Michigan Optometry Practice Act and Administrative Rules
This domain tests how Michigan law divides optometric regulation between the Public Health Code and the Board of Optometry’s administrative rules, and how a licensee applies both in daily practice.
Core framework
- The Practice Act (Public Health Code, Article 15) creates licensure, scope, and disciplinary authority; administrative rules fill in operational detail such as records, CE, and practice standards.
- The Michigan Board of Optometry works with the Bureau of Professional Licensing (BPL) inside LARA. The Board recommends and interprets standards; BPL administers licenses and complaints.
- A rule cannot enlarge the statute. If a proposed activity is outside the statutory scope, Board silence or informal staff comment does not authorize it.
- Licensees must monitor rule amendments; relying on an old rule printout is not a defense.
Worked example
A licensee wants to add a new imaging service and asks whether a Board rule “approves” it. Reasoning: first ask whether the activity falls within optometric scope under the Practice Act; second, check whether a rule or standard addresses training, supervision, or documentation; third, confirm competency and standard of care. If the activity is outside scope or the licensee lacks training, the answer is no-regardless of whether a device is marketed to optometrists. Document the protocol and refer when needed.
Traps that cost marks
- Treating Board rules as advisory rather than enforceable.
- Assuming Board staff can give legal permission to expand scope.
- Missing the statute-over-rule hierarchy.
- Forgetting that recordkeeping and delegation standards can appear in rules, not just the statute.
- Ignoring updated rule text when an older summary conflicts.