DO NOT SEE HER UNLESS....you want to have 2 exams, and try 3 different lenses. First two were with wrong measurements, therefore I was not able to see well. Third lenses were with measurements gotten from my previous Optometrist, but could not have been made right because I still could not see right. I was told by one of the gals that works there that I could try that third time, and if I still was not seeing correctly, Dr. Fields said she would refund the money in full. I returned the glasses today, and she has changed her mind. Got all back but 30%. That amounts to over $200.00. Not only that, but the exam and optomap was an additional $185.00 that of course will not be returned. Therefore, no glasses, and out more than $385.00!

I have been going for two years...Dr. Fields and staff are very professional and thorough. I enjoy the help I get choosing my new eye wear, they make it fun and provide honest feedback as to how the eye wear looks on you. I love you all and will continue to visit once a year for my annual exam. Thank you for all you do.

The staff is very friendly and accommodating. They work hard to make sure that you are comfortable and understand any diagnoses, prescriptions, care options, etc. I would highly recommend them to anyone seeking a new optometrist.

Very friendly and clear about prescriptions, coverage and so forth. I love the staff and Dr. Fields. My family and I have been seeing them for 5 years now and have been very satisfied!

Our family has been denied future service here upon the advice of Dr. Fields' attorney/husband, who is apparently a malpractice lawyer. This was after I asked for a dated, company-identified copy of their Notice Of Privacy Practices, which is supposed to be provided anyway. A signature acknowledging receipt of this is specifically required on their multi purpose, multi-signature authorization/acknowledgement form. I also asked why there is a request, on that same signature sheet, for a "Lifetime" Patient Signature for processing insurance claims, rather than a single use/single time signature. I heard what semed to me to be them chuckling at this request for explanation, as they told me I didn't have to sign that line anyway if I didn't want to, but I decided to let my daughter take the appointment instead, and I would later go elsewhere. I'd already asked why they requested to make photo copies of our driver's licenses for their files, and subsequently asked for my photo copy back. The next day they called us to inform us that despite the long term business relationship with my wife, and my decision not to personally use them, they were terminating their business with our family. I'm fine with this, as I felt that my inquiries for understanding's sake, of the quantity and use of our personal information and of their procedures were not respected. But they've stated to us that they felt that I was trying to be intimidating and that they were offended. Explanations for their specific wordings used, and requests for forms for which signatures are required that acknowledge you've already received and/or understood those forms, appear to be intimidating and offensive here. OK, I'm gone. But I also noted that the Notice of Private Practices sheet (effective 2003) stated that they can choose to change those terms at any time as allowed by law and that those changes will be retroactive to the records already on hand. It didn't seem to me in the wording, as if it mattered whether I knew of any of the new terms' changes or not. In my opinion, if my calm, honest, respectful questions had been respectfully answered, I'd have stayed for my appointment, and the matter would be simply a non-issue. I never raised my voice. I always spoke respectfully, trying to understand the topics at hand. I sincerely thanked the lady for her later apology. My wife and daughter uneventfully continued and finished their exams while we were there. It's astounding to me that service should later be denied to a customer's relatives because of a customer's inquiries, and that those inquires into the meaning/purpose of their legal documents' wordings and their procedures would somehow seem intimidating or offensive. For me personally, it's just a mutual decision to part, but it's interesting that their lawyer (a malpractice lawyer) recommended extending the denial of service to my family as well, despite my wife's long term business with that eye care office.