The Issue as to DOAH Case Number 94-0966 Whether disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent's license to practice as hearing aid specialist based on a violation of Sections 484.056(1)(g), Florida Statutes (1991) by allegedly selling old, stolen hearing aids as new hearing aids as alleged in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact 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 0002321. Respondent is a licensed hearing aid specialist and has been so licensed for approximately seven years. During the seven-year period as a licensed hearing aid specialist, Respondent has fitted over 2,500 hearing aid devices. Prior to the instant complaint, Respondent had no disciplinary actions against him relating to customer service. as to DOAH Case Number 94-0966 Ms. Ola Martin is seventy-two (72) years old and has a hearing problem. In 1993, Ms. Nancy Martin retained the services of Bob Horine at Hearing World, Inc., in Maitland, Florida, for purposes of purchasing a hearing aid for her mother, Ms. Ola Martin. On January 6, 1993, Ola Martin came in the offices of Hearing World, Inc., and was examined by Bob Horine, the owner. Horine did the audio testing on Ola Martin by mechanically checking her hearing and fitting her for hearing aids. The only persons in the office at that time were Respondent, Ola Martin, Horine, and Mrs. Martin's daughter, Nancy Martin, who had accompanied her mother to Hearing World, Inc. During the time that Horine was selling and fitting Ola Martin with her hearing aids, Respondent was in and out of the examination room. Respondent was introduced to Martin at that time. Respondent did not participate in the examination or taking of impressions of Ola Martin's ears for the hearing devices. The person responsible for fitting and selling the hearing aids to Ola Martin was Bob Horine. The contract for sale and delivery of the hearing aids to Ola Martin was made between Horine and Ola Martin. Ola Martin stated that she was returning to Kentucky in two days and asked if she could have rush service. Horine agreed and advised her to pick up her hearing aids the following day, January 7, 1993. Ola Martin paid $1,295.00 to Horine on the same day that he tested her hearing for hearing aids. Horine asked Respondent for assistance in obtaining rush service. Respondent agreed that he would take the paperwork to the SonoTone Laboratory in Casselberry. They agreed to expedite the manufacture of the hearing aids for Ola Martin. Ola Martin arrived the following day with her daughter to retrieve her hearing aids. She was informed that neither Horine, nor Dan Culley, Hearing Aid Specialist, were available for the fitting, and the fitting would be done by Respondent. After agreeing to perform the final fitting for Martin, Respondent retrieved her file and found hearing aid devices inside. The file contained two devices, one for each ear. Respondent took Martin back to the examination area and examined her ears to make sure that they were free of wax. Respondent then took the hearing aids, installed the batteries, and placed the aids into Martin's ears, asking her how they felt. Respondent then showed Martin how to work the hearing devices. Respondent then gave Martin a 25-word discrimination test from a distance of ten feet. During the fitting, Martin conveyed to Respondent that the hearing aids seemed a little too large. Respondent then took them to another room where he buffed the hearing aids with a drill in order to help them fit properly. When placed back in the ears of Martin, they seemed to fit properly. Respondent instructed Martin to leave the hearing aids in place for one hour on the first day, and then gradually to increase the wearing time until she was comfortably wearing the hearing aids at all times except at night. At no time did Martin communicate her dissatisfaction with the fit or sound of her hearing aids to Respondent. Martin was in a hurry to conclude her business with Respondent, as she was worried that her daughter was going to be angry with her for taking so long. The serial numbers on the hearing aid devices delivered to Martin are too small to be viewed by the naked eye and require magnification to be seen. Respondent did not check the invoice numbers against the numbers on the devices delivered to Martin. At Hearing World, hearing aids were checked in through the receptionist, who would prepare the hearing aid devices for delivery. The receptionist was responsible for checking the serial numbers against those listed on the invoice. Respondent assumed when he found the two hearing aids in Martin's file, that they were the hearing aids which had been manufactured by SonoTone for her. Respondent made a visual inspection of the hearing aids and did not check the serial numbers from the manufacturer against those on the hearing aid devices. Neither a visual inspection, nor from any communication from Martin, caused Respondent to believe that the hearing aids which he inserted at that time were not those manufactured for Martin. Respondent received no negative communication from Martin after the fitting of her hearing aids. Approximately two to three days after Respondent fitted Martin's hearing aid devices, he was informed by the receptionist that two hearing aid devices had arrived from SonoTone for Martin. Respondent then realized that the hearing aids which were in Ola Martin's possession were not manufactured for her. When Respondent informed Horine of the error, Horine told Respondent that he had used Respondent's models in testing, and had "stuck" [sic] them in her file by mistake. Horine told Respondent that he would take care of the matter and straighten out the erroneous delivery. The standard operating procedure employed at Hearing World, Inc. in fitting a client with hearing aids was as follows: Hearing aids would be ordered. The hearing aids would then be manufactured by SonoTone in Longwood and sent to Hearing World, Inc. The hearing aids would first come to the secretary at Hearing World, Inc. The secretary would then take the hearing aids out, inspect them, insert batteries, and test their functioning. The secretary would record the serial numbers on the invoice and check those with the serial numbers on the hearing devices and place the hearing devices in the client's file. The person fitting the hearing aids would then pick up the file. It was not negligent, incompetent or misconduct for Respondent to have picked up Ola Martin's file, and finding two hearing aids therein, place them in the client's ears with a visual check only. After making the slight adjustment for size and with no complaints from the client as to audio or fitting problems, Respondent would not have had cause to double check the manufacturer's number on the hearing aids with the manufacturer's number on the invoice. Although the hearing aids helped Ola Martin's hearing, upon her return to Lexington, Kentucky, she complained that they seemed too loud even when she turned them down as low as they would go. Martin went to the Miracle Ear office in Lexington to have her hearing aids examined, and was examined by James McFadden, a hearing aid specialist for 29 years. Martin complained to McFadden that her hearing aids did not fit properly and that the sound was not clear. Upon examining Ola Martin's device, McFadden observed that they did not fit properly. McFadden attempted to adjust the hearing aids to Martin's satisfaction, but was not able to do so. McFadden obtained the serial number from the hearing device and spoke to a Miracle Ear representative in Minneapolis. He was informed that the hearing aid devices were registered to a woman in the Miami area and were fitted to that woman in March, 1991. McFadden then retested Martin and made new impressions of her ears for another Miracle Ear hearing device. The hearing aids brought to McFadden by Martin were originally made for Isabella Miller and were sold through Jean Marohn, a Miracle Ear franchisee based in Fort Myers, Florida. The shipping date was March 27, 1991. Miracle Ear instructed Martin to return the hearing aids to the original seller, Horine, for a complete refund. Based upon her conversation with McFadden, Martin returned the hearing aids to her daughter in order to obtain a refund from Hearing World, Inc., in Orlando. Ola Martin's daughter contacted Hearing World and was reimbursed by Horine for the full amount paid for hearing aids. Subsequently, Ola Martin filed a complaint with the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation against Horine, but not as to Respondent. Dahlburg is the manufacturer of Miracle Ear. During the manufacturing process, a serial number is placed on the hearing instrument which is unique for that particular hearing instrument. It is registered to the single individual for whom the instrument is made. Upon construction of the hearing instrument, it is shipped to the franchisee for placement in the consumer's ear. A franchisee outside the Minneapolis area could not obtain a hearing device from Dahlberg within a 24-hour period. Miracle Ear replaced Martin's hearing aids with new Miracle Ear hearing instruments at no cost to her. Jean Burton Marohn is a licensed hearing aid specialist in the State of Florida and owner of a Miracle Ear franchise located in Ft. Myers, Florida. In the early 1990's, Respondent was employed by Marohn as a manager at the store in Miami that covered South Dade and Monroe Counties. Respondent was employed in that capacity until approximately September 1992, when the store closed and he lost his home and personal belongs to Hurricane Andrew. The hearing aids in possession of Ola Martin were, in fact, sold by the Miami store to Isabella Miller. The hearing aids originally constructed for Isabella Miller were returned by her to Marohn's office in Miami. Miller alleged she was dissatisfied with the product, and could not afford the payments. Although Marohn attempted to rectify the problem with the hearing aid devices, Miller refused to reclaim possession of the hearing aids. They remained in Marohn's Miami location because the manufacturer's return period had expired. At the time of the impending Hurricane Andrew, Marohn requested that Respondent remove from the store what items he could: typewriters, telephones, copy machines, fax machines, and audiometers because of the potential for looting after the storm passed through. Respondent did so and informed Marohn that, in addition to the above items, he also removed stock and merchandise from the store. None of the items removed by Respondent, including the hearing aid devices, were returned to Marohn after the hurricane. In March of 1993, Marohn received a telephone call from an attorney calling on behalf of Respondent informing her that Respondent wanted to return the items removed from her store in exchange for commissions that she owed him. Marohn informed Respondent's attorney that she had replaced the equipment that Respondent had removed and she refused to accept the return of her property. Marohn tendered a casualty loss to her insurance company, including items that Respondent removed with knowledge, including the hearing aids. At the time that Respondent discontinued employment with Marohn, he was due a minimum of $3,000.00 in commissions. Prior to Hurricane Andrew, Marohn provided Respondent with a number of hearing aid devices which were given to him and which he employed as display or demonstrative models. The hearing aids returned to Marohn by Miller at Miracle Ear were given to Respondent for demonstrative purposes. Respondent kept approximately 12 pair of canal hearing instruments, including Miller's, of different sizes and frequencies in his display case, which he called Pandora's Box. He took this display case with him when he moved to Central Florida. After Hurricane Andrew occurred, Respondent left Marohn's employment and moved to Central Florida. He also took with him certain items that he had removed from the store. Subsequent to Respondent's departure, a dispute arose between him and Jean Marohn over commissions that were due from his employment with her. Respondent contacted an attorney who attempted to reach a settlement with Marohn as to the items held in Respondent's possession and commissions owed to him by Marohn. Respondent is currently in litigation with Marohn over the commissions due. Upon departing the Miami area, Respondent began employment with Hearing World, Inc. on Woodcock Road, Orlando, Florida. Respondent was employed at Hearing World, Inc. by Bob Horine and Tony Andreozzi. Bob Horine was president and manager of the Hearing World facility. The only compensation received by Respondent was 30 percent of the sale of hearing aids sold by him. Whenever Respondent completed the final fitting for a customer for hearing aids sold by Horine, Respondent would not receive any compensation. as to DOAH Case Number 94-0967 On June 21, 1993, the Petitioner conducted an inspection at Respondent's place of employment in Maitland, known as Hearing World, Inc. The inspection revealed several violations of Florida law, as follows: The testing room facilities and files were missing waiver forms. A failure to have hearing aid models, supplies and services available on the premises. A failure to post prices. A failure to provide calibration certifi- cates for audiometers in use in the facility. At the time of the inspection at Hearing World, Respondent introduced himself to Petitioner's inspectors as a vice president of that company. At the time of the inspection, Respondent was employed at Hearing World located on Woodcock Road in Orlando, Florida as a sales representative. Under his compensation agreement, he was to be paid for 30 percent of his sales. The owners of the company, Hearing World, Inc., located at Woodcock Road, Orlando, Florida, were Bob Horine and Tony Andreozzi. Respondent had no ownership interest in Hearing World, and was neither stockholder, officer, director nor minority shareholder in the company. Respondent received no compensation from the sales of hearing devices sold by other owners, managers, or employees of Hearing World, Inc. The only agreement between Respondent Horine as to the position of vice president was contingent upon Respondent's buyout of Horine's interest in Hearing World, Inc. A transaction which never came to fruition. Respondent expended no personal funds in renovating the office; purchasing signs, equipment, advertising or office overhead. The occupational license for Hearing World, Inc., posted on the premises, did not contain Respondent's name. Although Horine's Hearing Aid specialist license had been either suspended or revoked, Respondent had no knowledge of that fact until after the June, 1993 inspection. Respondent at no time agreed or intended to be the licensed person on the premises responsible for the business and training of other employees. At the time of the June, 1993, inspection, Hearing World had been at that location approximately 30 days. At the time of the June, 1993, inspection, there was an audiometric testing room on the premises under construction. An individual, named John Harris, was overseeing the work on the telecoustics and was in the process of doing the final calibration on the audiometric testing room at the time of the inspection. It was completed within a few days thereafter. At the time of the June 1993 inspection, Hearing World carried its services outside the office location and provided in-home service. At the time of the inspection, Respondent was not conducting any testing in the office. He was practicing in-home service. At the time of the inspection, hearing aid models, supplies and services were on the premises but were in the possession of the respective sales representatives. They stored them in their individual display cases (Pandora's Box). A majority of all supplies were located in the employees' Pandora Boxes, since Hearing World, Inc. was predominantly a field operation. The bags were utilized by the employees when they left the office to make field calls. The employees would bring their equipment to the office premises. When called into the field, they would take their equipment with them, which included hearing aid models and supplies. Hearing aid prices were posted in the administrative office at Hearing World, Inc., where the clients would come to pay their bills. On June 21, 1993, Respondents wife, Barbara Segretario, was employed as an administrator on the premises at Hearing World, Inc. Barbara Segretario was responsible for handling all the paperwork, accepting money, paying bills, and making financial arrangements for the purchase of hearing aids or to pay for repairs. All clients who came into the office to pay a bill, make financial arrangements, purchase a hearing aid, or pay for a repair would come into her office at Hearing World, Inc. There was a price list for hearing aids posted in Barbara Segretario's office in front of her desk, next to the window to her left, said price was posted on June 21, 1993, at the time of the inspection. Every transaction at Hearing World, Inc. included a visit by the client to the administrative offices for financial arrangements where hearing aid prices were conspicuously posted. Hearing World employed a service representative on June 21, 1993. When the inspection occurred, the representative was off the premises. The service representative's service equipment, as well as hearing aid models and supplies, were kept with him so that they were present when he was on the premises. He left with them when he went into the field to do an in- home service on behalf of Hearing World, Inc. Generally, these services were not conducted on premises, but were carried into clients' homes. All of the sales personnel at Hearing World, Inc. had their own hearing aid models which were kept with them in a display case, which they had in their possession while on premises and carried with them into the field for in-home services. There were two audiometers in use on the premises at the time of the June 1993 inspection; however, Horine and Respondent could not provide a certificate of calibration for those instruments to the inspector. Respondent did not provide the certification to the Petitioner for the audiometer that he employed at the time of the inspection. There were other audiometers on the premises that were not in use and were not certified at the time of the June 1993 inspection. A copy of the certifications of the two audiometers being used on the premises on June 21, 1993 were mailed to Petitioner after being requested by the Inspector. As of the date of this hearing, Petitioner had not received the certifications that were mailed pertaining to the two audiometers employed on the premises at the time of the inspection.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing the Administrative Complaint as to DOAH Case No. 94-0966. It is further RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing Counts I, II, III and V of the Administrative Complaint as to DOAH Case No. 94-0967, finding Respondent guilty of violating Count IV of the Complaint and imposing an administrative fine of $100.00 for said offense. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of April, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of April, 1995. APPENDIX Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1, 2 (in part), 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 (in part), 9 (in part), 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 28, 30, 31 (in part), 32 (in part), 34, 36, 37, 38 (in part), 39 (in part), 40 (in part), 42, 46, 47, 48 (in part). Rejected as not proven by clear and convincing evidence: paragraphs 2 (in part), 8 (in part), 9 (in part), 12, 31 (in part), 32 (in part), 33, 38 (in part), 39 (in part), 40 (in part), 41, 48 (in part). Rejected as subsumed, irrelevant or immaterial: paragraphs 5, 15, 16, 20, 27, 29, 35, 43, 44, 45. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact for Case No. 94-0966 Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 (in part), 12, 13, 14, 15 (in part), 16, 17, 18 (in part), 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 33 (in part), 34, 35, 36 (in part), 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49 (in part) 50 (in part), 51 (in part), 52 (in part), 57, 58, 61, 64, 67, 68, 69, 70 (in part), 71, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81 (in part), 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 108 (in part), 109, 110, 111. Rejected as against the evidence: paragraph 11 (in part), 15 (in part), 18 (in part) 51 (in part), 52 (in part). Rejected as subsumed, irrelevant or immaterial: paragraphs 22, 27, 31, 32, 33 (in part), 36 (in part), 37, 49 (in part), 50 (in part), 53, 54, 55, 56, 59, 60, 62, 63, 65, 66, 70 (in part), 72, 81 (in part), 104, 105, 106, 107, 108 (in part), 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact for Case No. 94-0967 Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1, 2, 4 (in part), 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 47 (in part), 48 (in part), 49, 50, 51 (in part), 53. Rejected as subsumed or irrelevant or immaterial: paragraphs 3, 31, 37, 38. Rejeted as not proven by clear and convencing evidence: paragraphs 4 (in part), 7, 8, 9, 46, 47 (in part), 48 (in part), 51 (in part), 52. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan E. Lindgard, Esquire Senior Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 William J. Sheaffer, Esquire 609 East Central Boulevard Orlando, Florida 32801 Susan Foster Executive Director Hearing Aid Specialists Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
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 Ms. Joan Westhrin was accepted, over objection, as an expert hearing aid specialist, and her testimony as follows, is also accepted and adopted as findings of fact. Hearing aid specialists are licensed to perform audiometric testing. Audiometric testing is the function of presenting pure tones through headphones to establish a threshold of hearing. A threshold of hearing is the basis for the smallest amount of sound which the human ear can perceive. The testing is done by using air conduction by way of headphones and bone conduction. A comparison is made between the air conduction and the bone conduction results on the audiogram to determine if the client has a sensory neural hearing loss, meaning a loss in the nerve, or a mechanical function that would indicate that it is something that should be referred to a medical doctor for medical attention. During hearing examinations, the hearing aid specialist must also do an audioscopic examination, or a physical look into the ear canal, to rule out any anomaly that might be developing in order to determine whether the client is a candidate for medical testing. Ear mold impressions provide an exact duplicate of the ear canal so that a hearing aid may have an exact fit in the ear. A cotton block is used in the ear to prevent the impression material, silicone, from traveling down to the ear drum, and the material is left in the ear about five or six minutes to set properly. A hearing aid specialist must perform a complete audiological examination in order to provide a client with an appropriate hearing aid. Specific training is required for an individual to provide a safe examination, testing, ear mold impressions, and selection of a hearing aid for a client. Otherwise, an untrained individual may adversely impact on the client when performing the hearing test and providing a hearing aid. The parties' joint prehearing statement stipulated that the following are "facts which are admitted": The Respondent's name is Jack Lee Beckwith. The Respondent has been, at all times material hereto, a licensed hearing aid specialist in the State of Florida. The Respondent's hearing aid license number is AS 0001775. The Respondent's address is 14 Wildwood Trail, Ormond Beach, Florida 32174-4343. The Respondent is listed as a sponsor on the application of Jean Dewey for a hearing aid trainee and did not sponsor her until December 5, 1989. The Respondent is listed as a sponsor for David Dewey as a hearing aid specialist trainee and did not sponsor him until December 5, 1989. When Respondent became the Deweys' sponsor, he assumed responsibility for supervision of them as trainees. David Dewey is not guilty of canvassing, as set forth in Chapter 484. Jean Dewey is not guilty of canvassing, as set forth in Chapter 484. Despite the stipulations contained in sub-8 and sub-9 above, Petitioner presented, without objection, evidence geared to the issue of Respondent telling Mrs. Dewey to canvass. After Petitioner had rested, Respondent moved to dismiss the administrative complaint in part upon grounds that there had been no showing that Respondent had told Mrs. Dewey to canvass and upon the language of the stipulation, which was worded similarly to a prior request for admission. In response, Petitioner's counsel asserted that there had been no meeting of the minds in the stipulation because she thought she was only agreeing that Mr. and Mrs. Dewey had never been adjudicated guilty of canvassing. The motion to dismiss was taken under advisement for resolution in this recommended order (TR 134-135). The Jeanne Lyons Trust bought Brill's Hearing Aid Center in Daytona Beach in June, 1989. At that time, Jeanne Lyons was 100 percent owner of the Jeanne Lyons Trust and the Trust owned 100 percent of Brill's Hearing Aid Center, Inc. Jeanne Lyons is married to David F. Lyons. Mr. Lyons was not employed by the trust or by the hearing aid center corporation or by his wife in any capacity, but at all times material to this administrative complaint, he acted as "go-between" for all three. From 1988 to 1992, Mr. Lyons served on the Board of Hearing Aid Specialists. He is, and at all times material has been, a licensed hearing aid specialist. Respondent Jack Beckwith was an employee of the corporation, Brill's Hearing Aid Center, Inc., in Daytona Beach, Florida. He formed a separate management corporation with his wife, who is also a licensed hearing aid specialist. The management corporation was hired by the Jeanne Lyons Trust to manage Brill's in Daytona Beach and to help expand Brill's operations south into New Smyrna Beach and north into Palm Coast. The purpose of the management corporation was to avoid paying the Beckwiths as employees for the expansion work. In each of the new locations, a lease within an optometrist's office was negotiated by Mr. Lyons in approximately July, 1989. Respondent Beckwith is married to Kim Beckwith. Karen Martin was Mr. Beckwith's office manager at the Daytona Beach Brill's Hearing Aid Center. David James Jenkins is the son-in-law of David and Jean Dewey, a married couple. Mr. and Mrs. Lyons, Mrs. Beckwith, Ms. Martin, Mr. Jenkins and Mr. and Mrs. Dewey were not charged in the administrative complaint herein. Karen Martin had known Jean Dewey through prior employment. In July or August 1989, Ms. Martin set up a luncheon meeting for Mrs. Dewey and her husband, David Dewey, with Jack Beckwith. Mr. Beckwith ultimately introduced Mr. Dewey to Mr. Lyons sometime in August, 1989. The Deweys seemed good prospects to manage one of Brill's branch centers. On behalf of his wife and her trust and corporation, Mr. Lyons approved Mr. Beckwith's hiring the Deweys and becoming their sponsor to train as hearing aid specialists. At all times material, Mr. and Mrs. Dewey believed themselves to be in the employ of Respondent Beckwith and Mr. Lyons, operating as partners in Brill's. In negotiations with the Deweys, Mr. Beckwith estimated that Mr. Dewey could make $60,000.00 a year and Mrs. Dewey could make $40,000.00 a year based upon a 20 percent commission on gross deposits from hearing aid sales out of the New Smyrna Beach office after the Deweys became fully licensed as hearing aid specialists. He explained that licensure as a trainee and training were prerequisites to becoming fully licensed as hearing aid specialists. Both Mr. and Mrs. Dewey had a background in sales. Their testimony clearly reveals that they saw the selling of hearing aids from the perspective of marketing a product on a lucrative commission basis rather than from the viewpoint of a health care technologist. The commission arrangement proposed by Mr. Beckwith on behalf of the Jeanne Lyons Trust d/b/a Brill's Hearing Aid Center, Inc. was very attractive to them. They wanted to get started as soon as possible to make an increased commission over what they were being paid in other employments at the time they interviewed with Mr. Beckwith. They also found it attractive that they could work together near their home. Another factor motivating the Deweys to get started as soon as possible was that Mr. Dewey was employed at a marina which was about to close, and the marina closing would entirely eliminate Mr. Dewey's income. The Deweys were so enthusiastic about Mr. Beckwith's proposal that they nominated their son-in-law, David James Jenkins, to work in Brill's new Palm Coast office. During September 1989, Mr. and Mrs. Beckwith, with the approval of David F. Lyons, provided some free informal training sessions for Ms. Martin, Mr. Jenkins, and Mr. and Mrs. Dewey, just to see if they would really like hearing aid work and be adaptable to it before the Deweys and Mr. Jenkins quit their existing employments. This was not intended by Mr. Beckwith to be a real apprentice-type program. These sessions occurred twice a week and involved playing an instructional tape, handing out some printed statutes, rules, and technical materials, practicing with an audiometer, and learning to make ear molds. Each potential trainee was given his own audiometer to take home just for practice. On or about October 1, 1989, David Dewey signed an application to the Board of Hearing Aid Specialists to become a hearing aid trainee. His application for the trainee license listed Jack Beckwith as his sponsor. On or about October 1, 1989, Jean Dewey signed an application to the Board of Hearing Aid Specialists to become a hearing aid trainee. Her application for the trainee license listed Jack Beckwith as her sponsor. On or about October 2, 1989, Mr. Beckwith sent Mr. and Mrs. Dewey to operate Brill's Hearing Aid Center in space leased from Cady and Timko, optometrists, in New Smyrna Beach, Florida. The Deweys had precipitously quit their previous employment and had no income. Mr. Beckwith established what days of the week and hours they worked at Brill's, what they wore, and how they should be paid. He told them they could not be paid as employees until they were accepted and issued trainee numbers by the Department as trainees. Mr. and Mrs. Dewey were not paid any wages between October 1, 1989 and December 12, 1989. Due to the delay in receiving trainee licenses and numbers from the licensing agency and their lack of income, Mr. Dewey became infuriated and pressed both Mr. Beckwith and Mr. Lyons for action on licensing. As a result, he received sporadic checks from Brill's Hearing Aid Center. The amount of the checks apparently did not amount to projected commissions. The checks were signed by Jack Beckwith with the permission of David and Jeanne Lyons. The checks were referenced on their face as "loans". Mr. Dewey claimed that the purpose of this notation was so that Mr. Beckwith or others could avoid paying employee-related taxes. Mr. Lyons and Mr. Beckwith asserted that the notation was to insure that Mr. Dewey paid back Mrs. Lyons' advances after Mr. and Mrs. Dewey received their trainee licenses and went on the regular payroll. Mrs. Dewey received no checks. The lease Mr. Lyons had negotiated with Cady-Timko, O.D., P.A. provided for Brill's Hearing Aid Center, New Smyrna Beach to have ". . . [a]ccess to patient files to contact patients to tell them of hearing aid services available . . . [and] opportunity to confirm optometrist appointments and ask if they would like hearing test also." Sometime in October 1989, Mr. Beckwith also sent Mr. Jenkins to operate the newly leased office of Brill's Hearing Aid Center, Palm Coast, Florida. Mr. Jenkins claimed to have worked briefly at a Brill's Center in Ormond Beach, but there is no other evidence that there even was a Brill's Center in Ormond Beach. Mr. Jenkins quit the Palm Coast office approximately November 1, 1989 because no clients came there and he was "starving to death." He testified that he was instructed by Mr. and Mrs. Beckwith to make cold calls to potential hearing aid customers from all of the files in the adjacent optometrist's office in Palm Coast, but that he, Mr. Jenkins, so feared rejection that he asked his wife, Mrs. Jenkins, to make the calls. Mr. Jenkins also testified that he did some audiometric testing and that Mrs. Beckwith checked all the audiometric testing he did, but he was vague as to whether this was done at Brill's office in Palm Coast or during his pre-training. His testimony was unclear as to whether Mrs. Beckwith also personally supervised all his audiometric testing. Mrs. Beckwith was not charged with any violations. Respondent Beckwith was not charged in the pending administrative complaint with anything done by Mr. Jenkins. Mr. and Mrs. Jenkins were not charged with any violations. On or about October 15, 1989, Jack Beckwith signed and mailed to the Department of Professional Regulation a Brill's Hearing Aid Center, Daytona Beach check for $400.00 to cover trainee applications for Mr. and Mrs. Dewey, Mr. Jenkins, and Ms. Martin, at $100 apiece. The applications and check were not received or processed by the Department until December 1, 1989. The actual trainee licenses were issued for Mr. and Mrs. Dewey on December 5, 1989. Mr. Beckwith's clear testimony that he submitted the check and four applications together by mail on October 15, 1989 is credible and compelling as opposed to other witnesses' inferences of a December 1, 1989 submittal date because the check face references the four applications specifically, including Mr. Jenkins' application, and the evidence is unrefuted that Mr. Jenkins quit his association with Brill's on or about November 1, 1989. No motive or reasonable rationale was advanced as to why Respondent should mail in $100 of Brill's money to register Mr. Jenkins as a trainee on December 1, 1989, thirty days after Mr. Jenkins had already quit. As noted above, the parties have stipulated as fact that Jack Beckwith did not become the Deweys' sponsor until December 5, 1989. At all times material, the training course and apprenticeship program under a sponsor approved by the licensing agency took approximately six months to complete before the applicant could sit for the hearing aid specialist licensure exam. From all accounts, it appears that it was standard operating procedure in the industry for sponsors to allow trainees to perform all services under direct supervision of their sponsor from the date the application for trainee status was mailed to the licensing agency. In this case, that date would have been October 15, 1989. David Dewey and Jean Dewey were not registered as trainees with the Board of Hearing Aid Specialists until December 5, 1989. According to the testimony of Theresa L. Skelton, the Department's policy was to treat applicants as trainees as soon as it received their checks, which in this case was December 1, 1989. Apparently in 1989, the agency did no extensive background check on applicants, and trainee licensing was largely a ministerial act if the proposed sponsor was legitimate. As far as the Department was concerned, trainees could legally perform all services under sponsor supervision as soon as their application and check were processed. See also, Sections 484.0445(1) and (2) F.S. infra. In October 1989, when Mr. Beckwith sent Mr. and Mrs. Dewey to the Brill's office in New Smyrna Beach, he instructed them to sell batteries and make appointments for persons who answered a newspaper advertisement he had placed to announce opening that branch office. He also told them to telephone current patients of the Daytona Beach Brill's Hearing Aid Center who lived in New Smyrna Beach and tell them that they no longer had to travel to Daytona Beach but could be serviced more conveniently at the new New Smyrna Beach location. Mr. Beckwith testified that he also told Mrs. Dewey to telephone "recall patients" for the optometry office. Recall patients were patients of the optometry office who needed to be reminded to come in to pick up glasses already ordered or who were due for a new eye appointment. Mrs. Dewey was also told to announce the opening of the hearing aid center to any of the optometry recall patients whose records bore Dr. Cady's notation, "HL" for "hearing loss", and also simultaneously make appointments for hearing tests. Mr. Beckwith intended that all appointments would be made for Wednesdays when he would come to New Smyrna Beach to do hearing tests and fit and deliver hearing aids. This testimony is in accord with the conditions of Brill's lease with Cady-Timko O.D. P.A., negotiated by Mr. Lyons. Mrs. Dewey testified credibly that Mr. Beckwith approved a script for her use for these telephone calls. Nothing in the script clearly shows that she was calling exclusively optometric recalls, Brill's old patients, or making "cold" calls. However, it mentions nothing about existing eyewear or appointments, and it does offer a free hearing test. Mrs. Dewey further testified that Ms. Martin instructed her how to use Dr. Cady's files to make a list and call all of Dr. Cady's patients over a certain age, regardless of an "HL" notation, paying special attention to those with insurance coverage. Mrs. Dewey understood these instructions also came from Mr. Beckwith and made telephone calls pursuant to the method outlined by Ms. Martin. Mr. Beckwith denied giving these instructions or approving the script. Mrs. Dewey's testimony and the list show that after the first two pages going through Dr. Cady's files with names beginning with the B's and C's of the alphabet had been prepared by Ms. Martin and one appointment scheduled on Tuesday, October 17, 1989 and one on Wednesday, October 18, 1989, Mrs. Dewey started back at the A's and prepared a more extensive list of names. This suggests that Mrs. Dewey went behind Ms. Martin's work and selected from Dr. Cady's files some names which Ms. Martin had excluded. Comparison of the list with a 1989 calendar shows that Mrs. Dewey booked approximately 35 appointments for dates between October 2, 1989 and December 12, 1989, without regard to whether they fell on Wednesdays. Most of the appointments she booked were for days other than Wednesdays. They included days between December 5, 1989 and December 12, 1989 while Mr. Beckwith was listed as the Deweys' sponsor. Mrs. Dewey, whose background was in sales, considered what she was doing to be "telemarketing". Neither Dr. Cady's files nor Mrs. Dewey's list showed that any person she telephoned had expressed an interest in hearing aids before Ms. Martin or Mrs. Dewey contacted them. Mrs. Dewey's list clearly shows that most of the people called either did not acknowledge that they had a hearing loss or were not interested in a hearing test and/or hearing aids. Mr. Dewey testified that between October 2, 1989 and December 12, 1989, he performed unsupervised audiometric testing, the taking of ear mold impressions, and the sale and dispensing of hearing aids to 20-24 persons and that he did so either with the instructions or knowledge of Mr. Beckwith and outside Mr. Beckwith's presence because Mr. Beckwith remained in Daytona Beach except on Wednesdays. Mr. Lyons and Mr. Beckwith denied issuing such instructions and denied even any knowledge that this had occurred until Mr. Beckwith was served with the administrative complaint. Mr. Beckwith testified that when he was present on Wednesdays, Mr. Dewey would sit in with him and observe testing and delivery and that whatever he allowed Mr. Dewey to do in his presence was overseen by him and he signed the appropriate documentation. He denied knowing that Mr. Dewey was also practicing as a hearing aid specialist when he was not present. Mr. Dewey conceded that Mr. Lyons specifically instructed him not to make any deliveries, and it is clear from Mr. Dewey's testimony that he thought Mr. Lyons' instruction meant "no home deliveries to patients", instead of "no delivery of finished hearing aids to clients anywhere, including the office," which would be a partial definition of "no dispensing." Although Mr. Dewey has claimed to make sales of hearing aids, he also has, since 1989, consistently maintained that he never "delivered" a hearing aid to a client. His testimony at formal hearing does not render clear whether or not he actually fitted a completed hearing aid on a client or ever actually collected money for a "sale" without supervision by Mr. or Mrs. Beckwith. Mr. Dewey testified that Mr. Beckwith or Mrs. Beckwith signed all paperwork as being responsible for the tests, etc. which he performed in their absence. No documentation of hearing tests or hearing aid sales by Mr. Dewey were submitted; no clients Mr. Dewey allegedly serviced testified; no bank deposits showing income from the New Smyrna Beach location were offered; and Mrs. Beckwith did not testify. Mr. Beckwith testified he personally delivered no hearing aids from the New Smyrna Beach office. On or about December 6, 1989, but before the Deweys had received their trainee licenses or been informed that they had been licensed as of December 5, 1989, they invited George Selas, a competitor and a licensed hearing aid specialist, whom Mrs. Dewey had known for some time, into the New Smyrna Beach office of Brill's Hearing Aid Center. When they explained the "telemarketing" that Mrs. Dewey was doing, Mr. Selas informed them that it was illegal and that they should not be practicing as hearing aid specialists before trainee numbers were issued to them by the Department. The Deweys immediately notified the Department by telephone on December 6 and in writing on December 7, 1989 of everything they had been doing and disassociated themselves from Respondent Beckwith, Mr. and Mrs. Lyons, and Brill's. That would mean that after December 6 they no longer operated out of their sponsorship situation with Mr. Beckwith, despite any booked appointments. As of December 12 or 13, 1989, they formally changed their sponsorship to Mr. Selas. They finished their training and apprenticeship under his sponsorship and were licensed as hearing aid specialists in 1990. As a result of information received from Mr. Dewey and Mr. Selas, Dr. Cady gave notice he was terminating the lease for Brill's New Smyrna Beach office. Mr. Selas and Brill's, represented by Mr. Beckwith, were competing for the same contract with an HMO in 1989-1990. Respondent attributes all of Mr. Dewey's actions to collusion with Mr. Selas in order to obtain the HMO contract and rent the space occupied by Brill's in New Smyrna Beach. These inferences are based upon inadmissible hearsay from someone at the HMO who allegedly got an anonymous phone call, and Dr. Cady's understanding of something Mr. Dewey may have said either to Dr. Cady or to his office manager.
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 finding Respondent guilty of violating Sections 484.056(1)(h) and (t) F.S., not guilty of all other charges, and revoking his license. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of January, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of January, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitute specific rulings, pursuant to S120.59(2), F.S., upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF). Petitioner's PFOF: 1-3 Accepted, except as to the use of the word "employed." See the Conclusions of Law. 4 Rejected upon contrary evidence of greater weight and credibility in Finding of Fact 33. 5-7 Accepted. 8 Accepted as modified in Finding of Fact 21 to better conform to the record and statute. 9-10 Accepted, except that receipt of the check was testified to be December 1, 1989. Rejected in part as a conclusion of law. See Finding of Fact 21 and the Conclusions of Law. Rejected because misleading as stated. See Finding of Fact 33 upon the greater weight of the credible evidence. Accepted. 14-16 Rejected only upon the word "employment" as a word of art. See Findings of Fact 15, 27-31 and the Conclusions of Law. 17 Rejected as a conclusion of law. See Findings of Fact 21, 27-31 and the Conclusions of Law. 18-22 Accepted, except for unnecessary, subordinate, and/or cumulative material and legal argument. Rejected as a conclusion of law. Covered in Findings of Fact 21, 27-33 and the Conclusions of Law. Accepted. 25-26 Covered only as necessary in Finding of Fact 22-25. 27-29 Accepted except as to word "employee." See Conclusions of Law. 30-31 Rejected as unnecessary or subordinate. Rejected as a finding of fact; see the Conclusions of Law. Rejected because misleading as stated. See Finding of Fact 9 and 15. 34-35 Rejected upon the greater weight of the credible evidence in Findings of Fact 15-16. Rejected as a mere recitation of nondispositive testimony. Rejected as not proven. Respondent's PFOF: 1-7 Accepted. Rejected as a conclusion of law. See Finding of Fact 20-21 and the Conclusions of Law. Sentence 1 is rejected as a legal conclusion. Sentence 2 is accepted in part in Finding of Fact 15-16 and 21 and otherwise rejected as a legal conclusion. The remaining sentences are accepted except that unnecessary, subordinate or cumulative material has not been adopted. 10-12 Accepted except that unnecessary, subordinate or cumulative material has not been adopted. The first sentence is rejected a mischaracterizing Mrs. Dewey's testimony. The second sentence is rejected upon the greater weight of the credible evidence as a whole. Accepted. First 15 Rejected as not proven. Dr. Cady's deposition is vague on this point. See Findings of Fact 34-35. Second 14 The first sentence is accepted. The second sentence is rejected as a mischaracterization. The third sentence is accepted. Second 15 Rejected as legal argument. 16 Rejected as legal argument. COPIES FURNISHED: Raymond Shope, Esquire Northern Trust Bank Building, Suite 225 4001 Tamiami Trail North Naples, FL 33940 Susan E. Lindgard, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Ste 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Jack McRay, Esquire General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Ste 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Suzanne Lee, Executive Director Board of Hearing Aid Specialists Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Ste 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
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
The Issue The issue presented for decision in this case is whether the Petitioner should receive a passing grade on the September 1997 Hearing Aid Specialist examination.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: In September 1997, Petitioner was a trainee and candidate for licensure as a hearing aid specialist, pursuant to Chapter 484, Part II, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 64B6-8, Florida Administrative Code. A trainee studying hearing aid dispensing must do so under the direct supervision of a “sponsor” who is an active Florida licensed hearing aid specialist with an established place of business. Section 484.0445, Florida Statutes; Rule 64B6- 8.003(1), Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner’s sponsor was Gerald Amato, a hearing aid specialist of over 20 years’ experience. Mr. Amato was a franchisee of Beltone, a manufacturer of audiometric equipment, including hearing aids and audiometers. Beltone supplied all of the equipment used by Petitioner. An “audiometer” is a piece of equipment that measures a person’s ability to hear, and is regularly used by hearing aid specialists and trainees. Petitioner testified that, shortly before he commenced his training program, Beltone converted from manual audiometers to computerized audiometers. Petitioner contends that he was placed at an unfair disadvantage because the examination proctors would not allow him to plug in his computerized audiometer for use during the examination. Petitioner argued that the older, manual audiometers provide visual cues such as dials and meters even when they are not plugged in, cues that assist the trainee to successfully complete the examination. The computerized audiometer, on the other hand, presents nothing but a blank screen when it is not plugged in. Petitioner acknowledged that no one taking the exam was allowed to plug in an audiometer. However, he contended that this was a situation in which technology had outpaced the testing procedures, and that Respondent should have made provisions for persons with computerized equipment to take the exam on an even footing with persons using manual equipment. Ms. Wilma Ferrer, a psychometrician familiar with the hearing aid specialist examination procedures, testified that candidates were informed they could not plug in their audiometers at least three times before they sat for the exam. The “Candidate Information Booklet,” sent by mail to candidates about a month before the exam, expressly states: “Each candidate is required to bring an audiometer with recorded speech and/or live voice capability to be used during the candidate’s examination. Do not plug in audiometer during examination.” During the hands-on portion of the exam, candidates demonstrate proper procedures, using the proctors as their subjects. If the audiometers were plugged in, there would be some chance of damaging the proctors’ hearing during the exam. Ms. Mary Lou Lauster, an expert regarding hearing aid specialists, testified that the purpose of the audiometer portion of the exam is to permit candidates to demonstrate they know which buttons to push to perform each audiometer function, and that they know how to properly fit the headset. Ms. Lauster conceded that some of the older audiometers provide visual cues, but stated her opinion that Petitioner would not be disadvantaged by his use of the computerized audiometer, if he knew how to run it. According to Ms. Lauster, the exam is simply an opportunity for the candidate to talk his or her way through the procedures, and it should make no difference whether the audiometer is plugged in. In other words, the candidate should not need visual cues to successfully negotiate the examination. Ms. Lauster denied the implication that the examiners and the agency itself were unprepared to deal with Petitioner’s new equipment. She testified that other candidates have used the same computerized equipment with success and without incident. At the hearing, Petitioner suggested that a better policy might be to require all candidates to be tested on a single, standard audiometer, so that no candidate could be perceived to have an unfair advantage. Ms. Lauster disagreed with this suggestion, stating that candidates are generally more comfortable using the audiometers with which they were trained. It is found that Respondent’s decision not to allow candidates to plug in their audiometers during the examination was rational and supported by legitimate concerns for the proctors’ hearing. Petitioner was given ample notice that he would not be allowed to plug in his audiometer. Other candidates using the same or similar equipment have successfully completed the examination. All candidates were treated equally in this regard, and Petitioner was not entitled to a special exemption from Respondent’s clearly stated testing policy. Respondent was well aware of the trend in the industry away from manual audiometers, and considered the existence of newer, computerized equipment in deciding to maintain its testing policy of not allowing audiometers to be plugged in during the examinations. Petitioner suggested that his equipment presented a brand new situation that Respondent had not anticipated, but this suggestion was not supported by the evidence presented at hearing. Petitioner also claimed that the proctor engaged him in unnecessary conversation regarding his audiometer, and that this conversation distracted him during the examination. Even crediting Petitioner’s version of events, this conversation cannot be found to have caused Petitioner’s poor performance on the practical portion of the examination. For reasons that cannot be attributed to Respondent, Petitioner entered the examination anticipating that he would be allowed to plug in his audiometer. The undersigned does not doubt Petitioner’s assertion that his performance on the examination was adversely affected when he was not allowed to plug in his audiometer. However, the fault lies with Petitioner, not with Respondent. Petitioner is not entitled to the award of any additional points in the practical portion of the examination. In his challenge letter, Petitioner also contested Questions 1 and 20 of the written, multiple choice portion of the examination. At hearing, Petitioner withdrew his challenge of Question 20. Each of the written questions was worth one point. Petitioner failed the examination by three points. Thus, even if it were found that he should be awarded one point for Question 1, Petitioner would not achieve a passing score. Petitioner’s challenge of Question 1 will nonetheless be addressed, to ensure a complete record in this proceeding. Question 1 referred to the effect that the addition of an “air” vent would have on an earmold. Petitioner chose the answer that it would “accentuate the low frequencies.” The correct answer was that it would “reduce the feeling of pressure in the ear canal.” Ms. Lauster testified that, while venting may accentuate frequencies, it does not necessarily relate to high or low frequencies. A vent may accentuate high or low frequencies, depending on the size of the vent. The general tendency is for a vent to enhance high frequencies. Ms. Lauster's opinion was supported by a standard textbook on hearing instrument science and fitting practices. It was undisputed that the addition of an air vent does relieve pressure in the ear canal. Thus, the best answer to Question 1 was “reduce the feeling of pressure in the ear canal.” Respondent correctly found that Petitioner’s response to Question 1 was not the best answer, and correctly denied him credit for that question. Petitioner alleged that Question 1 was of such difficulty that it should either not be counted, or his answer should be counted as correct. Respondent demonstrated that 26 out of 50 candidates answered the question correctly, thus negating Petitioner’s contention in this regard. Question 1 was properly graded as a question of medium difficulty, and is a valid and acceptable item on the examination.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Department of Health, Board of Hearing Aid Specialists, enter a final order denying Petitioner’s challenge to the grade assigned him for the September 1997 Hearing Aid Specialist licensure examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of August, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of August, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Terry L. Allman, pro se 110 St. Lucia Loop Apollo Beach, Florida 33572 Anne Marie Williamson, Esquire Florida Department of Health 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 6, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health Building Six, Room 240 1309 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Dr. James Howell, Secretary Department of Health 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building Six, Room 306 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether Respondent violated the provisions of chapter 484, Florida Statutes (2010),1/ regulating hearing aid specialists, as alleged in the Third Amended Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what is the appropriate sanction.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with the licensing and regulation of health care professionals pursuant to section 20.43 and chapter 456, Florida Statutes. The Board is the professional licensing board charged with final agency action with respect to discipline against hearing aid specialists pursuant to chapter 484. At all relevant times, Ms. White was licensed to practice as a hearing aid specialist in the state of Florida, holding license number AS 4137. Ms. White was the owner, manager, and operator of a hearing aid dispensing practice known as Serenity Sounds Hearing Care Center, Inc. On or about March 7, 2011, Ms. White fitted Patient B.P. for a set of Audina half-shell hearing aids for which Ms. White billed B.P. $3,200.00. The sales receipt for this purchase did not contain the serial number of the hearing aids. When Ms. White fitted Patient B.P. on March 7, 2011, Patient B.P. was a 93-year-old man. In a Confidential Patient Analysis Chart that B.P. filled out for Serenity Sounds Hearing Care Center, Inc., he admitted that he had noticed changes in his ability to remember. On or about July 13, 2011, Ms. White fitted Patient B.P. with Audina OTE hearing aids for $4,500.00. The sales receipt for this purchase did not contain the serial number of the hearing aids. On or about October 21, 2011, Patient B.P. presented to Ms. White with the Audina OTE hearing aids broken into pieces. The broken Audina OTE hearing aids would have been covered under a loss and damage policy requiring a $100.00 deductible to replace the broken aids. Instead, on or about October 21, 2011, Ms. White sold Patient B.P. a new pair of hearing aids for $3,000.00. On or about December 20, 2011, Ms. White received a loan in the approximate amount of $20,000.00 from B.P. On or about January 25, 2012, Ms. White used Patient B.P.'s Citi Dividends credit card to purchase three round-trip airline tickets. On or about February 14, 2012, Ms. White submitted an application to Citigroup for a Citi Card credit card using Patient B.P.'s personal information. On or about February 14, 2012, Ms. White submitted an application to Capital One for a credit card using Patient B.P.'s personal information. On or about February 14, 2012, a check in the amount of $3,000.00 was written from Patient B.P.'s account and deposited into a PNC Bank account belonging to Ms. White's business, Serenity Sounds Hearing Care Center, Inc. On February 17, 2012, Ms. White wrote a letter on behalf of B.P. The letter confirmed that B.P. had loaned Serenity Sounds Hearing Care Center, Inc., more than $35,000.00 and stated that B.P. was changing this "from a loan into a gift." It stated that Ms. White could use the money without worrying about having to pay it back and that any loan agreements were no longer valid. It went on to state that Ms. White "is a friend of mine and I want nothing but what is best for her." The letter was signed by B.P. and by Ms. White.3/ On or about February 22, 2012, Ms. White submitted an application for an American Express credit card using Patient B.P.'s personal information. On that same day, B.P.'s patient records indicate that a push button was missing on his hearing aid, and it was turning red in the charger. Ms. White sent the aids to Rexton for repair. On or about February 28, 2012, Ms. White submitted an application for a Discover credit card using Patient B.P.'s personal information. On or about March 14, 2012, B.P. entered into a motor vehicle retail installment contract for the purchase of a 2011 Lexus GS350 automobile, obligating him to pay the sum of $43,877.00 over a term of 65 months. He also purchased a vehicle protection etch stencil, a deficiency waiver addendum, 24-hour lockout assistance, insurance, and a vehicle service contract for the automobile. The Lexus GS350 purchased by Patient B.P. was for Ms. White's use. On or about March 16, 2012, Patient B.P. purchased $4,277.87 worth of jewelry from Zales for Ms. White. On or about March 17, 2012, Ms. White charged an additional $693.49 to Patient B.P.'s American Express credit card when she exchanged a watch for a bracelet. On or about March 19, 2012, a charge was made to Patient B.P.'s Discover credit card for $699.58 at Radio Shack for items for Ms. White. On or about March 22, 2012, a charge was made to Patient B.P.'s Citi Card in the amount of $1,100.00 to Progressive Insurance for a policy held by Ms. White. An entry in B.P.'s patient records on March 28, 2012, shows that the Audina hearing aids were broken in many pieces. It is noted that B.P. asked about Starkey hearing aids, saying that his friends wore them. On or about March 31, 2012, a charge was made to Patient B.P.'s Discover credit card in the amount of $133.99 to Macy's in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, for items for Ms. White, for which she signed the receipt. On or about April 2, 2012, a charge was made to Patient B.P.'s Citi Card in the amount of $492.00 to Siemen's for a patient of Ms. White's that was not B.P. An entry in B.P.'s patient records on April 3, 2012, shows that B.P.'s hearing was retested. The note indicates that Starkey was called and that they suggested the Starkey "X Series 90." The note indicates that B.P. said he would go home and talk to his wife. An entry in B.P.'s patient records on April 4, 2012, shows that B.P. had talked with his wife and that he wanted to get the Starkey hearing aids. His wife wrote a check for $8,600.00 to "Serenity Hearing Aids." On or about April 5, 2012, Ms. White submitted an application for a joint Wells Fargo bank account with Patient B.P. On or about April 5, 2012, Patient B.P. took out a loan from Wells Fargo in the amount of $48,694.75. On or about April 5, 2012, Ms. White received a cashier's check for approximately $48,500.00 from the loan proceeds received by Patient B.P. B.P.'s patient records indicate the Starkey hearing aids were delivered to B.P. on April 10, 2012. On April 27, 2012, Ms. White wrote and signed a note saying that she had returned the 2011 Lexus GS350 with VIN JTHBE1KS4B0052280 to B.P. and indicating the mileage was 8,520. Even assuming that the December 20, 2011, loan was included in the amount mentioned in the February 17, 2012, note, Ms. White or Serenity Sounds Hearing Care Center, Inc., received at least $83,500.00 in loans or gifts from B.P. In addition, Ms. White or Serenity Sounds Hearing Care Center, Inc., received at least $7,000.00 from B.P. in the form of other purchases or gifts from stores or businesses, including jewelry and insurance. No evidence of prior discipline was introduced. There was no evidence that Ms. White was under any legal restraints or constraints at the time of the alleged violations.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Board of Hearing Aid Specialists: Finding Rosalyn Runae Johnson White in violation of sections 484.056(1)(g), 484.056(1)(v), and 484.056(1)(w), Florida Statutes, as charged in the Third Amended Administrative Complaint; directing that she provide restitution to B.P. in the amount of $90,000.00; imposing an administrative fine on her of $8,000.00; assessing reasonable costs related to investigation and prosecution of the case; and revoking her license to practice as a hearing aid specialist. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of April, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of April, 2016.
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 factual issues presented for determination are as follow: Are the allegations of the Administrative Complaint true? Did Respondent have the required scienter with respect to the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint? Various legal and procedural issues were raised and previously disposed of by written order prior to the final hearing. This order will not contain a recital of those interlocutory actions. Both parties submitted proposed findings of fact, memoranda of law and proposed recommended orders. To the extent the proposed findings of fact have not been included in the factual findings in this order, they are specifically rejected as being irrelevant, not being based upon the most credible evidence, or not being a finding of fact.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, the Respondent was employed by and president of Gainesville Hearing Aid Company, and registered by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services for the fitting and sale of hearing aids. On or about September 13, 1979, Respondent sold to Lawrence J. Murphy a certain Dahlberg hearing aid, serial #VEI7AA, while representing to Mr. Murphy that the hearing aid was new, when in fact the hearing aid had been previously owned by Peter Fancher. The written contract of sale for this hearing aid did not indicate whether the hearing aid was new or used. The Dahlberg hearing aid sold to Murphy had been sold to P. D. Fancher on April 25, 1977, by Respondent. The hearing aid was returned to Gainesville Hearing Aid Company on May 17, 1977, by Mr. Fancher for full refund. The inventory records of Gainesville Hearing Aid Company show the sale and the return for refund. This hearing aid was used. On or about September 12, 1979, Respondent sold to Oran Ledbetter a certain Audiotone hearing aid, serial #28S-7963102, while representing to Mr. Ledbetter that the hearing aid was new and indicating on the written contract of sale that it was new, when in fact that same hearing aid had previously been owned by D. L. Bentley. The Audiotone hearing aid sold to Ledbetter had been sold to D. L. Bentley on March 27, 1979, by Gainesville Hearing Aid Company together with another hearing aid not material to these proceedings. These hearing aids were delivered to Mr. Bentley on April 16, 1979. The subject hearing aid was returned to Gainesville Hearing Aid Company by Bentley some four to five months later and was returned to the inventory of the company as a used hearing aid. This hearing aid was used. On or about February 2, 1978, Respondent sold to Virginia Collette a Dahlberg hearing aid, serial #TW22AH7, representing to Ms. Collette and showing on the contract of sale for the hearing aid that it was new, when in fact the hearing aid had been previously owned by Joseph E. McIntire. This hearing aid was used. The Dahlberg hearing aid sold to Ms. Collette had been sold to J. C. McIntire by Gainesville Hearing Aid Company on October 14, 1977, on an installment contract calling for $95 down and monthly payments of $43 per month for 24 months. Mr. McIntire fell behind in his monthly payments and subsequently died. An unidentified member of the family returned the hearing aid to Gainesville Hearing Aid Company, and the company subsequently collected some $989 from McIntire's estate. While the inventory records reflected that the hearing aids above were used, there is no evidence that Respondent was aware of this information in the cases of Murphy and Ledbetter. At the time Respondent left the offices of Gainesville Hearing Aid Company to make the sale of the Dahlberg hearing aid to Ms. Collette, he requested his employee, William Glance, to bring him a hearing aid from inventory. Mr. Glance brought Respondent the Dahlberg hearing aid and at that time advised him it was a used hearing aid. Respondent permitted his daughter, Angie Gardner, who did not hold a certificate of registration or a learner's permit, to conduct audiograms, to fit and sell hearing aids, and to conduct hearing aid examinations at various times during 1979. This included in particular November 2, 1979, when Angie Gardner was permitted to run a hearing test on a Mrs. Jones, who objected to the performance of the examination by Respondent's daughter. Respondent subsequently sought the advice of Ralph Gray as to the legality of permitting Angie Gardner to conduct these tests and, on being advised that it was contrary to law, discontinued this practice.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Respondent, William Hunter Gardner, be fined administratively $500 for each violation of the statute for the three violations of Section 468.130(1) and thereby Section 468.129(3), Florida Statutes, and have his license suspended for a period of two years for the violation of Section 468.130(2), Florida Statutes, the enforcement of the suspension to be suspended upon Respondent's demonstrated good conduct and adherence to the statutes, rules and regulations during that period. DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of September, 1982, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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 28th day of September, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph E. Hodges, Esquire Department of HRS 2002 North West 13th Street Oak Park Executive Square Gainesville, Florida 32601 George L. Waas, Esquire 1114 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David H. Pingree, Secretary Department of HRS 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues for determination are whether Respondent committed the violations set forth in the administrative complaint dated May 16, 2003, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, Leeds has been a licensed hearing aid specialist practicing in Coconut Creek, Florida. In 1997, Leeds, then age 77, contracted with patient M. M. to dispense and deliver patient M. M. a hearing aid. The hearing aid failed to perform in a satisfactory manner. The failure occurred because Leeds failed to discharge his professional duties in accordance with minimum performance standards for persons providing hearing aid services in Florida. In particular, Leeds failed to take an appropriate patient history; failed to conduct a physical examination which conformed to the minimum standards and procedures called for by the statutes and rules regulating persons licensed to dispense hearing aids; and failed to create and maintain an adequate patient record. By way of defense, Leeds testified that he performed certain tests which were not reflected in his patient records. This testimony was not credible. Even if Leeds had performed the tests he claimed to have performed, his failure to document them is, standing alone, a serious departure from minimal professional standards. Respondent has been reprimanded by the Board of Hearing Aid Specialists on three prior occasions.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a final order be entered revoking Respondent's license to dispense hearing aids. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of September, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS 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 September, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan Foster, Executive Director Board of Hearing Aid Specialist 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 Diane L. Guillemette, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Barry L. Halpern, Esquire Law Offices of Barry L. Halpern 2650 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33137
