clubs and bats to hit different kinds of balls or just for the fun of waving it around, and they ride on various wheeled contraptions that stop suddenly and catapult them face first toward the concrete. If one kid tells another "Toss me that book/set of keys/can of soda/whatever object will break my glasses when it hits me," they do it, often with bad aim and decent force. Yes, adults do these things too, but adults have the reasoning and the knowledge to make their own judgments about the potential risk and consequences of their actions. Kids cannot, and it's our responsibility as parents and as health care providers to make the safe choice for them. Is it a massive risk to use CR-39 or high index? No, probably not, but we use poly for the same reason we use carseats, seatbelts, vaccinations and about a million other precautions. 

For me, the evidence is anecdotal. I have a friend whose son lost his eye in a household accident. I also had a young patient who shot himself in the eye with a BB gun. I truly believe his poly lenses saved his eye. The cost difference with poly isn't prohibitive, and the optics aren't so drastically worse as to compromise vision, so I think it's the right choice.

----------


## tigerlilly

> not sure if this is the thread you're talking about, but here is the one I have.
> 
> http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...iver-I-can-use


That may be it, although I thought it was an older thread. We tend to rehash things just a bit round here and my memory sucks. :D

----------


## TLG

I'm just curious; I have been dispensing nearly 30 years and I honestly can say that I have never seen a shattered CR39 lens. Have you? How many? I think the number is so small that it would be easy to rethink the 'value' of poly in children's eyewear. 

I've seen plenty of poly lenses in low powers that were warped so badly from the fit in the frame that it had to have affected vision. Is that 'safe'?

----------


## Oedema

i've been practicing for only one year now, and I've already seen at least five instances in which Poly lenses saved a patient from at least a minor ocular trauma, two had the potential for penetrating injuries.  However, all were adults.

----------


## DragonLensmanWV

I have seen some shattered and yellowed CR-39 lenses. Fortunately, most of them were not being worn at the time. I have never seen a CR-39 lens spontaneously crack. I have also seen spontaneously cracked and warped poly lenses. I still have yet to see a cracked or yellowed Trivex lens, or one broken in any way,scratched -yes, but none broken.
Most of us have seen this video from Younger Optics' site:
http://www.youngeroptics.com/impact_...Test_high.html

----------


## mshimp

There is no law that indicates that you have to sell poly to miners or to any one else. There is no law that says that you have to even offer poly or even to warn a patient about any material. You could even sell glass lens to a minor. However it would be irresponsible not to recommend poly to minors. I would go as far as having a store policy stating that only polycarbonate is to be used for minors (some exceptions). Not using poly is a law suit in the making.

----------


## varmint

I thought all lenses sold in the US were impact resistant, just some more than others. I'm wondering why there wasn't a disclaimer in the advertised sale in the first place.

----------


## Uilleann

Standard of care.

----------


## KStraker

> I thought all lenses sold in the US were impact resistant, just some more than others. I'm wondering why there wasn't a disclaimer in the advertised sale in the first place.


ALL optical lenses are impact resistant regardless of the material. Even glass is tested with the drop ball. There are various levels of impact resistance. I would categorize them as standard, hi impact, and ballistic. I have seen more instances where the back side of the intact lens caused injury, than instances where the lens breaks and caused injury.

----------


## Barry Santini

For those Poly haters out there:

Try this:

I'll take any Rx with a 1 Diopter cyl or more, or pupil placement more than 5mm above MC, and favor an optimzed FF POLY lens over ANY other material NOT done in the same form.

Period.

B

----------


## canaanlilli

I have had 3 different occasions where poly/trivex saved my pt.s eye and 5 instances where cr-39 was the actual cause of the vision loss. Gratefully on the cr-39 cases they were all adult and had signed a waiver that stated they understood that I had recommended a MORE (key word) impact resistant lens for their particular application. I my self have had an eye injury due to chipping plastic in a sunglass frame. Gratefully I did not lose my vision, it did partially penetrate my scelera (which is oddly cool and gross at the same time.) but I have not ordered cr-39 since.

I try to sell trivex to most of my patients unless they need a super thin lens, then I jump to 1.67 or higher.
I hate selling poly, and generally only sell it if the pt.s insurance covers it and they don't want to pay the upgrade to trivex. On that note I price my sv ply and trivex the same.

----------


## wmcdonald

This thread is an example of the vast diversity of knowledge in this profession. Professionals who do not recommend poly for all children (and at-risk patients of all types) put themselves and their patients at great risk, both physiological and financial. This has been well known for many years. Stop being irresponsible if you are not following those guidelines. You may have never seen it, but it happens. Be thankful you have not, and make corrections now.

----------


## canaanlilli

> This thread is an example of the vast diversity of knowledge in this profession. Professionals who do not recommend poly for all children (and at-risk patients of all types) put themselves and their patients at great risk, both physiological and financial. This has been well known for many years. Stop being irresponsible if you are not following those guidelines. You may have never seen it, but it happens. Be thankful you have not, and make corrections now.


here is a link about trivex impact resistance  http://www.youngeroptics.com/pdf/tri..._Monograph.pdf

I have also done independent studies on the impact resistance of poly and trivex. I have done the drop ball test, the hit by a baseball test and the "I don't know how I got shot w/ a bb" test. I used 100 of both lenses all -2.00 sphere.  ( fairly average rx in my area.)
Poly didn't shatter but it did crack in all of the baseball and bb test. trivex showed dings, but no cracking, chipping, or shattering.
Also with the way that poly cracks in metal grooved frames or drill mount frames it poses a customer service issue. I'm sorry but in my humble opinion,poly needs to be phased out. Even 1.6 has made incredible strides in impact resistance, and it is thinner than poly and has better optics.

----------


## Uilleann

Must have been a seriously poor batch of poly!!  In all my years dispensing, I can count on one hand the poly lenses I've seen cracked - with fingers left over.  Never had one, not a single one of my patients ever come back with a poly lens cracked or shattered in any sort of manner that would have caused them any form of risk of bodily harm. 

To say it unilaterally needs to be phased out is utterly untrue and dare I say, irresponsible as an honest dispenser.  Take a breather from that giant stein full of Trivex kool aid folks. :)

Any lens material on today's market is 100% perfectly viable to dispense. And any lens material on todays market can be made to safely withstand minor impacts, and even safety and industrial applications - we would all do well to remember that. 

The poly vs. Trivex "I'm better than you nya nya nya!" Arguements get old. They're both perfectly fine materials, and either will excel at providing both good optical quality and impact resistance.

----------


## Johns

In my offices, we will_ not_ put children in Cr-39. Your professional responsibility cannot be waived by a signature of a parent or guardian.  

We recommend Poly.  If they do not take our recommendations, then we will not fill the Rx.  And yes, we've had a few walk.

Adios...

----------


## Judy Canty

> In my offices, we will_ not_ put children in Cr-39. Your professional responsibility cannot be waived by a signature of a parent or guardian. 
> 
> We recommend Poly. If they do not take our recommendations, then we will not fill the Rx. And yes, we've had a few walk.
> 
> Adios...


And that's how it should be done.

----------


## canaanlilli

> Must have been a seriously poor batch of poly!!  In all my years dispensing, I can count on one hand the poly lenses I've seen cracked - with fingers left over.  Never had one, not a single one of my patients ever come back with a poly lens cracked or shattered in any sort of manner that would have caused them any form of risk of bodily harm. 
> 
> To say it unilaterally needs to be phased out is utterly untrue and dare I say, irresponsible as an honest dispenser.  Take a breather from that giant stein full of Trivex kool aid folks. :)
> 
> Any lens material on today's market is 100% perfectly viable to dispense. And any lens material on todays market can be made to safely withstand minor impacts, and even safety and industrial applications - we would all do well to remember that. 
> 
> The poly vs. Trivex "I'm better than you nya nya nya!" Arguements get old. They're both perfectly fine materials, and either will excel at providing both good optical quality and impact resistance.



I didn't say the poly shattered, I said the poly cracked. that means it stayed in one piece but had a crack across the lens. Poly is safer than plastic no doubt, poly is even good for most patients with cyls under -/+ 3.00 in my experience BUT Trivex does have better optical quality. It seems like we have as Dr. Mcdonald says a wide variety of opinions, knowledge and experiences. BIG DEAL, that's part of any industry and life. FACT of the matter is and I don't think anyone disagrees with this point, CHILDREN should not be put in CR39.

----------


## EdgeOptical

> In my offices, we will_ not_ put children in Cr-39. Your professional responsibility cannot be waived by a signature of a parent or guardian.  
> 
> We recommend Poly.  If they do not take our recommendations, then we will not fill the Rx.  And yes, we've had a few walk.
> 
> Adios...


Bingo. There are alot of laws i dont really care about, i have a standard for my office and that is my bottom line. 
same with unrelated Dr.s writing their own Rx's, may be legal but not acceptable in my office.

----------


## Speed

Poor little fellers.

----------


## braheem24

If it comes down to a waiver, spend the extra $5 yourself to save the sale and have peace of mind.

----------


## wmcdonald

> here is a link about trivex impact resistance  http://www.youngeroptics.com/pdf/tri..._Monograph.pdf
> 
> I have also done independent studies on the impact resistance of poly and trivex. I have done the drop ball test, the hit by a baseball test and the "I don't know how I got shot w/ a bb" test. I used 100 of both lenses all -2.00 sphere.  ( fairly average rx in my area.)
> Poly didn't shatter but it did crack in all of the baseball and bb test. trivex showed dings, but no cracking, chipping, or shattering.
> Also with the way that poly cracks in metal grooved frames or drill mount frames it poses a customer service issue. I'm sorry but in my humble opinion,poly needs to be phased out. Even 1.6 has made incredible strides in impact resistance, and it is thinner than poly and has better optics.


Trivex has comparable impact resistance. I should have stated so above. My apologies for leaving it out. The important issue is NOT to use only CR-39 or glass.

----------


## Pogu

How is a kid in CR any more at risk than a kid with no glasses on at all? Getting hit in the face is getting hit in the face, es no bueno.

----------


## tigerlilly

Getting hit in the face with no glasses on is a different issue. If the kid is wearing glasses when he gets hit, are we going to put him in the material least likely to send sharp projectile shards into his eye? Are we going to use the material most likely to protect his eyes from the object hitting him? I think we have an obligation to do so. Trivex or poly, I don't care which, but if you're under 18 you should be in one of them.

----------


## Speed

> Trivex or poly, I don't care which, but if you're under 18 you should be in one of them.


Why the age restriction?  Should you just play it safe and give these as the only choice?

----------


## tigerlilly

Adults are responsible for making their own risk assessments and have the right to choose accordingly. We need to inform them of their options and recommend poly/Trivex when it's the most appropriate choice, but it's on them to make the decision. When it comes to kids, the safest material should be the default choice. I consider that choice to be along the lines of carseats, bike helmets and other safety measures that are now standard.

----------


## tdnod

Understanding that poly is the "more" beneficial lens for all minor children, how do you explain to a parent of a child that you will not fill a Rx without poly when the family walks in with absolutely no income and the child's glasses are broken?  Insurances have decided to down grade and down pay the providers for their materials.  I don't know where you all live, but in Central Florida, Nature Coast, over 60% is Medicaid HMO and those insurances only pay for CR-39.  These people cannot afford to upgrade to poly and even the bleeding heart of the devil itself, "Walmart", has to sell glasses for $19 in order to get the sales.  When it's up to these 2 questions, 1. Do I dispense with a CR-39 for a child who is +3.50-2.25 so they can at least SEE? or 2.  Do I let them walk because the parent won't upgrade to a poly?  hmmmm..... I go for #1!

----------


## opticianbart

> I don't know where you all live, but in Central Florida, Nature Coast, over 60% is Medicaid HMO and those insurances only pay for CR-39.


Really? that sucks, around my area 'Caid generally pays for poly with kids, you just have to do some extra paperwork depending on which... "flavor" of 'Caid you're working with.

----------


## lind2020

If you get hit in the face hard enough to shatter a CR39 lens with any object, the last concern will be why you didn't get polycarbonate lenses. That much I guarantee you.

Now is there a higher possibility of a chip, shard, piece or otherwise from a cr39 lens detaching and entering your eye, absolutely. The point, which has been well made, is exactly that. Why risk it, on anyone but especially children on monocular patients who are either higher risk or have more to lose. 

The only other question i_s what is your office policy?? If you decide anyone under 18 gets poly or hits the door, good for you. Make it known and post it clearly and that's settled for you._

----------


## Uilleann

> ...Insurances have decided to down grade and down pay the providers for their materials...


Wait a tick...this is the very business model EVERY insurance company is founded on ain't it??

----------


## canaanlilli

> Understanding that poly is the "more" beneficial lens for all minor children, how do you explain to a parent of a child that you will not fill a Rx without poly when the family walks in with absolutely no income and the child's glasses are broken?  Insurances have decided to down grade and down pay the providers for their materials.  I don't know where you all live, but in Central Florida, Nature Coast, over 60% is Medicaid HMO and those insurances only pay for CR-39.  These people cannot afford to upgrade to poly and even the bleeding heart of the devil itself, "Walmart", has to sell glasses for $19 in order to get the sales.  When it's up to these 2 questions, 1. Do I dispense with a CR-39 for a child who is +3.50-2.25 so they can at least SEE? or 2.  Do I let them walk because the parent won't upgrade to a poly?  hmmmm..... I go for #1!


Wow, In Kansas and Missouri both they cover poly under 16 on most plans and those with VSP's medicare is covered up to 18.

----------


## DragonLensmanWV

Poly is covered here by Medicaid for up to 21 years old. They even pay a little more for poly.

----------


## Ginster

It is not a law here in Texas either but we do strongly incurage ploy for kids. Most parants go with it. If not, we have them sign a waver stating we are not responsible for any damage incurred the childs vision due to an impact while wearing glasses without impact resistant lenses (something like that). What I have heard is that they can sue you if something happens where an eye is damaged or lost because they are a minor, theres an old rumor here that someone did sue and win?? I don't know personally if this is true or not but we didn't want to take the chance.

----------


## KStraker

> It is not a law here in Texas either but we do strongly incurage ploy for kids. Most parants go with it. If not, we have them sign a waver stating we are not responsible for any damage incurred the childs vision due to an impact while wearing glasses without impact resistant lenses (something like that). What I have heard is that they can sue you if something happens where an eye is damaged or lost because they are a minor, theres an old rumor here that someone did sue and win?? I don't know personally if this is true or not but we didn't want to take the chance.


I'm tired of people referring to other lenses as non impact resistant. As I stated previously, ALL optical lenses in the US are impact resistant.

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *These people cannot afford to upgrade to poly and even the bleeding heart of the devil itself, "Walmart", has to sell glasses for $19 in order to get the sales.* 
> 
> *When it's up to these 2 questions, 1. Do I dispense with a CR-39 for a child who is +3.50-2.25 so they can at least SEE? or* 
> *2. Do I let them walk because the parent won't upgrade to a poly? hmmmm..... I go for #1!*


In a case like that try to use CR39 stock lenses in 71mm diameter. They will be thick enough in a kids frame to give plenty protection and make a nice hidabevel so the thickness won't show.

----------


## harry a saake

Chris, 71mm ???? what are you talking about, if its a minus lens and the CT is 2.0, it makes no difference whether or not  the blank is 51 mm, 65mm, or 80mm, after you edge it down to the frame size the CT and edge thickness will be the same for any size blank you use. your statement would only be true if it were a plus lens.

BTW, guys , over the years i have seen more eye related injuries to kids, from the bad habit of dispensing poly lenses with a metal frame(nose pads) and then telling them its ok to go out and play sports. Ever seen a nose pad that has entered the canthus and the sclera, not pretty

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *Chris, 71mm ???? what are you talking about, if its a minus lens and the CT is 2.0, it makes no difference whether or not the blank is 51 mm, 65mm, or 80mm, .........................*


Right Harry..............but in this case it is not a minus lens, at least as far as my book goes

----------


## Ginster

> ALL optical lenses are impact resistant regardless of the material. Even glass is tested with the drop ball. There are various levels of impact resistance. I would categorize them as standard, hi impact, and ballistic. I have seen more instances where the back side of the intact lens caused injury, than instances where the lens breaks and caused injury.


 
   Im sorry to inform you but all lenses in the U.S. are not considerd safety. CR39 only at 3.0 CT drop ball and monogramed for safety. Ploycarb is impact resistant and so is Trivex. Glasss (very seldom used anymore) 3.0 CT drop ball. All CR39 and Glass safety lenses must be placed in a Z87 safety frame. to be considered impact resistant by OSHA. If you are selling CR39 and telling your Pt's they are impact resistant you are doing them a diservice.  You need to go to the meeting not far from you in July and get some training. 

                                                 Regards Ginster

----------


## WFruit

> Im sorry to inform you but all lenses in the U.S. are not considerd safety. CR39 only at 3.0 CT drop ball and monogramed for safety. Ploycarb is impact resistant and so is Trivex. Glasss (very seldom used anymore) 3.0 CT drop ball. All CR39 and Glass safety lenses must be placed in a Z87 safety frame. to be considered impact resistant by OSHA. If you are selling CR39 and telling your Pt's they are impact resistant you are doing them a diservice. You need to go to the meeting not far from you in July and get some training. 
> 
> Regards Ginster


I'm afraid you are incorrect. CR-39 lenses ARE impact resistant, just not Z87 Industrial Safety impact resistant.

"The enclosed lens has been manufactured and statistically tested in compliance with FDA impact regulation 21 CRF 801.410.  Aside from normal edging and tinting, any additional modification to or treatment of this lens will require the FDA impact test.  Note: 'IMPACT RESISTANT' lenses are neither shatterproof nor unbreakable." - back flap of a Hoya Hi-Lux (CR-39) 2.0 CT lens (-5.25 -1.50)

All Finished lenses have this, or a variation thereof, on their packaging.

----------


## FVCCHRIS

"Duty to Warn" is just what it says- a duty. A moral/ethical one and a "duty" from the standpoint of liability, much more(IMHO) to protect the Dr/Optician than the "duty" we have to the patient. If it were more than that it would be called "The LAW about poly lenses". And, BTW, that attorney/mother who wouldn't pay extra for her kids poly lenses will be the first person to scream foul and sue your **s when her sweetie pie daughter goes over the handlebars with those CR39 lenses. What a surprise it would be when you show up in court with all the documentation to show that, regardless of that mom's frugality, you knew poly was in the childs best interests- so that's what you made her anyhow. Suit gets tossed and the mother looks like a fool, and you are an angel.

----------


## jcmnbogey

I see a lot of  personal opinions, but no definite answer whether or it's a Law  or not.  Just looking for validation  either way.
 :Nerd:  :Cool:  :Nerd:

----------


## Jacqui

> I see a lot of  personal opinions, but no definite answer whether or it's a Law  or not.  Just looking for validation  either way.


 It's not

----------


## MakeOptics

> If it comes down to a waiver, spend the extra $5 yourself to save the sale and have peace of mind.


+1, That's what I do.  If your not gonna spend it I do, costs a few dollars on the wholesale end but it's worth it either way.

----------


## eyechick1969

I love these myths in our industry!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

----------


## jcmnbogey

thanx Jacqui...i see the ice is melting off Frostbite falls

----------


## regional_manager

I've not seen anyone discussing the fact that poly has uv protection as a benefit for kids.  Most sun damage occurs before the age of 18.  So, while it is not a law, I would only fit children with poly because of the uv protection.  The impact resistance of poly is great, but the fact that it protects kids eyes from sun damage is even more important from my view.

----------


## Jacqui

> I've not seen anyone discussing the fact that poly has uv protection as a benefit for kids.  Most sun damage occurs before the age of 18.  So, while it is not a law, I would only fit children with poly because of the uv protection.  The impact resistance of poly is great, but the fact that it protects kids eyes from sun damage is even more important from my view.


Other materials are just as good. Trivex is also more break resistant.

----------


## regional_manager

> Other materials are just as good. Trivex is also more break resistant.




And 4 times the price.

----------


## CNG

Give the money back or do the RX in Poly no biggie, any one who has been in this business knows you can absorb the cost of doing the darn things in poly. Why irritate an attorney on something so minuscle that may end up in your state opticianry board? Stupid threads like this one on something so small just proves how ignorant we can be when a thorny issue comes along. 
CNG

----------


## witty optician

Very Very well said !

----------

