The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
The Honorable Chet Brooks - Page 3
While the Board's composition in and of itself is not rendered unconstitutional by Gibson and Wall, those cases indicate that its authority to initiate certain disciplinary proceedings against some optometrists is questionable. The present composition of the Board may result in its inability to afford due process in a disciplinary proceeding brought against an optometrist who is not self-employed. Of course, whether due process was afforded would depend on the facts of the individual case. Withrow v. Larkin, 43 U. S. L. W. 4459 (April 16, 1975). SUMMARY The statutory composition of the Texas Optometry Board is not unconstitutional under the doctrine of Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 U. S. 564 (1973). The Board may be unable to afford due process in some disciplinary hearings brought against certain optometrists. Whether due process was afforded depends on the facts of the individual case. Very truly yours, JOHN L. HILL Attorney General of Texas APPROVED: DAVID M. KENDALL, First Assistant C. ROBERT HEATH, Chairman Opinion Committee jwb