Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto Respondent was licensed as a Hearing Aid Specialist having been issued license number 0000804. During the period 1985-1986 the license of T. Ray Black was displayed on the wall at East Pasco Hearing Aid Center in Zephyrhills, Florida, but Respondent never worked at this address. East Pasco Hearing Aid Center is owned and operated by Arvina Hines whose license as a Hearing Aid Specialist was revoked circa 1981. Ms. Hines hired people to work at East Pasco Hearing Aid Center and trained them in selling and fitting hearing aids. Pamela Strife worked at the East Pasco Hearing Aid Center from 1981 until 1986 and never met Respondent nor did she ever see him at the center. She did see Raymond J. Black and Cynthia Sue Bennett, the father and sister of Respondent, working at the center. Raymond J. Black's license was revoked January 26, 1981. Arvina Hines submitted an application for training program for Hearing Aid Specialist on April 21, 1986. (Exhibit 5), in which Respondent signed the sponsor affidavit as the sponsor of Ms. Hines. He did not provide any supervision to Hines. Sheila Louise Thomas submitted as application February 25, 1985, for a training program as a Hearing Aid Specialist (Exhibit 4), on which Respondent signed as sponsor. Ms. Thomas was trained by Ms. Hines. Thomas does not recall completing the application for training, but identified her signature thereon. She has never met Respondent. Peggy Goodman worked at East Pasco Hearing Aid Center for three weeks in 1985. During the time she was employed she never saw Respondent at the center.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Subsections 484.051(2), 484.056(1)(g), 484.056(1)(h), 484.056(1)(k), 484.053(1)(f), 484.053(3), 455.624(1)(j), and 484.0512(l), Florida Statutes,1 and Rule 64B6-6.010, Florida Administrative Code, and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Stephens is and has been, at least since March 1999, a licensed Hearing Aid Specialist. His license number is AS 0002599. On April 26, 1999, O.G. purchased a pair of hearing aids from Stephens. The total price of the hearing aids was $3200. O.G. paid $1600 using his Visa credit card on April 26. The hearing aids were delivered by Stephens to O.G. on May 14, 1999, at which time O.G. paid the remaining $1600 by Visa credit card. O.G. was not happy with the hearing aids and returned to Stephens' place of business, Hearing World, sometime in June 1999. Stephens convinced O.G. to try a different pair of hearing aids instead of getting a refund. O.G. agreed, and Stephens ordered a new pair of hearing aids, which Stephens delivered on June 30, 1999. O.G. was not happy with the second pair of hearing aids and again returned them to Hearing World. Stephens persuaded O.G. to try another set of hearings aids. By letter dated July 26, 1999, Stephens advised as follows: This letter is to confirm that: When you receive your remade instruments on or before August 15, 1999, you will have 30 days to try them without penalty. Should you decide that you wish to return them for a refund you may do so and receive a full refund of your investment. Further, should you need an extension of the trial it will be granted based on your request before the original trial expires. O.G. agreed to Stephens' proposition. The third set was delivered on August 14, 1999. The third set of hearing aids was also unacceptable to O.G. Stephens ordered a fourth pair and delivered them to O.G. on October 1, 1999. O.G. was not satisfied with the fourth pair and asked for a refund. On November 19, 1999, O.G. received a letter from Stephens stating: We are in receipt of your request for cancellation. I do accept this letter as your notice. We are very sorry that we were not able to satisfy your hearing needs. We are having a very difficult time financially at this time and will not be able to refund your money as timely as you would like. However, we do owe you a refund and will take care of it as soon as we are financially able to do so. The refund time is running about 8 weeks. O.G. did receive $300 from Stephens as part of the refund. Stephens made no further payments to O.G. On February 15, 1999, Joseph Wright (Wright) applied to the Department for admittance to the hearing aid specialist training program and was approved for the training program period March 12, 1999, through September 11, 1999. The notice from the Department to Wright advising him that he was approved for the training program stated: "A trainee may continue to function as a trainee until receipt of the examination grade results." Stephens was Wright's sponsor. As part of the training program, Stephens taught Wright, using text books and hands-on training. Stephens showed Wright how to make molds and do fittings. As Wright progressed, he was allowed to make the molds and do fittings by himself. Wright would show the molds to Stephens after Wright completed them. If Wright had trouble fitting a client, Stephens would come and assist Wright. Generally Stephens was in the office when Wright did fittings. After completing the six-month training program, Wright took the Hearing Aid Specialist Examination in September 1999. Wright did not pass the examination. On October 29, 1999, the Department mailed Wright the notice that he had not passed the examination. The evidence did not establish when Wright received the notification that he had failed the examination. Nor did the evidence establish when Stephens became aware that Wright had failed the examination. At least by April 14, 2000, Wright was aware that he had failed the examination because on that date he again applied with the Department to enter the hearing aid specialist program under Stephens' sponsorship. Stephens was also aware by April 14, 2000, that Wright had failed the examination because Wright's application included a signed statement from Stephens dated April 14, 2000, indicating that he would be Wright's sponsor. The Department admitted Wright to the training program for the period April 22, 2000, through October 21, 2000. The dates for his examination were January 19 and 20, 2001. In February 2000, J.F. received an advertisement from Hearing World, advertising free hearing examinations. On March 2, 2000, J.F. went to Hearing World for the free examination. He did not see Stephens and was helped by Wright. J.F. signed a written purchase agreement to purchase two hearing aids from Hearing World for $5,700. Wright performed the examination, made the molds for the hearing aids, and signed the purchase agreement on behalf of Hearing World. J.F. gave Wright a check for $5,700 on March 2, 2000, as payment in full for the hearing aids. On March 23, 2000, Wright delivered the hearing aids to J.F. and signed the purchase agreement as having delivered the hearing aids. Stephens was not physically present in the room with Wright and J.F. at the time the delivery was made. The purchase agreement did not contain the signature and license number of Stephens. The written purchase agreement provided: The purchaser agrees to wear the hearing aid(s) for a period of 30 days from the date of delivery. In the event that the purchaser decides to return the hearing aid(s), they must be returned to the specialist of record in new working order, on or before the 30th day of possession. Upon receipt of the hearing aid(s) Hearing World will refund the purchase price, less mold and dispensing fees (mold fee $150 for one aid, $200 for a set. In addition, a 5% of the purchase price-dispensing fee may be retained). J.F. tried wearing the hearing aids but experienced vertigo when using them. He talked to Wright on April 3 and explained the problem he was having with the hearing aids and indicating he wanted to return the hearing aids for a refund. Wright explained to J.F. that only Stephens had the authority to make a refund. J.F. met with Stephens on April 12, 2000. Stephens explained that he had a cash flow problem and could not make a full refund at that time. It was agreed that J.F. would return one of the hearing aids and try to wear the other one. On April 14, 2000, J.F. returned to Hearing World and explained to Stephens that the use of one hearing aid did not solve the vertigo problem that he was experiencing. J.F. returned the other hearing aid and asked for a complete refund. Stephens told J.F. that he did not have the funds to make a full refund and gave J.F. $100. Stephens made no further payments to J.F. for the refund on the hearing aids. Stephens filed a petition for bankruptcy on September 27, 2000. A Discharge of Debtor was entered on January 8, 2001, in In Re: Stephens, Donald Lane, Case No. 00-14949-8W7, United States Bankruptcy Court Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division. J.F. and O.G. were listed as creditors holding unsecured nonpriority claims.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered: In Case No. 03-0404PL, finding that Donald Stephens violated Subsections 484.0512(1) and 484.056(1)(h), Florida Statutes, as set forth in Count I of the Administrative Complaint; Subsection 484.051(2), Florida Statutes, as set forth in Count II of the Administrative Complaint; and Subsection 484.056(1)(h), Florida Statutes, and Rule 64B6-6.010, Florida Administrative Code, as set forth in Count IV of the Administrative Complaint. In Case No. 03-0404PL, dismissing Count III of the Administrative Complaint. In Case No. 03-0404PL, issuing a reprimand and imposing administrative fines of $1,000 for the violations set forth in Count I, $500 for the violations set forth in Count II, and $500 for the violations set forth in Count IV. In Case No. 03-0405PL dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of June, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 25th day of June, 2003.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent Martin K. Donaldson is licensed to fit and sell hearing aids in Florida, and operates a hearing aid business in Pinellas Park, Florida under the corporate name, West Coast Hearing Aid Services, Inc. The Respondent employed Sanders Glass from 1978 until June, 1980, to fit and sell hearing aids. During his employment, Glass sold more hearing aids than any other employee of Respondent. He averaged approximately ten sales per month and was second only to the Respondent in the number of sales. Evidence of the sales record was posted by the Respondent on a chart in his office where all employees could see and compare their monthly sales totals. Glass took the State Qualifying Examination for hearing aid fitters and sellers twice while registered as a trainee. He failed the examination in March, 1979 and September, 1979. The Department notified both the Respondent and Glass by letters dated March 23, 1979 and September 20, 1979, that due to Glass' failure, he could no longer fit or sell heading aids after September 30, 1979. However, the Respondent permitted Glass to continue as an employee after September 30, 1979. On June 9, 1980, Glass fitted a hearing aid for Sarah Funk of Clearwater, Florida. This hearing aid was delivered by Carl Henzel, an employee of the Respondent, on or about June 30, 1980. Henzel and Robert Nason worked for the Respondent contemporaneously with Glass. Nason, a trainee, worked from March, 1979, until April 7, 1980. Henzel was a licensed hearing aid dispenser who worked for the Respondent from September, 1979 until August, 1980. Both worked with Glass in the Respondent's office and observed him fitting hearing aids after October 1, 1979. The Respondent knew of Glass' failures on the qualifying examinations but kept him on to fit and sell hearing aids until he could secure another position. From October 1, 1979 through June 9, 1980, Glass' duties under the Respondent were the same as Henzel's and Nason's and included the fitting and selling of hearing aids. Both Nason and Henzel subsequently left the employ of Respondent and have sought counsel to secure commissions allegedly due them for selling hearing aids while in the employ of the Respondent. Nason, the complaining party in this case, remained in Respondent's employ until April 7, 1980, because he needed the Respondent's sponsorship to obtain his license. The complaint which was filed against the Respondent by Nason was part of an effort to secure disputed commissions and avoid a non-competition agreement which was signed with the Respondent and which the Respondent through counsel had indicated he intended to enforce. No evidence was presented that any consumer had complained concerning Glass' activities while in the employ of the Respondent or suffered any injury as a result of Glass' or the Respondent's actions.
Recommendation Accordingly, it is REC0MMENDED: That a final order be entered suspending the certificate of registration of Respondent Martin K. Donaldson for a period of ninety days and imposing a $500 administrative fine. DONE and ORDERED this 9th day of February, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of February, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert P. Daniti, Esquire Licensure and Certification Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 308 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 George L. Waas, Esquire SLEPIN SLEPIN LAMBERT & WAAS 1114 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301
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 Should Petitioner discipline Respondent's hearing aid specialist license for reasons alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint?
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding Respondent William D. Williston has been a licensed hearing aid specialist in Florida, having been issued license no. 1439 by the Florida Board of Hearing Aid Specialist, commencing April 1, 1983. At all times relevant to the inquiry Respondent operated a business known as the Sumter Hearing Center in Wildwood, Florida, from which hearing aids were sold and dispensed. At times relevant to the inquiry Respondent sponsored Darleen L. Sherman as a trainee at his business. Respondent also served as the designated hearing aid specialist to assist in the training of Ms. Sherman. Respondent served in the capacity of direct supervisor to Ms. Sherman in her attempt to learn the necessary skills to become a licensed hearing aid specialist. Respondent's initial sponsorship and supervision of Ms. Sherman's training, wherein Respondent had been designated to serve, was for the training period June 24, 1997 through December 23, 1997. Ms. Sherman completed that training program. Following the completion of her training she took the hearing aid specialist examination. She failed the written theory portion of the examination taken May 1, 1998 through May 3, 1998. Ms. Sherman and Respondent were made aware of those results by notice mailed to the candidate for licensure on June 4, 1998. On June 6, 1998, Ms. Sherman reapplied to participate in a training program sponsored and supervised by Respondent. This was a request to repeat the training. Ms. Sherman's application form submitted to Petitioner was accompanied by a form completed by Respondent as sponsor, also dated June 6, 1998. On June 8, 1998, a check was written by Ms. Sherman to Petitioner in the amount of $105 for the stated purpose of participation in the "second training program." On June 13, 1998, Ms. Sherman was officially registered for the repeat training program with Respondent serving as sponsor and a prospective examination date to gain her license as hearing aid specialist was provided. That date for examination was sometime in January 1999. The training program registration identified the repeat training program period as running from June 12, 1998 through December 11, 1998. Stage I to that training program was June 12, 1998 through July 11, 1998; Stage II July 12, 1998 through September 11, 1998, and Stage III September 12, 1998 through December 11, 1998. During the hiatus between being notified that Ms. Sherman had failed the May 1998 examination and the beginning date for the repeat training program, Ms. Sherman, with Respondent's knowledge, acted in behalf of Respondent's hearing aid specialist business in Wildwood, Florida. This took place on June 9, 1998, involving the patient C.D., outside Respondent's presence. On that date Ms. Sherman performed hearing aid testing on C.D. and sold C.D. new hearing aids manufactured by Rexton for a total price of $4,000. The first $2,000 to purchase was paid on that date. The sales receipt provided C.D. was signed by Ms. Sherman indicating that she was a hearing aid specialist, which she was not. C.D. also signed the receipt form. The receipt provided C.D. on June 9, 1998, indicated that the hearing aids were guaranteed by Rexton for a period of one year with a loss and damage provision available with a 25% deductible. C.D. was provided another document which he signed and dated June 9, 1998. That document was entitled "30-day trial agreement." By its terms it said: I agree to wear my new hearing aid for the full 30-day trial period, and will come in at least once a week for consultation and any adjustments that may be needed. If the hearing aids are returned to the laboratory for any modification, my trial period will resume upon refitting of the hearing aids. I realize that hearing aid fittings are individual in nature and that it is normal to expect adjustments to be made. It has taken a long time for my hearing loss to develop, and will take some time to once again begin to enjoy the sound of life. Respondent was aware of the use of this type form in his business and the type of sales receipt form utilized in the transaction with C.D. Contrary to Respondent's testimony it is not found that C.D. was provided a form with information entitled "30-day trial agreement terms and conditions" as of the purchase date June 9, 1998, or upon any other date. C.D. in his testimony disclaimed being presented the form "30-day trial agreement terms and conditions." His testimony is supported by his wife, V.D. Ms. Sherman does not recall whether the form "30-day trial agreement terms and conditions" was provided to C.D. The "30-day trial agreement terms and conditions" was used on occasion by Respondent and Ms. Sherman but not here. The form is similar to the notice requirements set forth in Section 484.0512, Florida Statutes, dealing with the statutory requirement for a 30-day trial period and money back guarantee, together with the opportunity to return the hearing aids or mail written notice of cancellation to the seller and Rule 64B-6.001, Florida Administrative Code, which further describes written notice requirements. On June 19, 1998, Ms. Sherman received from the factory the hearing aids purchased by C.D. They had the wrong circuitry. As a consequence Ms. Sherman returned the hearing aids for correction. On June 29, 1998, Ms. Sherman received the hearing aids a second time. On June 30, 1998, C.D. returned to Respondent's business and was provided the hearing aids and paid the $2,000 balance for the purchase. Respondent was in attendance on this occasion. No further documentation was provided C.D. concerning his purchase when he took delivery of the hearing aids. Shortly after receiving the hearing aids C.D. and his wife took a vacation in north Georgia. On July 14, 1998, C.D. wrote Ms. Sherman concerning the hearing aids in question. In that correspondence he said "Sorry, but these hearing aids just don't meet my needs. Please refund my $4,000." On that same date by registered delivery, return receipt requested, C.D. sent the hearing aids back to Respondent's Wildwood, Florida, business address. The hearing aids were received at that address on July 20, 1998. The hearing aids were eventually returned to the manufacturer for credit on Respondent's account with Rexton. This disposition occurred around August 10, 1998. On July 20, 1998, the same day that the hearing aids were received by Respondent's business, Ms. Sherman wrote C.D. at his Florida address in Lake Panasoffkee, Florida. In that correspondence she identified herself as being a hearing aid specialist and an office manager for Respondent's Sumter Hearing Centers, one of which was at the Wildwood, Florida, address. In this correspondence she stated: We are in receipt of your hearing aid. As we agreed when you purchased the hearing aid you would give the hearing aid a 30-day trial basis, therefore I would suggest that we delay canceling this order. My suggestion is again a 30-day trial basis effective upon your return. It is important that I know what kind of problems, 'not loud enough, too much background noise, whistling, fit uncomfortable or etc.' you are having so that I can make adjustments and have you try them again. I am confident that we can get you to hear better. Please contact me at 352-793-4422 regarding the above matter. On August 6, 1998, C.D. responded to the July 20, 1998 letter from Ms. Sherman by writing to her and saying: In reference to your letter of July 20th; be advised that I have purchased another hearing aid and I am happy with them [sic]. Please return the $4,000 I paid for the Rexton aids. In fact, C.D. had not purchased another hearing aid. He made this false statement as a further attempt to be reimbursed the purchase price for the Rexton hearing aids. C.D. made numerous attempts to obtain a refund for the hearing aids purchased, to no avail. Respondent was aware of these attempts. Among the efforts was contact by Randall M. Thornton, Esquire, C.D.'s attorney, who wrote to the Respondent's business address at Wildwood, Florida, and another business address in Bushnell, Florida, requesting a refund in the amount of $4,000. This correspondence from the attorney was dated October 9, 1998. Respondent's uncorroborated testimony that he refunded the $4,000 to C.D. is not credible.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered which imposes an administrative fine of $2,000, assesses costs of investigation and prosecution, orders Respondent to refund $4,000 to C.D., and otherwise dismisses the Amended Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of May, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 24th day of May, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Gary L. Asbell, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Building Three, Mail Station 39 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 William D. Williston 3131 Southwest College Road Suite 302 Ocala, Florida 34474 William D. Williston 1072 Southeast 155th Street Summerfield, Florida 34491 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way 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
Findings Of Fact During the period from September 3 through September 7, 1974, the Respondent, Dr. Thomas A. Mullin, undertook to perform audiological testing on various patients and staff at University Convalescent Center West (UCCW) and University Convalescent Center East (UCCE) in Deland, Florida. These two convalescent centers, although owned by the same corporation, were at that time separate and distinct facilities, each having its own administrator. UCCW was located at 545 West Euclid Avenue in Deland, Florida, and its administrator was Arthur Anderson. UCCE was at that located at 991 East New York Avenue in Deland, Florida, and its administrator was Gelatha Koranda. Dr. Mullin obtained permission from Arthur Anderson to conduct audiological tests at DCCW and through Anderson's recommendation obtained access to UCCE. Anderson's permission was obtained by Dr. Mullin subsequent to a discussion between Mullin and Anderson in which Dr. Mullin discussed audiological screening of the convalescent center's patients by audiology students from Florida Technological University under Dr. Mullin's supervision. In addition, Dr. Mullin and Andersen discussed a new Medicaid program under which hearing testing and hearing aids could be provided to Medicaid patients. The acquisition of hearing aids under this program was dependent upon the recommendation of an audiologist approved by Medicaid. Dr. Mullin advised Anderson that he wad so approved by MedicaId and would be glad to provide this service to patients of the nursing home at the time the audiological screening was done. Mullin told Anderson at this initial conference that he would test Medicaid patients and bill Medicaid for his professional services and that the nursing home would not be billed. It was further agreed that Dr. Mullin would provide Anderson a report on the patients. These audiological tests were subsequently conducted on Anderson's authority and without the permission and knowledge of Dr. Rauschenberger, house physician for the two nursing homes and in some instances personal physician of some of the patients. Prior medical authorization is not required for audiological testing in general practice or under the Medicaid program. After the testing program was completed, Dr. Mullin reported in writing to Mr. Anderson the results of the residents and staff at UCCW. Koranda, the administrator at UCE, had not requested a report be filed with her regarding Dr. Mullin's findings, and no report was rendered to her by Dr. Mullin. In neither instance did the administrators request or authorize Dr. Mullin to enter his findings in the patient's medical records maintained at the centers and no such entries were made. Expert testimony varied regarding the obligation of an audiologist to make entries in a patient's record. How ever, it was generally agreed that an audiologist would not make entries on a patient's record without authorization by the administration of the health care facility when testing was not the result of medical referral. As a result of his testing at UCCW, Dr. Mullin prescribed hearing aids for Alfred Miller, Sallie Porter, Ruby Allen, Minnie Jennings, Florence Rogers, and Agnes Flowers, all of whom were Medicaid patients. As a result of audiological testing at UCCE, Dr. Mullin prescribed hearing aids for Jessie Robinson, Maggie Smith, Clara Brown, Emma Van Landingham, Emily Burkhart, Della Stone, and Lenora Gell, all of whom were Medicaid patients. Dr. Mullin prepared prescriptions for hearing aids on the persons named above, and forwarded these prescriptions to Orange Hearing Aid Center in Orlando, Florida which provided and fitted the hearing aids to the individuals. Dr. Mullin submitted the bill directly to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services for his professional services in screening Medicaid patients' hearing and for his professional services in screening and prescribing heading aids for Medicaid patients. Dr. Mullin's basic hearing evaluation test consisted of a pure tone air conduction test. Dr. Mullin conducted further testing if necessary to include a pure tone bone conduction test, speech discrimination test, and speech reception threshold test. A master hearing aid was used for the hearing aid selection process and an audiometer used for the basic testing. Dr. Mullin prescribed hearing aids on the basis of these latter tests Dr. Mullin had planned to conduct all testing in a specially adapted trailer, but was unable to use this trailer because of the immobility of the patients. A bathing facility or "tub room" in each of the nursing homes was provided by the nursing home administration for conducting the tests, and represented to be the only facility available for the testing. These facilities were not ideal in terms of their construction and location for conducting audiological testing. However, Dr. Mullin took what measures he could to reduce ambient noise levels, to include the use of aural domes. No clear and convincing evidence was introduced that the noise conditions during Dr. Mullin's tests were so bad that his test results were invalid. In fact, subsequent tests made by the Board revealed that the patients tested by Dr. Mullin were hard of hearing, although some of the results differed slightly in degree of loss. Subsequent to the testing, as mentioned above, Dr. Mullin filed a written report with Arthur Anderson, administrator of UCCW. This report was rendered on the letterhead of Florida Technological University. This report revealed that Rogers, Silfies, Bowen, Covington, Peppett, Trodden Turner, Farrow, Howard, and Tidson had normal hearing. The report contained specific comments with regard to Rolle, Rigsbee, Goodrich, Rosato, VonDohler, Shalhoub, Thompson, Owens, Murkinson, Tholl, and Hocker. Silfries, Rolle, Owens, Peppett, Goodrich, and Hocker were Medicaid patients upon whom Mullin submitted billings to Medicaid through the Department of Health and Rehabilitative services. The comments on Thompson, Owens, Murkinson and Tholl indicate referral to otolaryngologists. The specific comments with regard to Rolle, Goodrich, Rosato, and Shalhoub indicate a hearing loss but no recommendation for a hearing aid due to some specific contra-indication. The billings submitted to Medicaid through the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services are consistent with the findings reported in Exhibit 3. The billings were for basic hearing evaluations on those Medicaid paie:ts who were determined to have normal hearing and for selective amplification procedures in addition to basic evaluation for those patients whose hearing was not normal. The billings are substantiated by the report filed with Anderson and the audiograms prepared. However, the report does reveal that Herman Owens, who was referred to an otolaryngologist for removal of impacted cerumen in the right ear, received both basic hearing tests and selective hearing amplification procedures, both of which were billed to Medicaid; and J. L. Hocker received selective amplification testing although Mullin's comments indicated that Hocker's right ear had recently undergone surgery for removal of a carcinoma. However, Medicaid's criteria for testing were not introduced and no evidence was introduced, that a patient with impacted ears should not be tested. Also this report contains no reference to the patients for whom Dr. Mullin had prescribed a hearing aid. The report does reveal that where contra-indicated, whether because of the nature of the hearing loss, as indicated with Rolle and Rosato, or patient attitude, as in the case of Goodrich, Dr. Mullin did not prescribe a hearing aid. This relates particularly to the allegation that Dr. Mullin prescribed hearing aids for certain patients who did not want hearing aids, and an implication made that Dr. Mullin recommended hearing aids for patients who could not benefit from them. This report which is on Florida Technological University letterhead is the sole support of the charge that Dr. Mullin misused his connection with Florida Technological University. It is clear that this report was rendered after the testing had been concluded. Clearly, his report rendered after the testing on the letterhead of Florida Technological University could not have been an inducement to Anderson to permit Mullin access to the convalescent center. However, the fact is clear that Dr. Mullin did make a personal profit for a venture undertaken in connection with an otherwise authorized university activity. The evidence indicates that the hearing aids prescribed by Dr. Mullin and provided by Orange Hearing Aid Center were fitted by Merrill Schwartz. Schwartz fitted these hearing aids at UCCW and UCCE. There is no indication that UCCE or UCCW failed to cooperate in any way with Schwartz gaining access to the patients and fitting them with aids. To the contrary, the evidence indicates that both centers cooperated fully in providing Schwartz the opportunity and facilities to fit the hearing aids. The fact that both centers did not question the fitting of the hearing aids substantiates Dr. Mullin's assertion that Anderson expected hearing aids to be fitted to patients under the Medicaid program. Expert testimony was received that the only positive evaluation of the utility of the hearing aid to a patient is a trial by the patient using the aid to include counselling on the use and benefits of the hearing aid to overcome a patient's possible aversion to the aid. Dr. Mullin testified that he had prescribed the aids on a thirty day trial basis, and his audiograms substantiate this. However, his prescriptions to Orange Hearing Aid Center did not reflect any trial period. Merrill Schwartz, the hearing aid salesman for Orange Hearing Aid Center, stated that he fitted the aids from the prescriptions and no trial period was stated. However, the current owner, Irwin Pensack, stated that during his transitional period in taking over Orange Hearing Aid Center from Emmanuel Gitles, that Gitles had impressed upon him the importance of maintaining good customer relationships and providing trial periods routinely when requested. Why the 30 day trial was not included in the prescription was not explained by Dr. Mullin, who stated it was his understanding they were for a 30 day trial. However, in this same regard, the evidence further reveals that none of the staff at UCCW or UCCE contacted Dr. Mullin or Orange Hearing Aid Center with regard to followup counseling or return of the hearing aids when the patients failed to properly use them. It is questionable how effective a 30 trial period would have bean under the circumstances. No evidence was presented to show hat Dr. Mullin received any type of "kickback" or other benefit from Orange Hearing Aid Center. Although substantial and competent evidence was introduced that some of the patients who were fitted with the hearing aids were senile, expert testimony was received that such a condition is not a contra-indication of the need and benefit to the patient of the use of a hearing aid. This is particularly true since the effects of deafness and senility subjectively reinforce one another. Expert testimony was also received that an audiologist would not routinely provide followup services subsequent to audiological testing and the prescription of a hearing aid unless requested to do so by the patient or the hearing aid dealer. The evidence indicates that Dr. Mullin did not receive any requests for followup from either UCC er UCC on behalf of any of the patients for whom hearing aids were prescribed, from patients themselves, or the dealer. The one call made from a patient who had received a hearing aid was made to Orange County Hearing Aid for followup services or repair. Said services were provided by Orange Hearing Aid Center, and indicates that this patient was using the hearing aid. The bills submitted to Medicaid through the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services were in accord with Medicaid's published schedules for the professional services rendered by Dr. Mullin. There is no substantial and competent evidence that Mullin charged for work he did not do or overcharged for the work that he did.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that no action be taken against the certificate of Thomas A. Mullin as a speech pathologist and audiologist. DONE and ORDERED this 26th day of October, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Howard R. Marsee, Esquire Post Office Box 20154 Orlando, Florida 32814 Gene Sellers, Esquire General Counsel's Office Department of Education Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 James M. Russ, Esquire 441 First Federal Building 109 East Church Street Orlando, Florida 32801
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Horrigan has owned Better Hearing Aid Services, St. Petersburg, Florida since the company was started in 1957. Be is a certified hearing aid specialist and has been licensed each year through 1979. Petitioner Whittington has been a certified hearing aid specialist since 1957 and has managed Better Hearing Aid Services since 1968. During the early part of 1979 Petitioner Horrigan decided to sell his business and Whittington decided to retire at the end of 1979. Both Petitioners are well past 65 and Horrigan has had more than one heart attack. To seek buyers for the business an ad was placed in the June 1979 issue of the Hearing Aid Journal (Exhibit 1) Both Petitioners were aware of the requirement for completion of the continuing education course for renewal of certificates hut since both of them planned to retire in 1979 neither intended to renew his license for 1980. Bulletins reminding registrants of this requirement were sent to all certificate holders by Respondent on February 13, August 8 and October 1, 1979. Attempts to sell the hearing aid business in 1979 were unsuccessful. Accordingly, late in 1979, Horrigan decided it would be necessary for him to renew his certificate to keep the business open until he could find a buyer. Continuing education courses were given at various places in Florida during 1979 and Horrigan planned to go to Daytona Beach to take the course given 2 December 1979. On 27 November 1979 Horrigan was hospitalized for 9 days for a condition related to his previous heart attacks and was unable to take the course. Whittington was not aware that Horrigan was hospitalized until after the 2 December continuing education course was given. Had he known Horrigan couldn't attend, Whittington testified he would have attended so he could qualify for renewal of his certificate and keep the business open until a buyer was found. The next continuing education course given in Florida after 2 December 1979 was on January 24-25, 1980 at St. Petersburg, Florida. Both Petitioners attended this course and immediately upon completion submitted their applications for renewal of their certificates. Both applications for renewal were denied because they had not taken the continuing education course in calendar year 1979. Both Petitioners are highly qualified to sell hearing aids and denial of their applications for renewal of certificates is not in the public interest.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Kent A. Broy, committed the violations alleged in an Administrative Complaint filed with by Petitioner, the Department of Health, on April 11, 2003, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioner, the Department of Health (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is the agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility for the investigation and prosecution of complaints involving hearing aid specialists licensed to practice in Florida. Respondent, Kent A. Broy, is, and was at the times material to this matter, a hearing aid specialist licensed to practice in Florida, having been issued license number AS2169 on April 13, 1989.5 The Administrative Complaint. On April 11, 2003, an Administrative Complaint, DOH Case No. AS 2001-19941, was filed with the Department against Mr. Broy. Mr. Broy disputed the issues of fact alleged in the Administrative Complaint and requested a formal administrative Hearing by a Request for Formal Hearing filed with the Department on Mr. Broy's behalf by counsel. The remaining four counts of the Administrative Complaint, Counts I, II, III, and V, allege violations of subsections of Section 484.056(1), Florida Statutes: Section 484.056(1)(g) (Count I); (j) (Count II); (w) (Count III); and (m) (Count V). All four counts include the following introductory sentence: "Petitioner realleges and incorporates herein by reference the facts alleged in paragraphs 1-16 [of the Administrative Complaint]." Paragraphs 1 through 6 are general allegations which were admitted by Mr. Broy. Patient G.H. Patient G.H., who was 88 years of age at the time, visited a business known as Audibel Hearing Care Center (hereinafter referred to as "Audibel")6 and located at 1620 North U.S. Highway 1, Jupiter, Florida, on October 24, 2001, a Tuesday. G.H. was accompanied by his wife, J.H. G.H. went to Audibel to determine whether he needed hearing aids. Mr. Broy, who G.H. assumed was a licensed hearing aid specialist, assisted G.H.7 As alleged in the Administrative Complaint, G.H. agreed to purchase a pair of "in the ear" hearing aids for $6,810.00. Mr. Broy attempted to make molds of the G.H.'s ear canals so that the hearing aids G.H. had agreed to purchase could be ordered. Molding material was placed in G.H.'s ear, but when it was removed it was found to be covered with wax. Mr. Broy attempted to remove the wax from G.H.'s ear with some type of instrument. This caused pain in G.H.'s ear, so the effort was discontinued. Mr. Broy then gave G.H. some oil to use to attempt to soften the wax, and he scheduled G.H. to return the next week. In furtherance of the sale and purchase of the hearing aids, G.H. signed a Purchase Agreement. The Agreement states that G.H. was purchasing 2 "Merc CIC Dig" hearing aides at $4,200.00 each ($8,400.00 total) less a 20% discount, leaving a discounted price of $6,720.00 plus a $90.00 administration fee. The Purchase Agreement includes, in part, the following regarding return of the hearing aids: Return Policy - . . . . Purchaser may return 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. A return claim form may be obtained from the distributor at the location checked on the face of this agreement. A request for return must be submitted in writing, within 30 days. . . . . The distributor identified on the face of the Purchase Agreement was Audibel. The Purchase Agreement did not identify the guarantor for the refund. No hearings aids, however, were delivered to G.H. at the time he signed the Purchase Agreement or anytime subsequent thereto. G.H. paid the full purchase price, charging the full price to a credit card. Shortly after executing the Purchase Agreement, G.H. decided that he did not want the hearing aids8 and he returned to Audibel. He told Mr. Broy that he no longer wanted the hearing aids.9 G.H., not receiving satisfaction from Mr. Broy, ultimately challenged the amount he paid for the hearing aids with his credit card company. He was refunded the $6,810.00 charge. On January 9, 2002, Mr. Broy charged $630.00 to G.H.'s credit card. That amount has not been refunded. During the investigation of this matter, Neil Bailes, an investigator for the Agency for Health Care Administration, who had never met or spoken to Mr. Broy in person, spoke to someone whom he believed was Mr. Broy. The individual he spoke with told him that records relating to G.H.'s purchase and subsequent return of hearing aids were in G.H.'s possession, and, therefore, he could not provide those records.10
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the a final order be entered by the Board of Hearing Aid Specialist dismissing the April 11, 2003, Administrative Complaint against Kent A. Broy. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of February, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LARRY J. SARTIN 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 5th day of February, 2004.
The Issue The issue is whether the Petitioner, Caroline T. Davis, is entitled to licensure as a hearing aid specialist by virtue of a passing grade on the September, 1989, examination.
Findings Of Fact Caroline T. Davis was an applicant for licensure as a hearing aid specialist and took the September, 1989, examination. Ms. Davis received an overall score of 71%. A score of 75% is required to pass the examination. As a result of sanctions imposed for failure to produce, Ms. Davis was awarded 2 points. (See Order Imposing Sanctions entered July 24, 1990.) As a result, Ms. Davis has a score of 73% and needs only 2 points to pass the examination. While she challenged numerous portions of the examination, at the hearing Ms. Davis raised specific challenges only to the scoring on Procedures 7-9, 11, and 13 of the earmold impressions portion of the practical examination. Procedure 7 relates to the examination of the ear after removal of the impression. The candidate instructions given prior to the examination advise the candidate to "[d]emonstrate all procedures followed prior, during, and after making an impression." The tape of the examination makes it clear that Ms. Davis stated that she would go back and examine the ear after removing the earmold. However, Ms. Davis did not demonstrate the activity of examining the ear after removing the impression. Ms. Davis did not satisfy the requirements for credit on Procedure 7. Procedure 8 relates to the execution of a correct order form. The instructions required the candidate to fill out an order form for an earmold. Ms. Davis incorrectly filled out the order form for an in-the-ear hearing aid. While the rest of the form was correctly executed, the one error is sufficient to deny credit for a correct answer on Procedure 8. Procedure 9 relates to an explanation by the candidate of how to put on a hearing aid. Ms. Davis did not perform this task. She simply stated that she would explain or demonstrate the way to put on a hearing aid. She did not satisfy the requirements for credit on Procedure 9. Procedure 11 requires the candidate to give the functions of at least three parts of a hearing aid. The candidate instructions advise the candidate to tell the client "the function of the parts of the hearing aid that are important for client use." Ms. Davis explained the functions of two parts: the battery and its proper insertion and the volume control. She named three other parts, but she failed to explain the functions of these parts. Procedure 11 requires more than the simple naming of parts of a hearing aid. Again Ms. Davis failed to perform the required tasks for credit on Procedure 11. Procedure 13 requires the candidate to tell the client about the warranty on the hearing aid. Ms. Davis did state that she would tell the client about the warranty, but she did not do so during the examination. She argues that she should not have to state the warranty information because that would be provided in a written form to the client when the aid is delivered. The candidate instructions make it clear that the candidate is to select one of the aids provided at the examination, is to use that aid in performing various procedures, and is to perform the procedures as if that aid were being delivered to the client. The candidate is required to state the warranty information as to the hearing aid he selected. The very terms of the examination require that the candidate tell about the warranty information, not state that she would do so in a real situation. Ms. Davis did not tell about the warranty and is not entitled to credit for Procedure 13.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Professional Regulation enter a Final Order dismissing the examination challenge of Caroline T. Davis to the September, 1989, examination for licensure as a hearing aid specialist. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of September, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of September, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Caroline T. Davis Proposed findings of fact 1, 2, 4, 5, 14, and 16 are unsupported by the competent, substantial evidence. Proposed findings of fact 3, 6-10, 15, and 17-21 are irrelevant. Proposed findings of fact 11-13 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Department of Professional Regulation Proposed findings of fact 1 and 4-9 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Proposed findings of fact 2, 3, and 10 are unnecessary or irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: See Next Page Caroline T. Davis 2401 West 15th Street Panama City, FL 32401 Vytas J. Urba Staff Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 LouElla Cook Executive Director Board of Hearing Aid Specialists Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
