The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated Subsections 484.056(1)(g) and (h), Florida Statutes (1999), respectively, by committing fraud, deceit, negligence, incompetence, or misconduct in the dispensing of a hearing aid and by failing to provide a sales receipt and other required information; and, if so, what penalty, if any, should be imposed against Respondent's license as a hearing aid specialist. (All chapter and section references are to Florida Statutes (1999) unless otherwise stated.)
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for regulating the practice of hearing aid specialists in Florida pursuant to Chapter 484. Respondent is licensed as a hearing aid specialist in Florida pursuant to license number AS0002712. The Administrative Complaint involves the sale and service of an original pair of hearing aids and replacement hearing aids to a single customer. The record identifies the customer as C.P. in order to preserve the customer's confidentiality. C.P. is an elderly gentleman who is hearing impaired. C.P.'s wife accompanied and assisted C.P. in most of his dealings with Respondent. On February 16, 1999, Respondent performed a free hearing test on C.P. at Elfers Optical and Hearing Company (Elfers). Elfers is located on State Road 54 in New Port Richey, Florida. C.P. had heard of Respondent from a friend and responded to a newspaper advertisement by Elfers for a free hearing test. Respondent advised C.P. that C.P. needed two hearing aids. Respondent concluded that C.P. needed a hearing aid for each ear for balance. Respondent recommended programmable hearing aids for several reasons. Respondent represented that programmable hearing aids could be programmed for hearing needs that change over time and therefore would not have to be replaced. However, programmable hearing aids are more expensive than others. C.P. stated that he wanted to think about it. C.P. left the office and subsequently made an appointment for a return visit on February 19, 1999. When C.P. returned to Elfers on February 19, 1999, Respondent was sick and not in the office. Ms. Phillys Strand (Strand), Respondent's employee, saw C.P. and his wife. C.P. stated that he had decided to purchase the programmable hearing aids recommended by Respondent. Strand fitted C.P. for two hearing aids and had C.P. execute a contract for the purchase of two Philips Encanto II programmable hearing aids (Encantos) at the total price of $3,832 (the contract). C.P. paid $3,832 on February 19, 1999. The contract states that there was a one-year warranty on the hearing aids. The one-year warranty covered replacement or repair but not a refund of the purchase price. The contract specifically states that C.P. had only 30 days from the date of delivery (the 30-day trial period) in which to obtain a refund of the purchase price. Respondent delivered the Encantos to C.P. on March 1, 1999. C.P. returned to Elfers on March 3, 1999, complaining that the hearing aids hurt his ears. Respondent ground down the hearing aids, and C.P. left Elfers with the modified hearing aids. C.P. returned to Elfers on March 10, 1999, and requested a refund from Respondent. C.P. explained that he had recently learned that he needed surgery on one of his ears to remove a cancerous legion and would be unable to use the hearing aids before the expiration of the 30-day trial period for obtaining a refund. On March 10, 1999, Respondent stated to C.P. that under Florida law C.P. had one year in which to obtain a refund. Neither Florida law nor the manufacturer provides a warranty that authorizes a refund for one year. The provisions in the contract pertaining to a refund of the purchase price merely reflect the terms of the applicable section of Florida Statutes. In relevant part, the purchase contract provides: Unless otherwise stated, the hearing aid is new and warranted for one year by dispenser . . . . The guarantee shall permit the purchaser to cancel for a valid reason within 30 days of the receipt of the hearing aid(s). A valid reason shall be defined as failure by the purchaser to achieve satisfaction from use of the hearing aid(s), so long as the hearing aid(s) is returned to the seller within the 30-day trial period in good working condition. In the event of cancellation within the 30-day trial period, [Elfers] will retain $150 plus 5% of total purchase price on monaural fitting, or $200 plus 5% of total purchase price on binaural fitting for ear molds and services provided to fit the hearing aids, pursuant to 484.0512FS. . . . On March 10, 1999, C.P. properly tendered the Encantos to Respondent in accordance with the requirements of the contract and Section 484.0512. C.P. had a valid reason, within the meaning of the contract and applicable law, for the failure to achieve satisfaction with the Encantos. C.P. properly requested a refund within the 30-day trial period that began on March 1, 1999, when Respondent delivered the Encantos to C.P. On March 10, 1999, Respondent had actual knowledge that C.P. had properly tendered the Encantos for a valid reason and properly requested a refund. Respondent had actual knowledge of the falsity of the statement that Florida law allowed C.P. one year in which to obtain a refund. Respondent had actual knowledge that neither Florida law nor any warranty amends the 30-day trial period prescribed in the contract and Section 484.0512 for obtaining a refund. In any event, Respondent had constructive knowledge that his statements to C.P. were false. The misrepresentation by Respondent on March 10, 1999, induced C.P. to retain the Encantos. The false statements by Respondent on March 10, 1999, induced C.P. to unknowingly allow the lapse of his statutory and contractual right to a refund. Respondent had actual, or constructive knowledge, of the effect of Respondent's false statement to C.P. C.P. underwent surgery on March 24, 1999, and could not wear the Encantos again until May 21, 1999. When C.P. began wearing the Encantos again on May 21, 1999, the left hearing aid hurt his ear. C.P. compared the two hearing aids and discovered that the left hearing aid was longer than the right. On May 27, 1999, C.P. and his wife returned to Respondent. Respondent made a new impression, using a substance different from that used by Strand for the initial impression, and told C.P. that Respondent would send the impression to the manufacturer for a new set of hearing aids. C.P. and his wife would be traveling in New York when Respondent received the new hearing aids, and Respondent agreed to mail the new hearing aids to C.P. in New York. C.P. received the new hearing aids while he was in New York. C.P. heard a "swishing" noise in the new hearing aids when people around him were talking. C.P. advised Respondent of the bothersome noise. Pursuant to Respondent's instructions, C.P. returned the hearing aids to Respondent. C.P. received hearing aids directly from the manufacturer on July 21, 1999, while C.P. was still in New York. The hearing aids created a pulsating sound. The volume wheel did not work, and the left hearing aid fell out of C.P.'s ear on at least one occasion. Respondent told C.P. that Respondent would have Betty Lou Gage (Gage), Respondent's assistant, locate a hearing aid specialist in New York where C.P. could take the hearing aids. On August 6, 1999, C.P. took the hearing aids to Genesee Hearing Aid in Buffalo, New York (Genesee), pursuant to Gage's instructions. Genesee advised C.P. that they did not work on Phillips programmable hearing aids and charged C.P. $15. On September 30, 1999, C.P. and his wife went to Respondent's office. C.P. complained that the hearing aids were whistling and falling out of his ears. While C.P. was in Respondent's office on September 30, 1999, C.P. requested a refund of the purchase price for a valid reason and tendered the hearing aids to Respondent in good condition. The tender and request for refund was within the one-year period previously represented by Respondent as required by Florida law. Respondent advised C.P. that the warranty was over. Respondent asked C.P. if C.P. wanted Respondent to send the hearing aids back to the manufacturer and have the manufacturer make the hearing aids automatic. C.P. agreed. On October 21, 1999, C.P. returned to Respondent's office for the new hearing aids. The toggle switch used for adjusting hearing aids was still on the outside of the hearing aids, but C.P. accepted the hearing aids anyway. Respondent advised C.P. not to wear the hearing aids while hunting. C.P. did not wear the hearing aids in November 1999 because he was hunting in New York. In December 1999, C.P. asked his wife to check the serial numbers on the hearing aids. C.P. and his wife discovered that the hearing aids were not Encantos. When C.P. and his wife returned to Florida, they went to Hearx, the provider of hearing aids under C.P.'s new insurance policy with Humana. A specialist at Hearx examined the hearing aids and confirmed that the hearing aids were not Phillips programmable hearing aids. Rather, they were half- shell conventional hearing aids with a retail value that ranged from $700 to $900. C.P. telephoned Elfers on January 19, 2000. A representative at Elfers advised C.P. that C.P. would need to speak to Respondent and that Respondent was no longer employed at that location. The representative advised C.P. to try reaching Respondent at the Holiday office. C.P. and his wife found Respondent at the Holiday office. C.P. advised Respondent that the hearing aids were not the Encantos C.P. had purchased and requested a refund. The request for refund was made within the one-year period represented by Respondent on March 10, 1999, in which C.P. could request a refund. C.P. also requested the telephone number for Phillips. Respondent told C.P. that Phillips was out of business and left the office. Jeff Ruff, another employee at the Holiday office, offered to try a new substance to put a seal around the hearing aids for a better fit. C.P. left the hearing aids with Ruff and obtained a receipt. C.P.'s wife telephoned Phillips, provided the serial numbers for the Encantos, and asked whether Respondent had returned the Encantos. The representative for Phillips stated that Respondent had returned the Encantos on October 8, 1999, and that Phillips had sent the half-shell conventional hearing aids back to Respondent. The serial numbers of the half-shell conventional hearing aids sent to Respondent matched those on the hearing aids that C.P.'s wife checked in December 1999. The market value of the half-shell conventional hearing aids is more than $2,000 less than that of the Encantos. Respondent should have refunded the difference in market value to C.P. Respondent did not refund the difference in market price to C.P. Respondent did not provide C.P. with any written documentation, including a sales receipt, for the half-shell conventional hearing aids; did not provide C.P. with a warranty for the half-shell conventional hearing aids; did not advise C.P. that Respondent had changed the hearing aids provided to C.P.; and did not advise C.P. of the difference in market value between the Encantos and half-shell conventional hearing aids. Respondent has not refunded any money to C.P. Respondent has not otherwise made restitution for the harm suffered by C.P. This is not Respondent's first offense. Petitioner has previously disciplined Respondent's license in two cases in which Respondent either allowed the 30-day trial period to lapse before taking action requested by the customer or refused to refund the entire amount of the purchase price. Petitioner imposed administrative fines in those two cases that totaled $1,000; required Respondent to pay costs of $805; and required Respondent pay a refund to the customer in the amount $544. A substantial period of time has not lapsed since Respondent's previous discipline. Petitioner entered a final order in the previous two cases on April 15, 2002.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Subsections 484.056(1)(g) and (h); revoking Respondent's license; assessing an administrative fine of $2,000 and the costs of investigation and prosecution; requiring Respondent to make restitution to C.P. in the amount of $3,832; and requiring Respondent to pay all fines, costs, and restitution within 30 days of the date of the Final Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of September, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 6th day of September, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathryn E. Price, Esquire Bureau of Practitioner Regulation Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 Gage Davey 6521 Berea Lane New Port Richey, Florida 34653 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Susan Foster, Executive Director Board of Hearing Aid Specialists Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C08 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 issue is whether Respondent, Craig Louis Schuette, committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaints in these cases, and if so what is the appropriate penalty to be imposed by the Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding Respondent has been a licensed hearing aid specialist in the state of Florida, having been issued license No. AS 2553 on June 9, 1994. Case No. 02-0520 On November 5, 1998, hearing impaired patient R.G., a resident of New York and part-time resident of Florida, visited Audiometric Hearing Center (Audiometric), a hearing aid establishment located on Fifth Avenue, North, in St. Petersburg, Florida. R.G. visited Audiometric after being contacted by postcard and telephone about a free hearing test offer. While at the Center on November 5, 1998, R.G. received a hearing test and signed an agreement to purchase a pair of hearing aids for $3,500.00. Respondent signed the sales receipt on behalf of Audiometric as the selling agent. R.G. paid the entire purchase price to Audiometric on November 5, 1998, by charging the entire amount on his Visa credit card. On November 20, 1998, R.G. returned to Audiometric to be fitted with the new hearing aids. At that time, R.G. noticed that the hearing aids he had purchased, as described in his contract, were a different model and smaller than the devices with which he was being fitted. Respondent persuaded R.G. to test the hearing aids, and R.G. took possession of the devices on that date. Twelve days later, on December 2, 1998, upon being dissatisfied with the hearing aids, R.G. returned to Audiometric with the devices and requested a refund. Audiometric accepted the hearing aids back and R.G. was advised for the first time that he would receive a refund within 90 to 120 days. Although R.G. was promised a refund of $3,125.00, on December 2, 1998, he never received it. R.G. made numerous attempts to obtain a refund but never received one. During an investigation of this matter by the Agency for Health Care Administration, Respondent did not accept responsibility for the refund. While Respondent agreed to assist the patient and provide a free refitting, he maintained that Audiometric was responsible for any and all refunds. Case No. 02-0522 Hearing impaired patient E.T., a resident of Canada who also resided in Florida part of the year, visited the Audiometric Hearing Center, a hearing aid establishment located on Walsingham Road, in Largo, Florida, on February 6, 1998. E.T. went to Audiometric for a free hearing test after being called and offered one by a telephone solicitor. E.T. received a hearing test on that date. On February 6, 1998, E.T. purchased a hearing aid for her right ear at Audiometric for $1,980.00. Respondent signed the sales agreement on behalf of Audiometric as the selling agent. He told E.T. she needed a hearing aid and showed E.T. three hearing aids. E.T. paid the entire purchase price on February 6, 1998, by charging it on her Visa credit card. On February 13, 1998, the patient accepted delivery of the hearing aid at Audiometric from someone other than Respondent. Upon experiencing an itching problem, E.T. returned the hearing aid to Audiometric on February 18, 1998, for a refund, stating that she was not satisfied with it. Someone at Audiometric, other than Respondent, accepted the returned hearing aid from E.T. and promised her a refund of $1,980.00. E.T. made numerous attempts to obtain the refund but never received any portion of it. In fact, she even filed a lawsuit and obtained a default judgment against Audiometric, but could not collect any of it. During an investigation of the matter by the Agency for Health Care Administration, Respondent denied responsibility for the matter, and indicated that Audiometric was culpable.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Hearing Aid Specialists enter a final order: Dismissing DOAH Case No. 02-0521 (DOH Case No. 98- 19487). Finding Respondent guilty as charged in the Administrative Complaints in DOAH Case Nos. 02-0520 (DOH Case No. 99-03437) and 02-0522 (DOH Case No. 98-20376). Imposing a letter of reprimand. Imposing a total fine of $1,000.00. Assessing costs of the investigation and prosecution not to exceed $500.00, and ordering Respondent to pay as corrective action $3,125.00 to patient R.G. and $1,731.00 to patient E.T., with all monetary payments to be paid within 90 days of entry of a final order. As to the corrective action, the Respondent should be ordered to provide proof thereof to the Board of Hearing Aid Specialists, Department of Health Compliance Unit within 90 days of the date of the final order. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of July, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. PFEIFFER 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 26th day of July, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Gary L. Asbell, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building 3, Mail Stop 39 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Craig Schuete 12300 Park Boulevard, Unit 220 Seminole, Florida 33772 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Susan Foster, Executive Director Board of Hearing Aid Specialists Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Gary L. Asbell, Esquire Post Office Box 326 Lloyd, Florida 32337
The Issue Whether Petitioner’s application to enter into a hearing aid specialist training program should be approved.
Findings Of Fact On or about October 16, 2013, Petitioner submitted to the Board a Hearing Aid Specialists Training Program Registration Application (Application). In response to section 6 of the Application, Petitioner answered “yes” to the question regarding his criminal history. Respondent determined that Petitioner’s Application should be denied. Respondent believes that denial of Petitioner’s Application is appropriate because Petitioner was convicted of crimes which relate to the practice of, or the ability to practice, dispensing hearing aids. In support of its denial of Petitioner’s application, Respondent notes that Petitioner “was found guilty of 92 felonies including racketeering, grand theft, and sale of unregistered securities, . . . was sentenced to prison time and probation covering a time period of 30 years, . . . and [Petitioner] has not completed his rehabilitation in that he is still serving probation.” On or about December 2, 1999, Petitioner entered a plea of nolo contendere to 92 felony counts. The Circuit Court, Twelfth Judicial Circuit, in and for Manatee County, Florida, accepted Petitioner’s plea and adjudicated him guilty of: One felony count of racketeering (§§ 895.02(3) and 895.03, Fla. Stat. (1996)); 31 felony counts of grand theft (§ 812.014, Fla. Stat. (1996)); 30 felony counts of sale of unregistered securities (§§ 517.12 and 517.301, Fla. Stat. (1996)); and 30 felony counts of sale of securities by an unregistered dealer (§§ 517.12 and 517.302, Fla. Stat. (1996)). Petitioner served three years in prison and was placed on probation for a period of 27 years. Petitioner will be on probation until 2029, and he owes $898,000 dollars in restitution. Sharon Yordon was accepted as Respondent’s expert for purposes of providing an opinion as to how Mr. Murphy’s criminal background relates to the ability to dispense hearing aids. Ms. Yordon has been a licensed hearing aid specialist in Florida since 1984. She has also been licensed by the National Board for Certification in Hearing Instrument Sciences (NBC-HIS) since 1993. Ms. Yordon has been on the board of the Florida Society of Hearing Healthcare Professionals for 22 years, and she is also a member of the International Hearing Society. She has worked as a hearing aid specialist in the Tampa Bay area, Daytona Beach, New Smyrna Beach, and the panhandle of Florida. Currently, in addition to dispensing hearing aids, she is the north Florida retail manager for the hearing aid company Beltone, which requires her to manage eight offices in 11 counties. Ms. Yordon has participated in the training of six hearing aid specialists, and she has also trained three hearing aid specialists to take the NBC-HIS examination. She has fit thousands of people with hearing aids over the course of her career. According to Ms. Yordon, the elderly comprise a majority of hearing impaired individuals in Florida. Ms. Yordon’s opinion in this regard is bolstered by the fact that the Legislature, in recognition of the important role that the elderly play in the hearing aid industry, requires that the Board of Hearing Aid Specialists include a lay member who “shall be an individual age 65 or over.” § 484.042(2), Fla. Stat. (2015).1/ According to Ms. Yordon, hearing loss due to aging, called presbycusis, is one of the most common causes of hearing loss, and in the elderly hearing loss is often linked with cognitive dysfunction. Ms. Yordon opined that based on her years of experience, it is common for a hearing aid specialist to fit for hearing aids elderly individuals who are cognitively impaired. The Legislature has recognized that elderly individuals who suffer from cognitive impairment may be vulnerable and in need of protection. See, gen., §§ 415.101-415.113, Fla. Stat. An examination to determine the need for a hearing aid must be conducted in a closed room, separated from any outer offices, because the examination must meet certain requirements for sound. The hearing aid specialist or trainee is often alone in the examination room with the client where sensitive information is often secured from the client. If the hearing aid specialist determines that a hearing aid is needed, he or she goes over all the options available to the particular client. According to Ms. Yordon, elderly clients cannot always decide which hearing aid to purchase, and they may not have a sound understanding of their own finances. These factors could allow an untrustworthy hearing aid specialist to take advantage of elderly individuals by selling them a more expensive hearing aid than what they need, can afford, or have the ability to use. Because of the interaction between hearing aid specialists and clients (especially the elderly), it is necessary that a hearing aid specialist be trustworthy. Section 484.0401, Florida Statutes, provides as follows: The Legislature recognizes that a poorly selected or fitted hearing aid not only will give little satisfaction but may interfere with hearing ability and, therefore, deems it necessary in the interest of the public health, safety, and welfare to regulate the dispensing of hearing aids in this state. Restrictions on the fitting and selling of hearing aids shall be imposed only to the extent necessary to protect the public from physical and economic harm, and restrictions shall not be imposed in a manner which will unreasonably affect the competitive market. Section 484.056(1)(d) provides that an application for licensure as a hearing aid specialist may be denied on the following grounds: Being convicted or found guilty of, or entering a plea of nolo contendere to, regardless of adjudication, a crime in any jurisdiction which directly relates to the practice of dispensing hearing aids or the ability to practice dispensing hearing aids, including violations of any federal laws or regulations regarding hearing aids. Consistent with the legislative goal of protecting the public from possible economic harm, the screening requirements found in section 484.056 help to ensure that individuals who are authorized to dispense hearing aids are trustworthy. As previously noted, Petitioner was found guilty of committing 36 felony violations of section 812.014 (1996), which provides in part, as follows: A person commits theft if he or she knowingly obtains or uses, or endeavors to obtain or to use, the property of another with intent to, either temporarily or permanently: Deprive the other person of a right to the property or a benefit from the property. Appropriate the property to his or her own use or to the use of any person not entitled to the use of the property. Section 812.014 is grounded in principles of trust, and a person who “knowingly” acts with the requisite “intent” to deprive another of his or her property in violation of the same, is, by definition, untrustworthy. Petitioner was convicted of racketeering under sections 895.02(3) and 895.03, Florida Statutes (1996). Petitioner’s conviction for racketeering was based on the fact that he was involved in a criminal enterprise that stole money from a number of individuals. Sections 895.02 and 895.03 are grounded in principles of trust, and anyone who violates these statutes is untrustworthy. Petitioner was found guilty of committing numerous violations of sections 517.301, 517.302, and 517.12, Florida Statutes (1996). Section 517.12 requires that any “dealer, associated person, or issuer of securities” in this state must register with the appropriate state department and the failure to do so, as provided in section 517.302, is a felony of the third degree. Section 517.301 prohibits fraud or deceit in connection with securities transactions and any person who engages in such conduct, as provided in section 517.302, commits a felony of the third degree. Section 517.301 is grounded in principles of trust, and a person who engages in fraudulent conduct in violation of section 517.301 is untrustworthy. A violation of the registration requirements found in section 517.12 does not, in itself, suggest untrustworthiness. When, however, the failure to register as a securities dealer is coupled with fraudulent conduct, as was done by Petitioner, then the otherwise benign conduct of failing to register as a securities dealer takes on the character of untrustworthiness because of its relatedness to the fraud. Petitioner was incarcerated until 2002. Since his release from incarceration, Petitioner has remained compliant with the terms of his probation. One of the conditions of Petitioner’s probation is that any violation of the conditions of probation could subject him to arrest, revocation of probation, and further sentencing. With his Application, Petitioner provided three letters of support from neighbors who each believe that Petitioner is a person of integrity. Petitioner also holds a private pilot’s license, which suggests that Petitioner can be trusted to operate certain types of aircraft. Denise Parrish is a licensed audiologist at the Manatee Ear Center in Bradenton, Florida, the facility where Petitioner is currently employed. Dr. Parrish has supervised Petitioner for approximately two years, and she believes that Petitioner is an “honest” person. Dr. Parrish testified that during the time that she has supervised Petitioner, he has handled sensitive patient information, including money, without incident.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Hearing Aid Specialists enter a final order denying Robert Paul Murphy’s application for licensure as a hearing aid specialist. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of January, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN 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 January, 2016.
The Issue The issue in these cases is whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in three Administrative Complaints, and, if so, what appropriate disciplinary action should be taken against him.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received in evidence and the entire record complied herein, the following relevant facts are made: At all times relevant to the issues herein, the Board of Hearing Aid Specialists has been the state agency in Florida responsible for the licensing of hearing aid specialists and regulation of hearing aid providers in Florida. Section 455, Florida Statutes (1999). Respondent, Robert F. Davidson, has been a licensed hearing aid specialist in this state, holding license number 0000740. From sometime in April and continuing through sometime in December 1998 Respondent was employed as a salaried store manager at Hearite Audiological ("Hearite"), a hearing aid establishment located at 2700 East Bay Drive, Largo, Florida, 33771, and owned by George Richards and Paula Rogers. Respondent engaged in testing the hearing of individuals and engaged in selling hearing aids to individuals for Hearite Audiological, Inc. To each individual Respondent sole a hearing aid, he provided that person with a written notice of the 30-day money back guarantee. Case No. 01-3536PL Patient C. L. D., a hearing impaired-person, visited Hearite on September 9, 1998, and entered an agreement to purchase a pair of hearing aids for $1,795.00, paying $500.00 deposit at that time. Patient C. L. D. was provided a sales receipt for her deposit signed by Respondent. On September 21, 1998, Respondent delivered the hearing aids to patient C. L. D. at Hearite and signed the receipt as the person who delivered the hearing aids to the patient. Patient C. L. D., after using the hearing aids, became dissatisfied with them and returned the hearing aids to Respondent at Hearite on October 8, 1998. Respondent accepted the hearing aids from Patient C. L. D. and, pursuant to the terms of the sales contract, Respondent promised Patient C. L. D. a full refund of her $500.00 deposit. Despite repeated phone calls to Respondent and repeated attempts to obtain the refund, Patient C. L. D. has never received her refund as promised, and Hearite was later sold to a new owner in January 1999. Case No. 01-3537PL On May 26, 1998, hearing-impaired Patient J. C. aged 95 years, and now deceased, along with his daughter, Chris Vidalis, visited Hearite and purchased a hearing aid for $1,345.00, paying $500.00 deposit upon execution of the sales contract. On June 5, 1998, Patient J. C. paid the remaining $845.00 and received his hearing aid. On June 12, 1998, being dissatisfied with its use Patient J. C. returned the hearing aid and requested a refund. Respondent accepted the hearing aid and promised Patient J. C. a refund of $1,345.00 within 120 days. Patient J. C.'s daughter, Chris Vidalis, who was with her father every time he visited Hearite, made numerous telephone calls and visits to Hearite in attempts to obtain the refund. The refund was never paid and Hearite was sold to a new owner in January 1999. Case No 01-3538PL On or about June 10, 1998, Patient R. L., after several unsolicited telephone calls from someone representing Hearite, visited Hearite for the purpose of having his hearing tested and possibly purchasing a hearing aid. After testing, Patient R. L. purchased a pair of hearing aids at Hearite for $3,195.00. A paid in full receipt signed by Al Berg was given to Patient R. L. On or about July 10, 1998, Respondent delivered the hearing aids to Patient R. L. and signed the sales receipt as the licensee who delivered the hearing aids. Upon being dissatisfied with using the hearing aids Patient R. L. returned them to Hearite on July 13, 1998. Kelly Dyson, audiologist employed at Hearite, accepted the hearing aids and promised Patient R. L. a full refund of $2,840.00, pursuant to the terms of the contract. Patient R. L. made repeated attempts to obtain his refund as promised but has not received one. Hearite was sold to a new owner in January 1999. Respondent's position, that each of the three patients herein above was aware or should have been aware that the sale of hearing aids, and, therefore, the guarantor of the refunds was Hearite Audiological, Inc., and, not himself, is disingenuous.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board of Hearing Aid Specialists enter a final order requiring Respondent to pay the following amounts: to Patient C. L. D., $500.00, DOAH Case No. 01-3536PL; to Patient J. C. (or his estate) $1,345.00, DOAH Case No. 01-3537PL, and to Patient R. L., $2,840.00, DOAH Case 01-3537PL. Further that Respondent be fined $1,000.00 and be required to pay the appropriate costs of investigation and prosecution. Further, ordered that Respondent's license be suspended and not reinstated until after all payments herein ordered are paid in full, and thereafter place Respondent on probation for a period of not less than one year under the terms and conditions deemed appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of February, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. FRED L. BUCKINE 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 1st day of February, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Gary L. Asbell, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Building 3, Mail Station 39 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 E. Raymond Shope, II, Esquire 1404 Goodlette Road, North Naples, Florida 34102 Susan Foster, Executive Director Board of Hearing Aid Specialist Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Theodore M. Henderson, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
Findings Of Fact Raymond J. Black is registered to fit and sell hearing aids in Florida and at all times here relevant he was so registered. He has been a registrant for several years, has been a dealer since 1976 and operates two offices, one in Tampa, Florida, and the second in Zephyrhills, Florida. Mr. Black spends most of his time in the Tampa office. Arvena Hines is the office manager in the Zephyrhills office and has managed that office for Respondent since about 1973. She has qualified for, taken and failed the examination for registration as a hearing aid specialist in Florida three times. Following her second failure her application for a third examination was initially disapproved, but after judicial proceedings were instituted she was authorized to retake the examination after again completing the trainee program. As office manager Ms. Hines was the supervisor of all other employees at the Zephyrhills office including hearing aid specialists and trainees. She received thirty-five percent of the profits on all hearing aids and hearing aid supplies sold in the Zephyrhills office. Other employees authorized to sell hearing aids received approximately fifteen to twenty-five percent commission on the sale of hearing aids depending on where the sale was made. In 1977 Arvena Hines pleaded nolo contendere in the County Court in and for Pasco County to the charge of fitting and selling a hearing aid without being licensed or registered to do so. Adjudication of guilt was withheld and she was placed on probation for six months. (Exhibit 16) In 1977 Respondent Black pleaded nolo contendere in the County Court in and for Pasco County to a charge of employing Arvena lines, an unregistered person, for the purpose of fitting and selling hearing aids. Adjudication of guilt was withheld and Respondent was placed on probation for six months. (Exhibit 14) In 1977 Respondent's registration was suspended for ninety days by Petitioner upon a stipulation of settlement in the revocation proceedings that had been referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings. In August 1979 Edward J. Greenough went into Respondent's Zephyrhills office accompanied by his wife for the purpose of having his hearing checked. He was waited on by Frances Wilkes who at the time was a trainee, Class III. Ms. Wilkes tested Greenough's hearing and then said Ms. Hines had to check the results because "she (Wilkes) didn't have her license. Although Ms. Wilkes testified that Ms. Hines conducted no tests or performed any services connected with selling or fitting a hearing aid on Greenough, the testimony of Mrs. Greenough that Ms. Hines repeated the testing procedure that had been done lay Ms. Wilkes, prepared the ear molds and subsequently fitted the hearing aid on Mr. Greenough, is the more credible. In October 1978 Margaret Lamb, an octogenarian, visited the Zephyrhills hearing aid office to see why her hearing aid was not "giving me success." Ms. Hines took an ear mold for her but a man conducted the audio test. Although Ms. Lamb exhibited some of the frailties of age her recollection of events was clear including the "terrific noise" that almost took her head off during the hearing test. That error left her somewhat confused and anxious to get out of the office. Robert Ayer visited the Zephyrhills hearing aid office of Respondent in December 1978 to have checked a hearing aid he had dropped. Ms. Hines waited on him, suggested he get a new "all in the ear" hearing aid, gave him a hearing test, and made an ear mold. When asked for a down payment on the hearing aid Ms. Hines said he needed, Ayer stated he had not expected to purchase a hearing aid that day and was unprepared to make a deposit. When Ayer returned to Zephyrhills after the new year he went to the hearing aid office, was told his hearing aid was in, and paid Ms. Hines $250. Exhibit 10 is the receipt for this payment. Jim Spear, a licensed hearing aid specialist who was working for Respondent at this time signed the audiogram (Exhibit 19) and testified that he conducted the hearing aid test done on Ayer December 11, 1978. Spear also denied ever seeing Hines sell or fit hearing aids or do any work in connection therewith. For several reasons Mr. Ayer's testimony is more credible than the conflicting testimony. Apart from the demeanor of the witnesses and personal reasons of the registrants for denying unlawful acts were committed by Ms. Hines in their presence and to their knowledge, Mr. Ayer is the precise and meticulous type of individual who keeps a diary of his daily activities, even in retirement. These diaries were in his possession at the hearing, and were shown to and perused by Respondent's attorney at the latter's request. No conflicts or omissions between the diary entries and Ayer's testimony were presented. Mrs. Maidee Carr's deposition was admitted as Exhibit 15. Mrs. Carr is a nonagenarian who was sold a hearing aid by Ms. Hines around December 1978 or January 1979. The audiogram was taken by a man (Jim Spear signed Exhibit 17, the audiogram taken on Mrs. Carr January 22, 1979), but Ms. Hines took the ear mold and Mrs. Carr gave Ms. Hines a check in full payment when the hearing aid was delivered to Mrs. Carr's home by Ms. Hines who then put the hearing aid in Mrs. Carr's ear. In January 1980 Douglas Yacinich, who had worked as a hearing aid salesman in Iowa for several years, visited Respondent with the view of employment when he moved to Florida. Respondent sponsored Yacinich's application for Trainee Temporary Certificate of Registration which was submitted January 28, 1980. Yacinich then returned to Iowa to settle his affairs. This application to enter the trainee program was approved in a letter dated March 26, 1980 (Exhibit 6). The application was approved effective March 24, 1980 (Exhibit 5), and Yacinich was issued a Certificate of Registration (Exhibit 23). At this time Yacinich was in Iowa and, according to his testimony, he moved to Florida around May 1980. Respondent submitted Exhibit 7 notifying Petitioner that Yacinich entered into the training program March 24, 1980, completed Stage I on April 24, 1980, and completed Stage II on June 24, 1980. Yacinich left Respondent's employ "around June or July" 1980 and has made no further effort to become registered as a hearing aid specialist. Yacinich set up an appointment with Mr. Chastain, a hearing aid user, and on May 9, 1980, did an audiogram on him (Exhibit 21). He also sold Chastain a used hearing aid the same day but it was not delivered until later. Mrs. Chastain gave Yacinich a check for part payment of the hearing aid on May 9, 1980, when the invoice for the hearing aid was prepared (Exhibit 12). This invoice does not contain the serial number of the hearing aid subsequently delivered to Chastain. When the final fitting of his hearing aid was made on June 2, 1980, Respondent accompanied Yacinich to Chastain's home and was present when the hearing aid was fitted by Yacinich. The testimony is conflicting whether Respondent was in the yard or in the room with Yacinich when the hearing aid was placed in Chastain's ear; However, it is clear that when Yacinich delivered the hearing aid to Chastain, Respondent was present. Respondent attributed the preferring of the charges against him, which are contained in the Administrative Complaint and Amended Administrative Complaint, to the animosity of Ralph Gray, the Administrator of the Hearing Aid Licensing Program in HRS, and to his belief that Gray has a vendetta against him. No evidence to support these beliefs was submitted other than Respondent's opinion. Respondent denied that he was aware that Ms. Hines ever took ear impressions in the Zephyrhills office on any of the complaining witnesses or that she ever performed any of those functions in dispensing hearing aids which require certification. Respondent acknowledged that Ms. Hines is manager of the Zephyrhills office and that she receives thirty-five percent of the funds coming into the office, and that salesmen are paid a commission of about twenty-five percent on the hearing aids they sell depending upon where the hearing aid is sold. Ms. Wilkes who does little work outside the office received a commission of around fifteen percent for those hearing aids she sold. Respondent testified that his belief that no audiograms were taken nor hearing aids sold by Ms. Hines was based upon the fact that the audiograms were signed by someone other than Ms. Hines and the word of these people that they conducted the tests. No evidence was presented to show the commissions paid to the various salesmen for the hearing aids dispensed to those witnesses who testified in these proceedings. Respondent allowed Yacinich to work unsupervised in the selling and dispensing of hearing aids before he had actually worked fur Respondent for thirty days. This determination is reached from the evidence that Yacinich was probably well qualified by his previous experience in Iowa, by Respondent's testimony that he considered Yacinich to have been in his employ since January 28, 1980, when Yacinich's application was submitted, and by Yacinich's testimony that he did not actually relocate to Florida until May or June.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a non-profit corporation registered in Florida. It is a professional association whose membership constitutes a majority of licensed Florida hearing aid dispensers. Respondent regulates the dispensing of hearing aids (and thus Petitioner's members) pursuant to Chapter 484, Part II, F.S. Under Section 484.044, F.S., Respondent is required to establish an apprenticeship program by rule. Rule 21JJ-8.01, F.A.C., established such a program. Subsection (3) of this rule now provides: (3) Direct Supervision: A relationship in which the sponsor is responsible for all work being done and gives final approval to work performed by the trainee. The proposed amendment, which is herein challenged, would add the following language to the above provision: The sponsor or designee must be physically present at the time a hearing aid is delivered to the client. Rule 21JJ-8.03, F.A.C., divides the six month training program into Stages I and II, each of three month's duration. The functions of dispensing hearing aids and counseling clients may be performed only by Stage II (advanced) trainees. Respondent considers the installation and delivery of the hearing aid to be the most critical step in the process of hearing aid dispensing, and believes it is necessary for the sponsor or another licensed individual to be present. Petitioner argues that this is unnecessary if the apprentice has been properly trained, and that the decision of the sponsor to be present or elsewhere should be within the sponsor's discretion. Both parties called duly qualified expert witnesses who are familiar with the apprenticeship program. All witnesses are currently licensed hearing aid specialists. Petitioner's three witnesses are present or former presidents of its society. Respondent's two witnesses are current members of its beard. Petitioner points out that under the present rule, even with the proposed amendment, a trainee can interview, test, take ear mold impressions, sell and discuss financing without the sponsor being physically present. Petitioner argues that such steps are as critical as final delivery, and that mandatory sponsor presence at the last stage is not required to protect the public. Further, Petitioner claims that sponsor presence may destroy the confidence of the client who perceives that his fitting must be approved by a third party. Finally, Petitioner contends that the requirement for sponsor presence will prevent him from conducting essential business elsewhere to his economic detriment. Respondent established that delivery is the last scheduled contact with the client, and is therefore more critical than earlier steps such as testing and taking impressions since any mistake or omission must be detected and corrected at this point. Respondent also established that an improperly fitted hearing aid can cause client dissatisfaction or further damage to the client's hearing. Respondent noted that 20 percent to 40 percent of applicants fail the hearing aid specialist license examination. Thus, Stage II trainees cannot be considered qualified and require close supervision. Additionally, Respondent correctly points out that clients who are assigned to trainees should be aware of that fact and therefore should not be surprised by the presence of the sponsor during their fitting, or at any other stage in this process. Finally, the sponsor's presence at the fitting will permit him to observe the trainee's work directly and thereby facilitate instruction. No study was conducted to determine whether or not the public is being injured by improperly supervised trainees installing hearing aids. Neither has Respondent conducted a detailed economic impact study. The subject of direct supervision and the proposed rule amendment were, however, discussed at Respondent's April 28, 1984, board meeting. Petitioner's members who were present raised objections at that time and pointed out the possible financial detriment of requiring the sponsors or licensed dispensers to be physically present. Petitioner's assertions of adverse economic impact were not supported by any survey, study or other evidence of a substantial nature. Rather, Petitioner established only that scheduling inconvenience (rather than direct economic loss) could result from adoption of the proposed rule amendment. The requirement for a sponsor to be physically present when the trainee is fitting a client would indeed prevent him from working elsewhere at that precise time. However, it does not follow that a business or financial loss would result from this inconvenience. Finally, it must be recognized that the apprenticeship program is voluntary and participation by licensed hearing aid dispensers is not required. In fact, two of Petitioner's three witnesses do not currently participate in this program.
Findings Of Fact Daniel C. Throneburg, Sr. (Respondent) is, and has been at all times material hereto, a licensed hearing aid specialist in the State of Florida, having been issued license number AS-0000675. On January 30, 1985, Opal Holbrook agreed to purchase two "Nu Ear" rechargeable hearing aids from Respondent after he had tested her hearing and recommended this hearing aid. The total price of the hearing aid was $1,990. The following was included on the order form signed by both Respondent and Holbrook: If within 7 days of the date of delivery you are not completely satisfied, you will receive a refund less $50.00 fee provided you have kept a scheduled appointment within 72 hours of the date of delivery, to allow the specialist to make necessary adjustments for fit, comfort and personal listening pleasure. Respondent received the "Nu Ear" hearing aids from the manufacturer on or about February 26, 1985, and Holbrook thereafter kept her scheduled appointment within 72 hours of delivery, was fitted, and completed payment in full on February 26, 1985 in the amount of $1,990. Four days after receiving the hearing aids, Holbrook returned to Respondent because she still could not hear. Respondent made some adjustments, and told her to try them for another three or four days. She still could not hear, however, and therefore Holbrook requested a refund from Respondent after attempting to use the hearing aids for about a week. Respondent again asked that she try them a little longer. Holbrook returned numerous times during March, 1985 because her hearing aids had not improved her hearing. Respondent referred her to Mark Krywko for counseling, and adjustments, and she asked Krywko for a refund. Instead, he took an impression of her ears, and made some adjustments in the hearing aids, including boring a hole in them and adding an air hose. Respondent was usually not present when Krywko made these adjustments, counseled her on the use of hearing aids, or when Krywko took the impressions. After numerous attempts to adjust the Nu Ear hearing aids had failed, Respondent agreed to "remake" the hearing aids. Basically, he agreed to exchange the Nu Ear aids for another make. On or about April 19, 1985 Holbrook signed a receipt for Electone hearing aids which she received as replacement for the Nu Ear aids. This receipt states: Any modifications necessary will be performed based upon acceptable industry standards and the manufacturers' warranty. I understand the specialists' responsibility is fitting the hearing instrument(s) and to counsel me in the use of the aid and to mail any aid to the manufacturer for custom modifications. In the unlikely event, I am not happy with the instrument, I understand, I can request and receive another instrument from a different manufacturer at no additional charge within 60 days. Requests for any and all refunds are not allowed. I also understand that if my hearing loss has been progressive and has deteriorated, it will be necessary to return to the office for counseling which will be provided by the hearing aid specialist at "NO EXTRA COST". Holbrook was still unable to hear with the Electone hearing aids and requested a refund. To date, no refund has been provided by Respondent to Holbrook. Respondent stipulated that Holbrook received his business card at his place of business. The card represents that Respondent is a certified hearing aid audiologist, which he is not. Mark Krywko is not a licensed hearing aid specialist in the State of Florida, but at all times material hereto he was in an approved trainee program. At the request of Respondent, he repeatedly made adjustments on Holbrook's hearing aids, took an impression of her ears, gave her the receipt referred to in Finding of Fact 6 when the replacement hearing aids were delivered to her, and counseled her on the use of hearing aids. As such, he engaged in dispensing hearing aids, as defined by Section 484.041(3), Florida Statutes, at the request of Respondent who knew that Krywko was not licensed at the time. Respondent was not present most of the time Krywko performed these services for Holbrook. The receipts which Respondent provided to Holbrook for the Nu Ear and Electone hearing aids did not refer the buyer to the Board of Hearing Aid Specialists for the resolution of complaints, and also did not contain the disclaimer required by Section 484.051(2), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that Petitioner enter a Final Order imposing an administrative fine on Respondent in the amount of $1,000, and placing Respondent on probation for a period of six months, conditioned upon his refunding to Opal Holbrook $1940, the full amount she paid for the hearing aids less a $50.00 fee; in the event Respondent does not pay the administrative fine and complete the refund required herein within thirty days of entry of the Final Order, it is further recommended that Respondent's license be suspended for one year in lieu of the six month period of probation and administrative fine. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of December, 1986 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of December, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Ray Shope, Esquire Staff Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 2301 Daniel C. Throneberg 8104 Brit Drive Orlando, Florida Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida Wings S. Benton, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue May a person whose license has been revoked under the provisions of Chapter 468, Florida Statutes, be issued a trainee temporary certificate of registration-by the Department?
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner contends that he is eligible to be issued a trainee temporary certificate of registration to engage in the fitting or selling of hearing aids inasmuch as he is of good moral character and is over the age of twenty-one (21). The Respondent contends that the Petitioner is not eligible to be registered inasmuch as he had his certificate of registration revoked in 1971 and there are no provisions in the statutes for reinstatement once a license is revoked. Petitioner submitted his application for a trainee temporary certificate of registration in March of 1976. The application was returned in April of 1976 for the stated reason that "Since Mr. Lindsay's license was revoked by order of the Division of Health on February 12, 1971, and all licenses to hearing aid dealers are under the provisions of Chapter 468, Florida Statutes, I know of no provisions under these statutes to provide for a reinstatement of a hearing aid dealer's license after revocation. It appears that the hearing aid law statute is silent on this matter, therefore without specific authority to reconsider this application, I am returning to you the check you enclosed, being Check 6483 in the amount of $25.00 drawn on the Florida Bank at Fort Lauderdale, and the original of the application which was enclosed in your letter of March 26, 1976 which was received in this office on March 29." The Certificate as a Fitter and Seller of Hearing Aids Registration No. 165-06-68 granted Franklin J. Lindsay was revoked February 12, 1971, for the reason that Mr. Lindsay was the owner and proprietor of the Professional Hearing Aid Service and was an employing principal of one Mr. John E. Buehler who was found guilty of violating various provisions of Chapter 468, F.S., including the selling of a hearing aid to a customer as new when in fact the hearing aid was secondhand or rebuilt. Mr. Buehler's license was suspended for one year and Mr. Lindsay's license was revoked. The Petitioner has established by witnesses that he is of good moral character and has been rehabilitated and that he comes within the qualification of applicants as required for a trainee under Section 468.126(3)(a).
Recommendation Accept the application together with the required fee of $25 from the Petitioner and allow him to pursue the trainee program as provided in Section 468.126(3)(a). Date October 25, 1976 DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: J. Hodges, Esquire Post Office Box 210 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 John V. Russell, Esquire Suite 205 2 Commercial Boulevard Lauderdale-by-the-Sea, Florida 33308
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Respondent's license as a hearing aid specialist in Florida should be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Administrative Complaints filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to the issues herein, the Board of Hearing Aid Specialists has been the state agency in Florida responsible for the licensing of hearing aid specialists and the regulation of the hearing aid provider profession in Florida. The Respondent has been a licensed hearing aid specialist in this state, holding license number AS 00010006. Stanley I. Williamson is an 84-year-old blind and arthritic retiree who has worn hearing aids since the early 1980's. He has known Mr. Conley since that time and has purchased his hearing aids from the Respondent both when the Respondent was working for other suppliers and when he went into business for himself. In the summer of 1997, Mr. Williamson went to the Respondent to get the wax cleaned out of his hearing aids. Mr. Williamson did not feel he needed new aids at the time. However, on June 6, 1997 Respondent Mr. Conley called him and tried to sell him some new aids. Mr. Williamson told the respondent he didn't want new aids because his were working well, but Mr. Conley suggested he bring them in anyway. Mr. Williamson went to the Respondent's office and tried the new ones the Respondent showed him but decided he did not want them because he felt they did not work properly. Nonetheless, on that same day, June 6, 1997, Mr. Williamson took them, signed a contract for the new aids, and gave the Respondent a check for $1,095. At that time, the Respondent told Mr. Williamson he could bring the aids back within 30 days if they were not acceptable. The Argosy hearing aids Mr. Williamson got from the Respondent on June 6 did not work properly, and when Mr. Williamson complained, the Respondent agreed to get him another pair. Mr. Williamson picked up this second pair of aids at the Respondent's office, Conley's Hearing Aid Center in Clearwater on June 20, 1997. At that time Mr. Williamson signed a second contract and gave the Respondent a second check for $1,095. On June 24, 1997, the Respondent had Mr. Williamson, who was still not satisfied with the performance of the Argosy aids, sign a third contract with his company under which the Respondent agreed to provide a pair of 3M Single Pro hearing aids for a total price of $3,390. The Respondent gave Mr. Williamson credit for the two prior payments of $1,095 each, and Mr. Williamson gave the Respondent an additional check for $1,200. According to Mr. Williamson, the 3M aids, which the Respondent delivered on July 8, 1997, also did not work to his satisfaction, so after just a few days, on July 10, 1997, he exchanged them for a different pair of 3M aids, Dual Pro. The sales receipt for the aids that the Respondent gave to Mr. Williamson on July 10, 1997 did not contain the buyer's signature, nor did it list the serial numbers for the hearing aids provided. Mr. Williamson thought he was getting the top of the hearing aid line but in fact, the Dual Pro aid was the middle line. According to a pamphlet he saw later, the top of the line is called Multi Pro; the middle, Dual Pro; and the bottom, Single Pro. Though a new contract was signed reflecting the Dual Pro aids, there was no additional charge. The Respondent guaranteed all hearing aids sold to Mr. Williamson to be acceptable or, if returned within 30 days of purchase, a full refund would be given. The Dual Pro aids also did not work to Mr. Williamson's satisfaction, and he returned them to the Respondent on or about August 4, 1997, an act witnessed by the Respondent's associate, Michelle Pfister. None of the hearing aid sets was kept by Mr. Williamson for more than 30 days. Mr. Williamson contends that when he returned the second pair of Argosy aids and received the 3M Single Pro aids in exchange, he asked Mr. Conley for a refund. At that time, Mr. Conley said he didn't have the money. When Mr. Conley delivered the Single Pro aids, and again when he delivered the Dual Pro aids, Mr. Williamson asked for a refund instead. Each time the Respondent claimed he didn't have the money. On October 4, 1997, Mr. Williamson wrote to Conley's Hearing Aid Center, the Respondent's business, and threatened recoupment action if the Respondent did not return the money he had paid for the aids he had returned. The hearing aids Mr. Williamson purchased were all returned to the Respondent, but no refund was ever made. According to Ms. Pfister, the returned hearing aids were subsequently sent back to the manufacturer for credit. The credit was not to her account with the manufacturer, however, and she does not know who received it. Ms. Pfister, also a licensed hearing aid specialist since 1998, bought Conley's Hearing Aid Center from the Respondent on July 27, 1997. At the time of the purchase, Ms. Pfister was not employed by the Respondent, but she had worked for the Respondent on and off since 1995. On June 26, 1997, the Respondent signed a form to sponsor Ms. Pfister as a hearing aid specialist trainee and served as her sponsor until she passed the examination and was licensed on June 23, 1998. Respondent continued to work on the premises after the sale until Ms. Pfister was licensed. When Ms. Pfister took over the business, the sales contract called for all hearing aids on site to be sold to her as inventory, She also received a statement from the Respondent that there were no unresolved issues with clients, and she did not assume any liabilities incurred by the business prior to her take over. When she assumed active management of the practice, Ms. Pfister received all of the Respondent's patient files. Katherine Sadilek is a 93-year-old retiree who purchased a pair of pre-owned 3-M Model 8200 hearing aids from the Respondent on April 8, 1997 for $1,800. The aids were paid for in full on April 9, 1997. The receipt for this sale that the Respondent gave to Ms. Sadilek did not contain the serial numbers of the aids, nor did it describe any of the terms and conditions of the sale or a guarantee. Ms. Sadilek returned the aids to the Respondent exactly 30 days after the purchase date because she was not satisfied with them. The Respondent did not refund her money but agreed to try to re-sell them for her. He offered her $100.00 for them, which she refused. The Respondent retained the aids and never returned them to Ms. Sadilek or paid her for them. A review of the documentation relating to the sales to both clients show them to be devoid of any information showing any improvement to the clients' hearing as a result of the hearing aids sold to them by the Respondent. A showing of improvement is required to form the basis for non-refund of amounts paid for hearing aids. The Respondent filed for bankruptcy in December 1998. The Respondent was licensed as a hearing aid specialist in Indiana in 1970 and in Florida in 1978. He has practiced in Florida for almost 20 years without any complaints being filed against him except those in issue here. The Respondent attributes most of his problems to his marriage dissolution in 1979, the settlement relating to which caused his financial problems and his bankruptcy. He claims he offered to make periodic payments to Mr. Williamson but Mr. Williamson refused that offer. The Respondent is 61 years old and presently receiving worker's compensation. Though he is not presently in the hearing aid business, he hopes to be in the future and needs to keep his license to earn a living.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board of Hearing Aid Specialists enter a final order suspending the Respondent's license for a period of six months and thereafter placing it under probation for a period of three years under such terms and conditions as may be deemed appropriate by the Board. It is also recommended that the Board impose an administrative fine of $3,000, and assess appropriate costs of investigation and prosecution. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of September, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of September, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Gary L. Asbell, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Building 3, Mail Stop 39 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Donald Conley 3377 Southwest Villa Place Palm City, Florida 34990 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Susan Foster, Executive Director Board of Hearing Aid Specialists Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
