The Issue This is a license discipline proceeding in which the Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against the Respondent on the basis of allegations in a three-count Administrative Complaint. The Administrative Complaint alleges violations of Paragraph (f), (h), and (i) of Section 480.046(1), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent has been licensed to practice massage therapy, having been issued license number MA0006547. At all times material to this case, the Respondent has also held a massage establishment license, having been issued establishment license number MM000556833. In or around September of 1993, a Mr. J. V. T. 1/ read a newspaper article to the effect that the Respondent had successfully treated children suffering from attention deficit disorder by using vitamins and health supplements in lieu of drugs such as Ritalin. At that time Mr. J. V. T. had a minor son, D. T., who was suffering from attention deficit disorder and was taking Ritalin pursuant to a prescription written by the son's pediatrician. Shortly after reading the newspaper article, Mr. J. V. T. took his son to see the Respondent for the purpose of determining whether his son's condition could be treated without Ritalin. Mr. J. V. T. and his son saw the Respondent at a facility named Advanced Health Center. At that location Mr. J. V. T. saw a massage therapy license for the Respondent. Mr. J. V. T. is not certain that was the only license. The purpose of Mr. J. V. T.'s visit was to obtain nutritional counseling with regard to his son's attention deficit disorder. He did not ask the Respondent to perform a massage on his son. In or around January of 1994, the Respondent recommended that J. V. T.'s son undergo a blood test. The blood test was performed by someone else at another facility. Eventually, someone gave Mr. J. V. T. a videotape that was described to him as being a video tape of his son's blood test. Shortly thereafter, Mr. J. V. T. met with the Respondent to discuss the results of the blood test. The Respondent told Mr. J. V. T. that the blood test showed that Mr. J. V. T.'s son had tape worms and that the tape worms were consuming large quantities of the nutrition and health supplements the son had been taking. The Respondent recommended some treatments to counteract the tapeworms. Mr. J. V. T. lacked confidence in what he was being told by the Respondent and discussed the matter with his son's pediatrician. Based on his discussion with the pediatrician, Mr. J. V. T. did not seek any further services from the Respondent. Mr. J. V. T. paid the Respondent for the services provided by the Respondent. Mr. J. V. T. does not believe that his son received any benefit from the services provided by the Respondent. When questioned by Mr. J. V. T., the Respondent stated that he was self taught and that he was not a doctor.
Recommendation On the basis of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued in this case dismissing all charges against the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of August, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of August, 1997.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent violated Section 480.046(1)(c), Florida Statutes, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the agency charged with the duty to regulate the practice of massage therapy in Florida. At all time relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was licensed to practice massage therapy, holding license No. MA0020209. In September 1997, Respondent provided massage therapy treatment on three occasions to a client, M.J. The treatment was intended to be therapeutic for injuries suffered by M.J. in an automobile accident. The last of the massage therapy sessions occurred on September 19, 1997, at the home of M.J.'s mother. M.J. subsequently filed a formal complaint with the Duval County Sheriff's Office. The complaint alleged that Respondent touched M.J.'s breast and nipple inappropriately during the September 19, 1997, massage therapy session. On November 24, 1997, the State Attorney, in and for Duval County, Florida, filed an Information, charging Respondent with misdemeanor battery in violation of Section 784.03(1)(a), Florida Statutes. In a jury trial on April 15, 1998, Duval County Court Case No. 97-66371 MM, Respondent was convicted of simple battery, a criminal violation of Section 784.03(1)(a), Florida Statutes. The above-referenced criminal conviction arose directly out of Respondent's massage therapy session with M.J. on September 19, 1997. Respondent would not have been charged with and convicted of simple battery but for Respondent's massage therapy practice on M.J. Respondent had to pay a $200 fine and $115 in court costs as a result of his criminal conviction.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a final order fining Respondent $500 and assessing costs of investigation and prosecution. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of October, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of October, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Gary L. Asbell, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Building 3, Mail Stop 39 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Stanley Michael Carroll 1535 San Juan Avenue Jacksonville, Florida 32210 William H. Buckhalt, Executive Director Board of Massage Therapy Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Theodore M. Henderson, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent engaged in sexual misconduct in the practice of massage therapy, in violation of section 480.0485, Florida Statutes; engaged in improper sexual activity, in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B7-26.010; or failed to appropriately drape a client, in violation of section 480.046(1)(i); and, if so, what is the appropriate sanction.
Findings Of Fact The Department, Board of Massage Therapy, is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of massage therapy within the state of Florida, pursuant to section 20.43 and chapters 456 and 480, Florida Statutes. Mr. Pruneda is a licensed massage therapist within the state of Florida, having been issued license number MA 63779. Mr. Pruneda's current address and address of record is 18 Walcott Drive, Boynton Beach, Florida 33426. On or about November 13, 2016, Mr. Pruneda was employed at Shanti Ohm Spa at 321 Northeast Second Avenue, Delray Beach, Florida 33444. On or about November 13, 2016, Patient L.G., a 29-year- old female, received a massage from Mr. Pruneda. Patient L.G. had received massages about 20 times before, and had received a massage from Mr. Pruneda on one prior occasion. The spa was normally closed on Sundays, but Patient L.G. called and requested massage appointments for massages for herself and her fiancé for Sunday, November 13, 2016. Mr. Pruneda testified that when an appointment for a massage is made, the receptionist gives the names of the massage therapists and the patient chooses among them. However, Patient L.G. testified that she did not request Mr. Pruneda. In any event, the spa made special arrangements for Mr. Pruneda and another massage therapist to come in to the spa on that Sunday. On November 13, 2016, Patient L.G. said that after filling out some paperwork, Mr. Pruneda came into the reception area and that was when she first learned he would be her massage therapist. Before the massage began, Patient L.G. disrobed and lay face-down on the massage table and covered herself with a large draping. Patient L.G. was wearing her underwear but no bra. Patient L.G. testified that at the beginning of the massage, Mr. Pruneda spent an excessive amount of time massaging the backs of her legs and that the strokes were coming very close to her buttocks, making her feel uncomfortable. After he moved on to her lower back, the massage went quickly, and she said that she remembered wishing he would spend more time on her back. After her back, he massaged her arms. Then Mr. Pruneda asked Patient L.G. to turn over onto her back, and Patient L.G. complied. Patient L.G. credibly testified that when she turned over, Mr. Pruneda did not avert his eyes and that he then failed to properly drape her, so she had to cover her breasts with the blanket herself. She did not give consent for him to leave her undraped. Patient L.G. testified that Mr. Pruneda again spent an excessive amount of time massaging the tops of her legs and that she felt his hand going under the strap of her underwear. She testified that he then moved her underwear aside and touched her genital area. She testified that she told him "no, no, no, no." She said that her eyes were closed and that she was in shock and fear. Patient L.G. testified that he had his hand on her shoulder and said to her, "If you say no it is no, if you say yes it is yes." She said that he did not try to improperly touch her again. She said that she felt uncomfortable and she adjusted the blanket. She testified that Mr. Pruneda continued the massage on her arms, up to the top, and then massaged her shoulders. Patient L.G. did not give informed consent for Mr. Pruneda to remove the draping from her breasts. Patient L.G. did not give informed consent for Mr. Pruneda to adjust or remove her underwear. Mr. Pruneda agreed that he had performed a massage on Patient L.G. on one prior occasion, but his testimony was otherwise contrary to that of Patient L.G.'s in every relevant aspect. He denied that he exposed Patient L.G's breasts, failed to appropriately drape her breasts, pulled aside her underwear, or touched her genital area. He testified that he simply performed a deep tissue massage with the appropriate level of care and professionalism. Mr. J.N., Patient L.G.'s fiancé, testified that although he and Patient L.G. each had an appointment for a 60-minute massage, his massage was completed first, and he had to wait for 10 to 15 minutes for his fiancé to complete hers. He said that when she came out, he noticed discomfort on her face and asked her if everything was okay. She replied that it was. On the way home, he asked her two more times if everything was okay, receiving the same response. He testified that when they had almost arrived at the house, she finally told him that she had been the victim of sexual misconduct. Patient L.G. confirmed this account, explaining that she said nothing to her fiancé in response to his questioning until they were close to the house to avoid an incident at the spa. Patient L.G. testified that after she returned to the house, she called the spa to report what had happened and, a couple of days later, also contacted the police. Mr. Pruneda introduced Exhibit R-3, a "Square Sales List" from Shanti Ohm Spa, which contained entries dated November 13, 2016, showing a tip of $20 from Patient L.G. to "Jorge," and a tip of $20 from J.N. to his therapist. The list also shows a single line drawn through the tip of $20 from Patient L.G. There was speculation at hearing that this was because the tip was later returned to Patient L.G., but no evidence from spa personnel was offered to explain the entries on the list. Mr. Pruneda argues that Patient L.G. would not have left a tip had she actually been sexually assaulted. Patient L.G. admitted at hearing that she did leave a $20 tip for Mr. Pruneda. She stated that she believed if she failed to do so, her fiancé would realize something was wrong and that she wished to avoid an incident while at the spa. Mr. Pruneda introduced into evidence a copy of a November 14, 2016, posting from a social media internet site belonging to a business specializing in cosmetic makeovers. The document showed Patient L.G. after a cosmetic makeover and contained her comment stating, "Thank you so much . . . I had so much fun today and feel amazing!! Off to rock this photo shoot thanks to you ladies!!" While Mr. Pruneda argues that this social media posting showed that Patient L.G.'s attitude on November 14, 2016, was completely inconsistent with that of a person who had actually suffered a sexual assault on the previous day, this argument is not accepted. Patient L.G. admitted the posting, but explained that the appointment had been made some time before, could not be rescheduled, and that she was obliged to go on with the session in order to meet deadlines for her upcoming wedding. Both the original and the Amended Administrative Complaint also charged that Mr. Pruneda touched Patient L.G.'s breasts without her consent. Further, Ms. Mason, expert witness of Petitioner, testified by deposition, based in part upon her review of the administrative report that had been prepared, that she was of the opinion that Mr. Pruneda's improper touching of Patient L.G.'s breasts constituted sexual misconduct. Yet at hearing, no evidence of Mr. Pruneda improperly touching or trying to massage Patient L.G.'s breasts was presented.1/ At that time, Patient L.G., the only person who could have made such an accusation, testified: Q: Did Mr. Pruneda ever try to massage anywhere on your chest? A: He was massaging my shoulder area. But no. Patient L.G. testified that after the incident, she was very upset for a very long time. Mr. J.N. testified that Patient L.G. felt nervous and had breakdowns. He testified that their relationship had changed a little bit, but that they were working to make it better and improve it going forward. Patient L.G.'s testimony as to the events that took place at the Shanti Ohm Spa on November 13, 2016, was precise, clear, and convincing. Ms. Mason credibly testified that she was familiar with the standards of practice of massage therapists in Florida and that the failure to properly drape a patient without express permission falls below those standards. Mr. Pruneda was fired from Shanti Ohm Spa.2/ He was restricted from the practice of massage therapy on female patients and, at the time of hearing, was no longer working as a massage therapist. Ms. Escalas testified that she has been married to Mr. Pruneda for 20 years and had been with him several years before they were married. She testified that the charges against him have damaged their lives and that it has been shameful to have to admit that he was being investigated. She testified that he was now working in a cleaning company, and eventually, would be working at a shower door company, but was making less money than he made as a massage therapist. Ms. Lima testified that although Mr. Pruneda is not her biological father, he has been just like her father for 20 years. She said that he has always demonstrated high values as a person and that he has never acted badly in all of that time. She testified that the accusations have greatly damaged the family. Mr. Pruneda has been licensed as a massage therapist for 30 years. Mr. Pruneda has never had any prior discipline imposed in connection with his massage therapy license. The case management system of the Clerk and Comptroller of Palm Beach County, Florida, contains no record of felony, criminal traffic, or misdemeanor charges involving Mr. Pruneda.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Massage Therapy enter a final order finding Jorge L. Pruneda in violation of sections 480.0485 and 480.046(1)(i) and rule 64B7-26.010; imposing a fine of $3,500; revoking his license to practice massage therapy; and imposing costs of investigation and prosecution. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of November, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of November, 2017.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent committed sexual misconduct in the practice of massage therapy and failed to appropriately drape a client as alleged in the First Amended Administrative Complaint1 (AAC), and if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent’s license.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of massage therapy in the state of Florida, pursuant to section 20.43 and chapters 456 and 480, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was licensed as a massage therapist in Florida, having been issued license number MA 80545. In the time since Respondent was licensed, no prior disciplinary action has been taken against her license. Respondent was born in the Liaoning Province, North China, and came to the United States in 2005. Respondent is a U.S. citizen. Respondent attended a Beauty School for her massage education and her educational instruction at school was in English. Further, when she took the examination to become a Florida licensed massage therapist, the examination was in English, and no one helped her to translate the material. Respondent’s address of record is 9986 Red Eagle Drive, Orlando, Florida, 32826.4 At all times relevant to the AAC, Respondent practiced massage therapy, as defined in section 480.033(3), at Golden Asian Massage, LLC, doing business as The Wood Massage (Golden Asian). Golden Asian was located at 1218 Winter Garden Vineland Road, Suite 124, Winter Garden, Orange County, Florida. 4 On November 26, 2019, the parties filed a Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation, stipulating that Respondent’s address of record was in New York. At some point after the March 2016 investigation, Respondent moved out of Florida. Then, either before or after November 26, 2019, Respondent moved back to Florida, but failed to advise her counsel or DOH of her address change. Respondent’s counsel stated that he would ensure Respondent filed the appropriate change of address information with DOH. At the time of the investigation, the LEO had been trained at the police academy, had multiple courses in vice-related investigations, human trafficking investigations, and drug trafficking investigations, including prostitution activities. The LEO has participated in “well over a hundred” undercover prostitution operations. The LEO’s investigation assignments “as a whole” include “anything that would be vice-related, drug trafficking or human trafficking.” The MBI is a joint police task force for the Ninth Judicial Circuit, which includes Orange County and Osceola County. MBI routinely investigates vice, human trafficking crimes, and mid-level to upper-level narcotic organizations. Once the MBI receives a complaint about a massage parlor, an undercover investigation is initiated. An undercover investigation team usually consists of five law enforcement personnel: a supervisor-in-charge; the undercover agent (agent); and two to three additional support personnel. An agent goes into the establishment, posing as a customer. Once the agent is on the massage table, the agent waits for the massage therapist to initiate, either via conversation or through an overt act, a predisposition for sexual activity. In some instances, the massage therapist might glide their fingers in the inner thigh, or speak of some sexual activity. Once the massage therapist initiates an actual sex act, the agent then tries to stop the sex act, while engaging in conversation. On March 9, 2016, after receiving a tip or complaint about the establishment, the MBI conducted an undercover investigation of the Golden Asian. The LEO arrived at the Golden Asian, met Respondent at the counter, and in English, asked for a 30-minute massage. Respondent responded in English and told the LEO it would cost $50 for a 30-minute massage. The LEO agreed to the cost, and Respondent led the LEO to a massage room within the Golden Asian. The LEO got completely undressed and positioned himself on his stomach, face-down on the massage table. Upon entering the room, Respondent grabbed a towel and placed it on the LEO’s back midsection. The LEO described the area covered as “pretty much my buttocks to, like, my lower back,” but the towel was not tucked in. Using oil, Respondent massaged the LEO’s back, thighs, and neck. While the LEO was still on his stomach and roughly ten to 15 minutes through the massage, the towel fell off. The LEO did nothing to dislodge the towel while he was on his stomach. Roughly halfway through the 30-minute massage, Respondent “stopped massaging and it was more of a gliding motion from [the LEO’s] back to [the LEO’s] inner thighs.” With this action, the LEO determined that Respondent was predisposed to engage in sexual activity. Respondent directed the LEO to turn over, which he did. The LEO testified that after he turned over his genitals were exposed. Respondent put more oil on her hands and massaged the LEO’s chest to his thigh area. Respondent further testified that Respondent “would glide and touch [the LEO’s] penis and scrotum.” Respondent asked the LEO if he liked it when Respondent “tapped” the LEO’s penis. The LEO answered “yes” to Respondent’s question. The touching of the LEO’s penis and scrotum again provided the predisposition that sexual activity could be engaged. The LEO then asked Respondent for oral sex, i.e. a blow job. Respondent declined to perform oral sex. The two engaged in talking and hand gesturing regarding manual masturbation and its cost. The LEO testified Respondent raised her hand to indicate manual masturbation would be $40.00. Respondent testified that she said “no” and did not state a price. As provided below, Respondent’s testimony was not credible. The LEO told Respondent that $40.00 was too expensive for masturbation. He then grabbed the original towel that had draped him from between his legs, cleaned the oil, dressed, and left the massage establishment. Shortly thereafter, Respondent was arrested.5 5 The dismissal of Respondent’s criminal charges is not probative of whether she committed the regulatory violations. Respondent’s hearing testimony of how the towel fell off during the LEO’s massage differs from her deposition testimony. At hearing, Respondent testified that when the LEO flipped over, the towel fell off and she did not grab it fast enough. Respondent then added it took her “one minute, two minutes” to adjust the towel. Respondent admitted that she exposed the LEO’s genitals without his permission. However, during her deposition, Respondent blamed the type of oil massage that she was administering to the LEO for the towel falling off. Respondent claimed that her hand movement was “pretty hard. So with the movement, the towel shifting a little bit by little bit, and then [the towel] fell off completely.” Respondent also testified that she “saw it [the towel] dropped off, then [she] put it back right away.” In either instance, the LEO’s genitals were exposed without his consent. At the hearing, Respondent’s description of the towel used on the LEO changed from her deposition. During the hearing, Respondent testified the towel was “one to two feet wide . . . the length is about 1.5 meters [over four feet]. I’m not exactly sure.” However, in her deposition, Respondent provided that the towel was “more like a facial towel. It’s not a very big shower towel, but it’s more a facial towel size . . . one [foot] by two [foot].” Respondent’s testimony describing the LEO’s massage is not clear or credible and is rejected. The LEO’s testimony was credible, clear, convincing, and credited. Ms. Buhler is a licensed massage therapist and based on her education, training, and experience, she is accepted as an expert in massage therapy. “Draping” is covering the body while a massage therapist is working on it for the client’s comfort and privacy. Usually, a sheet is used for draping a client (if the room is too cold, a blanket could be added). As a massage therapist works on specific body areas, that body part is uncovered and the towel repositioned when the therapy to that area is completed. Ms. Buhler opined that the size of the towel (“1 [foot] x 2 [foot]” as described by Respondent in her deposition) is “very small,” and is an unusual drape size. Further, she opined that a “1 x 2 towel barely covers anything. It would be almost impossible not to either view something or potentially accidentally bump something with a drape of that size.” If any drape were displaced during a massage, the standard of care requires that the drape be put back in place immediately, not in one or two minutes. Ms. Buhler opined that “anytime a therapist attempts to, either for their own pleasure or for the pleasure of the client, to get any sort of sexual gratification, that is considered sexual misconduct.” A therapist has a choice when any type of sexual activity is suggested or offered. A therapist can redirect someone, state that the activity is not appropriate for the setting, threaten to terminate the massage, or in fact, terminate the massage by leaving the treatment room. Respondent provided that she continued to massage the LEO for one or two minutes after the request for oral sex. Although Respondent claimed she said “No,” she did not take any affirmative action to terminate the session or remove herself from the situation. Respondent’s actions on March 9, 2016, were outside the scope of generally accepted treatment of massage therapy patients. There is no evidence that Respondent has ever had any prior discipline imposed against her license.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Health, Board of Massage Therapy enter a final order finding Respondent, Mingli Li, in violation of sections 480.046(1)(i) and 480.0485, Florida Statutes, constituting grounds for discipline under section 480.046(1)(p), imposing a fine of $3,500.00; revoking her license to practice massage therapy; and assessing the cost of investigating and prosecuting the Department’s case against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of February, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of February, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Zachary Bell, Esquire Department of Health Prosecution Services Unit 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 (eServed) Michael S. Brown, Esquire Law Office of Michael S. Brown, PLLC 150 North Orange Avenue, Suite 407 Orlando, Florida 32801 (eServed) Christina Arzillo Shideler, Esquire Florida Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Chad Wayne Dunn, Esquire Department of Health Prosecution Services Unit 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Kama Monroe, Executive Director Board of Massage Therapy Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-06 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3257 (eServed) Louise Wilhite-St. Laurent, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed)
The Issue Whether Respondent violated provisions of chapter 480, Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and; if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and documentary evidence presented at hearing, the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses, and the entire record of this proceeding, the following factual findings are made: The Department is the state agency charged with the licensing and regulation of massage therapists pursuant to section 20.42 and chapters 456 and 480, Florida Statutes. At all times material to the allegations in this proceeding, Respondent was a licensed massage therapist in the State of Florida, having been issued license number MA 80938. During May 2016 Respondent worked at Massage Envy (“M.E.”) as a massage therapist. M.E. is a spa facility offering massage services. D.W. is a 46-year-old female with significant back issues. D.W. was in a boating accident as a child, and has had at least eight back surgeries in attempts to alleviate her back pain. Since 2012, D.W. has had numerous massages to help ease her back pain. She initially received massages through her chiropractor’s massage therapist. The chiropractor’s massage therapist was unable to continue, and D.W. started obtaining massages at M.E. D.W. obtained free massages from M.E. when she participated as a “mystery shopper”4/ for M.E. Following that experience, D.W. became a client of M.E. D.W. usually received full-body massages on a monthly basis,5/ except when she had the back surgeries. On May 27, 2016, D.W. contacted M.E. requesting a massage appointment. She was assigned Respondent as her regular masseuse was unavailable. D.W. arrived for the massage and met Respondent. The massage was scheduled for two hours. D.W. and Respondent discussed D.W.’s back pain. Respondent left the treatment room to allow D.W. time to completely disrobe and cover herself with the drape cloth or sheet. During the first half of the massage, D.W. was face down while Respondent stretched her out. She was comfortable with this part of the massage as she remained fully covered by the sheet. Approximately half way through the massage, Respondent briefly left the room, and D.W. turned over to be face up for the remainder of the massage. In the face-up position, Respondent began the next phase of the massage. While he was working on D.W.’s left leg, Respondent bumped her vagina. D.W. initially thought the touching was an accident; however, Respondent kept touching her clitoris. Respondent then put two to three fingers inside D.W.’s vagina. D.W. was “very scared,” and initially felt frozen in fear. After a few minutes Respondent asked if he needed to stop the massage. After a few seconds, D.W. was able to say, “It’s making me feel like I have to pee, please stop.” Respondent stopped. Respondent then asked if D.W. wanted to have her hands or feet massaged as there were a couple of minutes remaining in her appointment. D.W. did not want Respondent’s hands touching her hands; she indicated he could message her feet. Respondent finished the massage by working on D.W.’s feet. After the massage ended, D.W. dressed. D.W. went to the restroom, received a cup of water from Respondent and checked out at M.E.’s front desk. D.W. went to the parking lot, called the M.E. manager, and told the manager what happened. D.W. then went home. D.W. told her husband what had happened and the two of them returned to M.E. The Largo Police Department was called and a report was filed. While testifying about this very intimate type of contact, D.W.’s demeanor was distressed. She cried as if it were painful to recount. D.W. now is unable to use massage therapy to treat her back pain. Additionally, D.W. has trouble sleeping, and is unable to have sex because she considers what Respondent did to her was “foreplay.” Respondent denied that he engaged in any form of sexual activity with D.W. Respondent attempted to blame D.W.’s allegation as either a “counter-transference” or “transference” event. Respondent postulated that the counter-transference or transference is “where the client imposes a negative feeling or a negative association upon their therapist after something is awoken during massage.” Respondent agreed that D.W. had been getting massages for years, and that she would be accustomed to the massage experience. Respondent also agreed that there was nothing special about the massage he gave to D.W. Respondent’s testimony is not credited. Massage therapy training teaches that massage in the vicinity of the genital area is to be conducted very carefully. If a massage therapist properly draped a patient consistent with the requirements of rule 64B7-30.001, it would not be possible to inadvertently touch a client's genital area. The placement of a massage therapist's finger (or fingers) into the vagina of a massage client is outside the scope of the professional practice of massage therapy and is below the standard of care. There is no therapeutic value to massaging or penetrating the vagina, and there is no circumstance by which a massage therapist should touch a client’s vagina.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Massage Therapy enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating section 480.0485 and rule 64B7-26.010; and imposing a fine of $2,500 and revoking his license to practice massage therapy. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of February, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of February, 2017.
