Findings Of Fact Until August 24, 1974, Petitioner was holder of Certificate of Registration No. 173-06-68, and Renewal Certificate No. 466, which authorized him to act as a hearing aid fitter and salesman in the State of Florida. In 1974, as a result of investigations and conferences conducted by representatives of HRS, it was determined that Petitioner had falsified his application for the above referenced licenses in 1968 when he failed to reveal that in 1955 he had been arrested and convicted of armed robbery, and had served one year in confinement for that offese. Petitioner was duly served with notice (Hearing Officer's Exhibit #3) that proceedings had been commenced to revoke his license to fit and sell hearing aids. In the course of proceedings to revoke his license, Petitioner and HRS entered into a Consent Order (Hearing Officer's Exhibit #1) dated March 19, 1974. In that order, Petitioner agreed to a suspension of his license for a period commencing February 1, 1974, and ending May 2, 1974, and further agreed that thereafter he would be "on a period of supervision for a five-year period. The conditions of this "supervisory period were that Petitioner would submit quarterly reports to HRS containing copies of all contracts for hearing aids sold by him in the State of Florida, the name and address of his employer, and Petitioner's residence address. Under the terms of the Consent Order, any failure by Petitioner to comply with the terms of the agreement constituted grounds for cancellation of his license. Petitioner failed to file the necessary report due on August 1, 1974, with HRS, and, on August 21, 1974, HRS served a Notice of Revocation (Hearing Officers Exhibit #2) advising him that his license had been cancelled for noncompliance with the Consent Order. At the time Petitioner's initial report was due under the terms of the Consent Order he had left Florida to seek other employment in California. At the time of the entry of the Consent Order, Petitioner was employed by Lunex, Inc. in St. Petersburg. He left that position shortly after entry of the order, and was unemployed for a period of approximately six months. Since Petitioner was unemployed, and had made no sales of hearing aids during the period covered by the report which was to have been filed August 1, 1974, his only technical violation of the Consent Order was failure to report his residence address to HRS. Even so, when the August 1, 1974, report became due, Petitioner had no permanent residence address in Florida or elsewhere in that he was actively engaged in seeking employment, both in Florida and in California. Petitioner is now a legal resident of the State of Florida, and has had over ten years experience in the fitting and selling of hearing aids. He is presently employed by Ray Black, Inc., a company qualified to engage in the fitting and selling of hearing aids in Florida. Since his license was revoked in 1974, Petitioners's activities with his present employer are necessarily limited to hiring and training hearing aid salesmen. Ray Black, Inc. is an established hearing aid business, open during normal business hours with a permanent business address at 8001 North Dale Mabry, Tampa, Florida. A representative of Petitioner's current employer testified that his work had been very satisfactory since joining Ray Black, Inc. in March, 1978. Petitioner is now 42 years old. The reasons for the initial revocation of his license were his failure to disclose an arrest and conviction for armed robbery which occurred when he was 18 years old, and his subsequent failure to abide by the terms of the Consent Order (Hearing Officer's Exhibit #1). There has been no evidence of any violation of the laws of this or any other state since his conviction in 1955, and his failure to disclose that conviction in 1968. Neither is there any evidence that Petitioner''s performance as a fitter and seller of hearing aids prior to revocation of his license, and as a teacher of salesmen since that time has been less than satisfactory.
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 Has Respondent violated Section 484.056(1)(g), Florida Statutes as alleged in the Administrative Complaint? If so, what, if any, disciplinary action is appropriate?
Findings Of Fact In September of 1989, Mrs. Mary Louise Gibson, then in her late seventies, purchased "full-shell" Sonotone hearing aids at Hearing Aid Services in Temecula, California. The hearing aids were manufactured by TelStar Electronics, Inc., located in Longwood, Florida. The manufacturer's warranty covering the hearing aids expired on December 22, 1990. Some time after the purchase of the hearing aids, members of Mrs. Gibson's family began to tell her that she was not hearing well despite use of the hearing aids. In August, 1991, some eight months or so after the warranty had expired, Mrs. Gibson, thinking the hearing aids were still under warranty, visited the TelStar manufacturing facility in Longwood to see what could be done about her poor "hearing aid-assisted" hearing. At the manufacturing facility, Mrs. Gibson was referred to the manufacturer's retail store in an adjoining part of the building housing the manufacturer's operation. With Mrs. Gibson was her husband, who was also having trouble with his hearing aids, and her daughter, Mary A. Gibson. By virtue of the referral, the Gibsons and her husband went from the manufacturing end of the building to the manufacturer's retail store. Working as a hearing aid specialist in the manufacturing facility's retail store was Respondent, Nick Joseph Spina. At the time of Mrs. Gibson's visit, Mr. Spina was licensed by the Board of Hearing Aid Specialists as a hearing aid specialist in the state of Florida. His license number is AS 0001750. Mr. Spina continues to be and has been at all times material to this proceeding the holder of the hearing aid specialist license. Not a salaried employee of TelStar, Mr. Spina's pay at the TelStar retail store was based entirely on commissions from new sales. In any given sale, the commission was thirty per cent of the gross amount of the sale. Mr. Spina conducted an audiogram of Mrs. Gibson. He concluded that Mrs. Gibson needed a type of shell for her hearing aids different from the style she had been using: a "full-shell," which occludes the ear canal entirely. In Mr. Spina's professional opinion, Mrs. Gibson needed a helix-type shell which fills only the top of the ear and leaves the ear canal unoccluded. The Purchase Agreement executed by Mr. Gibson shows on the day the Gibsons consulted with Mr. Spina that Mrs. Gibson's husband, Horace Gibson, agreed to pay $450.00 for a recasing of Mrs. Gibson's hearing aids. The comments section of the order form states "Recased to helix aids," and shows a charge of $139.00. On August 28, 1991, Mrs. Gibson picked up the recased hearing aids. The invoice of the same date shows that TelStar Electronics, Inc., charged $139.00 for the recasing. Mrs. Gibson, as was agreed under the terms of the Purchase Agreement, paid $450.00 for the recasing. Approximately five months later, in January of 1992, Mrs. Gibson visited Mr. Spina again. Based on a second audiogram, Mr. Spina told her that she had experienced a dramatic change in her hearing since the August testing and needed another type of hearing aid. A purchase order form signed January 16, 1992, with an order date of January 13, 1992, shows that Mrs. Gibson agreed to pay $1078 for a hearing system described as "NEW" and being a Sonotone Model ITE, colored pink, with a warranty period from 1/16/92 to 1/16/94, a two-year warranty. The serial numbers for the new hearing aids are listed on the purchase agreements as 92F24064 for the hearing aid for the left ear and 92F24065 for the hearing aid for the right ear. The purchase order form is signed by Nick Spina. On the same date the "new" hearing system was ordered, January 13, 1994, Mr. Spina executed a second form, a repair order form. The repair order form ordered that M. L. Gibson's hearing aids bearing serial numbers 91F13666 and 91F13665, the helix-type hearing aids provided her the previous August by Respondent, be remade as "full shell" hearing aids. The order form for the repair of the helix hearing aids shows that Respondent ordered them to be assigned new serial numbers identical to those listed on the purchase order form for the new hearing aids, 92F24064 for the left ear and 92F24065 for the right ear, and be shipped back on January 15, 1992. This same form shows that a 2 year warranty was to be added to the hearing aids for the repair. An invoice dated January 15, 1994, shows a shipment by Sonotone Corporation, TelStar Division in Longwood, Florida, of Purchase Order number "Gibson TS R/M" of Order Number 60864, the order executed by Respondent on January 13, 1994. The hearing aids were remade to full shell hearing aids, reassigned the serial numbers ordered by respondent, and the circuit, microphone and receiver were changed. No charge was made for the remake of the helix hearing aids back into full shell hearing aids because the hearing aids were under warranty from the recasing accomplished the previous August. The remade hearing aids were not given an additional two-year warranty. It is not customary in the industry to give two-year warranties for remade hearing aids. A warranty for remade hearing aids is much less than two years, typically 6 months. Two-year warranties are reserved for new hearing aids. Mrs. Gibson picked up the hearing aids and paid $1078 for them, believing them to be new hearing aids. Mrs. Gibson's daughter, who accompanied her mother to all the transactions with Respondent, also was under the impression that brand new hearing aids had been provided her mother in January of 1992. Less than two months later, on March 10, 1992, Mrs. Gibson consulted Freddi M. Catlett, of the Arkansas Hearing Aid Center in Hot Springs, Arkansas, because her hearing aids were rubbing her ear so as to make it sore. Ms. Catlett sent impressions of Mrs. Gibson's ears as well as the hearing aids to the Sonotone factory in Florida. Instead of 92F24065, the serial number of Mrs. Gibson's right hearing aid, the order form lists the serial number of the hearing aids as 92-24065, substituting a "-" for the "F", the third digit in the serial number. Otherwise the number on the order form is identical to the serial number of the right hearing aid purchased by Mrs. Gibson in January of 1992 from Respondent. Both Mrs. Gibson and her daughter, despite the fact that Mrs. Gibson had two pairs of hearing aids, were sure that the hearing aids examined by Ms. Catlett were the "new" hearing aids purchased from Respondent in January of 1992. The hearing aids were returned to Mrs. Catlett from the Sonotone factory with an invoice charging $74.50 for a replating and recasing of the hearing aids. The service department notes on the order form shows that the warranty on the hearing aids, which should have been good until January of 1994 had the hearing aids been new in January of 1992, had expired on January 28, 1992. Upon being noticed that the warranty had expired, Ms. Catlett contacted Sonotone to inquire further. She was told that the hearing aids had been purchased in 1989 and that the warranty was no longer in effect. Ms. Catlett then questioned Mrs. Gibson and was assured that the hearing aids were the "new" hearing aids purchased from Respondent the previous January. The hearing aids examined by Ms. Catlett were the hearing aids purchased in January of 1992 from Respondent. The serial number listed on Ms. Catlett's order form mistakenly listed "-" as the third digit instead of "F". Contrary to Mr. Spina's representation, the hearing aids he sold to Mrs. Gibson in January of 1992 were not new, despite his marking on the order form that they would have a two-year warranty. The hearing aids sold as new hearing aids by Respondent in January of 1992 were simply a remake of the helix-type hearing aids that Mr. Spina had remade the August before. These hearing aids were new in 1989 not in 1992.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, and in keeping with Section 484.056(1) and (2), Florida Statutes, RECOMMENDED: That Respondent Nick Joseph Spina's license to practice as a hearing aid specialist be revoked and that Nick Joseph Spina be fined $1000. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of August, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. DAVID M. MALONEY 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 18th day of August, 1994. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Findings of fact in Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order 1, 3-19 are accepted. Finding of fact #2 in Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order is rejected to the extent it implies Mrs. Gibson was 83 in August of 1991. She was 83 at the time of her deposition in April of 1994. Otherwise the finding is accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan E. Landward Senior Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation Suite 60, Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Nick Joseph Spina, Jr. P. O. Box 214 Chipley, FL 32428 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Suzanne Lee Executive Director Hearing Aid Specialists 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0759
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 in this case is whether Respondent, Kent A. Broy, committed the violations alleged in an Administrative Complaint filed with by Petitioner, the Department of Health, on April 11, 2003, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioner, the Department of Health (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is the agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility for the investigation and prosecution of complaints involving hearing aid specialists licensed to practice in Florida. Respondent, Kent A. Broy, is, and was at the times material to this matter, a hearing aid specialist licensed to practice in Florida, having been issued license number AS2169 on April 13, 1989.5 The Administrative Complaint. On April 11, 2003, an Administrative Complaint, DOH Case No. AS 2001-19941, was filed with the Department against Mr. Broy. Mr. Broy disputed the issues of fact alleged in the Administrative Complaint and requested a formal administrative Hearing by a Request for Formal Hearing filed with the Department on Mr. Broy's behalf by counsel. The remaining four counts of the Administrative Complaint, Counts I, II, III, and V, allege violations of subsections of Section 484.056(1), Florida Statutes: Section 484.056(1)(g) (Count I); (j) (Count II); (w) (Count III); and (m) (Count V). All four counts include the following introductory sentence: "Petitioner realleges and incorporates herein by reference the facts alleged in paragraphs 1-16 [of the Administrative Complaint]." Paragraphs 1 through 6 are general allegations which were admitted by Mr. Broy. Patient G.H. Patient G.H., who was 88 years of age at the time, visited a business known as Audibel Hearing Care Center (hereinafter referred to as "Audibel")6 and located at 1620 North U.S. Highway 1, Jupiter, Florida, on October 24, 2001, a Tuesday. G.H. was accompanied by his wife, J.H. G.H. went to Audibel to determine whether he needed hearing aids. Mr. Broy, who G.H. assumed was a licensed hearing aid specialist, assisted G.H.7 As alleged in the Administrative Complaint, G.H. agreed to purchase a pair of "in the ear" hearing aids for $6,810.00. Mr. Broy attempted to make molds of the G.H.'s ear canals so that the hearing aids G.H. had agreed to purchase could be ordered. Molding material was placed in G.H.'s ear, but when it was removed it was found to be covered with wax. Mr. Broy attempted to remove the wax from G.H.'s ear with some type of instrument. This caused pain in G.H.'s ear, so the effort was discontinued. Mr. Broy then gave G.H. some oil to use to attempt to soften the wax, and he scheduled G.H. to return the next week. In furtherance of the sale and purchase of the hearing aids, G.H. signed a Purchase Agreement. The Agreement states that G.H. was purchasing 2 "Merc CIC Dig" hearing aides at $4,200.00 each ($8,400.00 total) less a 20% discount, leaving a discounted price of $6,720.00 plus a $90.00 administration fee. The Purchase Agreement includes, in part, the following regarding return of the hearing aids: Return Policy - . . . . Purchaser may return the hearing aid(s), so long as the hearing aid(s) is returned to the seller within the 30 day trial period in good working condition. A return claim form may be obtained from the distributor at the location checked on the face of this agreement. A request for return must be submitted in writing, within 30 days. . . . . The distributor identified on the face of the Purchase Agreement was Audibel. The Purchase Agreement did not identify the guarantor for the refund. No hearings aids, however, were delivered to G.H. at the time he signed the Purchase Agreement or anytime subsequent thereto. G.H. paid the full purchase price, charging the full price to a credit card. Shortly after executing the Purchase Agreement, G.H. decided that he did not want the hearing aids8 and he returned to Audibel. He told Mr. Broy that he no longer wanted the hearing aids.9 G.H., not receiving satisfaction from Mr. Broy, ultimately challenged the amount he paid for the hearing aids with his credit card company. He was refunded the $6,810.00 charge. On January 9, 2002, Mr. Broy charged $630.00 to G.H.'s credit card. That amount has not been refunded. During the investigation of this matter, Neil Bailes, an investigator for the Agency for Health Care Administration, who had never met or spoken to Mr. Broy in person, spoke to someone whom he believed was Mr. Broy. The individual he spoke with told him that records relating to G.H.'s purchase and subsequent return of hearing aids were in G.H.'s possession, and, therefore, he could not provide those records.10
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the a final order be entered by the Board of Hearing Aid Specialist dismissing the April 11, 2003, Administrative Complaint against Kent A. Broy. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of February, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LARRY J. SARTIN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of February, 2004.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Respondent's license as a hearing aid specialist in Florida should be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Administrative Complaints filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to the issues herein, the Board of Hearing Aid Specialists has been the state agency in Florida responsible for the licensing of hearing aid specialists and the regulation of the hearing aid provider profession in Florida. The Respondent has been a licensed hearing aid specialist in this state, holding license number AS 00010006. Stanley I. Williamson is an 84-year-old blind and arthritic retiree who has worn hearing aids since the early 1980's. He has known Mr. Conley since that time and has purchased his hearing aids from the Respondent both when the Respondent was working for other suppliers and when he went into business for himself. In the summer of 1997, Mr. Williamson went to the Respondent to get the wax cleaned out of his hearing aids. Mr. Williamson did not feel he needed new aids at the time. However, on June 6, 1997 Respondent Mr. Conley called him and tried to sell him some new aids. Mr. Williamson told the respondent he didn't want new aids because his were working well, but Mr. Conley suggested he bring them in anyway. Mr. Williamson went to the Respondent's office and tried the new ones the Respondent showed him but decided he did not want them because he felt they did not work properly. Nonetheless, on that same day, June 6, 1997, Mr. Williamson took them, signed a contract for the new aids, and gave the Respondent a check for $1,095. At that time, the Respondent told Mr. Williamson he could bring the aids back within 30 days if they were not acceptable. The Argosy hearing aids Mr. Williamson got from the Respondent on June 6 did not work properly, and when Mr. Williamson complained, the Respondent agreed to get him another pair. Mr. Williamson picked up this second pair of aids at the Respondent's office, Conley's Hearing Aid Center in Clearwater on June 20, 1997. At that time Mr. Williamson signed a second contract and gave the Respondent a second check for $1,095. On June 24, 1997, the Respondent had Mr. Williamson, who was still not satisfied with the performance of the Argosy aids, sign a third contract with his company under which the Respondent agreed to provide a pair of 3M Single Pro hearing aids for a total price of $3,390. The Respondent gave Mr. Williamson credit for the two prior payments of $1,095 each, and Mr. Williamson gave the Respondent an additional check for $1,200. According to Mr. Williamson, the 3M aids, which the Respondent delivered on July 8, 1997, also did not work to his satisfaction, so after just a few days, on July 10, 1997, he exchanged them for a different pair of 3M aids, Dual Pro. The sales receipt for the aids that the Respondent gave to Mr. Williamson on July 10, 1997 did not contain the buyer's signature, nor did it list the serial numbers for the hearing aids provided. Mr. Williamson thought he was getting the top of the hearing aid line but in fact, the Dual Pro aid was the middle line. According to a pamphlet he saw later, the top of the line is called Multi Pro; the middle, Dual Pro; and the bottom, Single Pro. Though a new contract was signed reflecting the Dual Pro aids, there was no additional charge. The Respondent guaranteed all hearing aids sold to Mr. Williamson to be acceptable or, if returned within 30 days of purchase, a full refund would be given. The Dual Pro aids also did not work to Mr. Williamson's satisfaction, and he returned them to the Respondent on or about August 4, 1997, an act witnessed by the Respondent's associate, Michelle Pfister. None of the hearing aid sets was kept by Mr. Williamson for more than 30 days. Mr. Williamson contends that when he returned the second pair of Argosy aids and received the 3M Single Pro aids in exchange, he asked Mr. Conley for a refund. At that time, Mr. Conley said he didn't have the money. When Mr. Conley delivered the Single Pro aids, and again when he delivered the Dual Pro aids, Mr. Williamson asked for a refund instead. Each time the Respondent claimed he didn't have the money. On October 4, 1997, Mr. Williamson wrote to Conley's Hearing Aid Center, the Respondent's business, and threatened recoupment action if the Respondent did not return the money he had paid for the aids he had returned. The hearing aids Mr. Williamson purchased were all returned to the Respondent, but no refund was ever made. According to Ms. Pfister, the returned hearing aids were subsequently sent back to the manufacturer for credit. The credit was not to her account with the manufacturer, however, and she does not know who received it. Ms. Pfister, also a licensed hearing aid specialist since 1998, bought Conley's Hearing Aid Center from the Respondent on July 27, 1997. At the time of the purchase, Ms. Pfister was not employed by the Respondent, but she had worked for the Respondent on and off since 1995. On June 26, 1997, the Respondent signed a form to sponsor Ms. Pfister as a hearing aid specialist trainee and served as her sponsor until she passed the examination and was licensed on June 23, 1998. Respondent continued to work on the premises after the sale until Ms. Pfister was licensed. When Ms. Pfister took over the business, the sales contract called for all hearing aids on site to be sold to her as inventory, She also received a statement from the Respondent that there were no unresolved issues with clients, and she did not assume any liabilities incurred by the business prior to her take over. When she assumed active management of the practice, Ms. Pfister received all of the Respondent's patient files. Katherine Sadilek is a 93-year-old retiree who purchased a pair of pre-owned 3-M Model 8200 hearing aids from the Respondent on April 8, 1997 for $1,800. The aids were paid for in full on April 9, 1997. The receipt for this sale that the Respondent gave to Ms. Sadilek did not contain the serial numbers of the aids, nor did it describe any of the terms and conditions of the sale or a guarantee. Ms. Sadilek returned the aids to the Respondent exactly 30 days after the purchase date because she was not satisfied with them. The Respondent did not refund her money but agreed to try to re-sell them for her. He offered her $100.00 for them, which she refused. The Respondent retained the aids and never returned them to Ms. Sadilek or paid her for them. A review of the documentation relating to the sales to both clients show them to be devoid of any information showing any improvement to the clients' hearing as a result of the hearing aids sold to them by the Respondent. A showing of improvement is required to form the basis for non-refund of amounts paid for hearing aids. The Respondent filed for bankruptcy in December 1998. The Respondent was licensed as a hearing aid specialist in Indiana in 1970 and in Florida in 1978. He has practiced in Florida for almost 20 years without any complaints being filed against him except those in issue here. The Respondent attributes most of his problems to his marriage dissolution in 1979, the settlement relating to which caused his financial problems and his bankruptcy. He claims he offered to make periodic payments to Mr. Williamson but Mr. Williamson refused that offer. The Respondent is 61 years old and presently receiving worker's compensation. Though he is not presently in the hearing aid business, he hopes to be in the future and needs to keep his license to earn a living.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board of Hearing Aid Specialists enter a final order suspending the Respondent's license for a period of six months and thereafter placing it under probation for a period of three years under such terms and conditions as may be deemed appropriate by the Board. It is also recommended that the Board impose an administrative fine of $3,000, and assess appropriate costs of investigation and prosecution. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of September, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of September, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Gary L. Asbell, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Building 3, Mail Stop 39 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Donald Conley 3377 Southwest Villa Place Palm City, Florida 34990 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Susan Foster, Executive Director Board of Hearing Aid Specialists Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent lawfully denied Petitioner's application to sit for the September 1997 hearing aid specialists' examination.
Findings Of Fact By Application dated October 31, 1996, Petitioner requested a license as a hearing aid specialist. The 1996 application answers no to questions asking if Petitioner ever had a hearing-aid "license" disciplined or application denied by another state. The application leaves blank a question asking for the identification of the states in which the applicant is or has been "licensed" to dispense hearing aids. Based on the information contained in the 1996 application, Respondent approved the application, on November 8, 1996, so that Petitioner could take the laws and rules examination on January 10, 1997. Due to past experience, this was the only part of the examination that he was required to take in order to obtain a Florida license. Subsequently, Respondent learned that Illinois had revoked a hearing aid specialist certificate held by Petitioner. Respondent's board members discussed this issue with Petitioner at the Board Meeting of January 31, 1997. After a full discussion of he facts, the Respondent's board members decided not to deny Petitioner's 1996 application, but to issue a probationary license, if he passed the laws and rules examination. The Board's favorable decision was made in the presence of Petitioner and confirmed by letter to him dated March 12, 1997. The letter states in part: The Board met on January 31, 1997 and re- considered your application for examination and licensure as a hearing aid specialist. After discussion the Board voted to allow you to take the examination and gave approval for licensure pending a passing score on the examination. They also as a condition for licensure voted for one (1) year of probation once you become licensed and for you to [in]cur any cost involved in this issue. Although unknown by all parties at the January 31 Board Meeting, Petitioner had failed the January 10 examination, as he was informed by letter dated February 17, 1997. By Application dated June 10, 1997, Petitioner again requested a license as a hearing aid specialist. This 1997 application is the subject of the present case. The 1997 application states that Illinois had revoked his license to dispense hearing aids and, rather than providing the requested details, states, "in file." The 1997 application adds no additional information in response to the question asking whether other states have disciplined Petitioner's licenses or denied his applications to dispense hearing aids. However, by letter dated February 20, 1997, Colorado had denied Petitioner's application for a "registration" to sell hearing aids, and Petitioner had retained an attorney to contest that decision. Petitioner claims that a material distinction exists between licenses, on the one hand, and registrations or certificates, on the other hand. His contention is that Respondent's application form inquires only about licenses and not registrations or certificates. However, Petitioner understood from his past dealings with the Board that they viewed his history in Illinois as material, and the Illinois final and recommended orders revoke Petitioner's "certification," not his "license." By Order filed September 24, 1997, Respondent denied the 1997 application because of the discipline in another state, in violation of Section 484.056(1)(c), Florida Statutes, and misrepresentations in the application, in violation of Section 484.056(1)(b), Florida Statutes. By Amended Order filed August 4, 1998, Respondent added two reasons for denial. First, Petitioner was convicted of a crime related to the practice of dispensing hearing aids or the ability to practice dispensing hearing aids, in violation of Section 484.056(1)(d), Florida Statutes. Second, Petitioner did not meet the requirement of good moral character, in violation of Section 484.045(1)(b), Florida Statutes. Petitioner has pleaded no contest three times to an attempt to purchase a controlled substance or possession of a controlled substance--twice in 1995 and once in 1998. Each time, the court withheld adjudication and sentenced him to probation. In December 1997, Petitioner was arrested for resisting arrest, obstructing an officer without violence, and fleeing and attempting to elude the police. He pleaded no contest and the court withheld adjudication and fined him $250.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Hearing Aid Specialists deny Petitioner's application for licensure. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of April, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 2nd day of April, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Pete Peterson, General Counsel Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Joe Baker, Executive Director Board of Hearing Aid Specialists Department of Health 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 E. Raymond Shope, Attorney 1404 Goodlette Road, North Naples, Florida 34102 Donna Erlich Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for renewal of his certificate of registration to fit and sell hearing aids should be denied here he establishes that he satisfactorily completed the required continuing education course during the year of his application, rather than during the previous calendar year.
Findings Of Fact On January 29, 1980, the Applicant submitted to the Department a completed application for renewal of his 1979 Certificate of Registration to Dispense Hearing Aids in Florida. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). At the time of his application (January, 1980) the Applicant was unable to provide evidence of having completed at least ten hours of an approved continuing education course relating to the fitting and selling of hearing aids. He was, however, in the process of attending such a course at the University of Central Florida, which he successfully completed during February, 1980. (Petitioner's Exhibits 1 and 2, Testimony of G. L. BOOTHE) The Department proposed to deny the applicant's request for renewal on the sole ground that his application failed to show that the required continuing education course had been completed prior to his application, and during the prior calendar year 1979. (Testimony of G. L. Boothe) On July 21, 1978, and again on October 1, 1979 the Department notified all registered hearing aid dispensers, including the Applicant, of the new continuing education requirement enacted by the 1978 Florida Legislature. The Applicant received such notice, and was aware of this new requirement. (Respondent's Exhibits 1 and 2, Testimony of G. L. BOOTHE) Between 1969 and February, 1979, the Applicant was licensed by the State to fit and sell hearing aids, and was employed by the Beltone Hearing Aid Company. In February, 1979, he left the company and was considering retirement. (Testimony of G. L. BOOTHE) The Applicant failed to take the required continuing education course during 1979 because, from February 1979 through January, 980, he was uncertain whether he would surrender his license or continue in the business of fitting and selling hearing aids. During January and February, 1980, he entered the employment of the Orange Hearing Aid Center, Orlando, Florida for the purpose of fitting and selling hearing aids. He, therefore, applied far the renewal of his license, and successfully completed the required continuing education course. (Testimony of G. L. Boothe)
The Issue Whether Rules 21JJ-7.007(2), (3) and (3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, are invalid pursuant to Sections 120.54(2) and 120.56, Florida Statutes (1987)?
Findings Of Fact Section 484.0401, Florida Statutes (1987), provides the following: The Legislature recognizes that the dispensing of hearing aids requires particularized knowledge and skill to ensure that the interests of the hearing-impaired public will be adequately served and safely protected. It 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. [Emphasis added]. The Legislature amended Section 484.0401, Florida Statutes (1987), during the 1986 Session to provide for the protection of the public against economic harm and to include the public welfare within the scope of the protection of Chapter 484, Florida Statutes. Section 484.044, Florida Statutes (1987), authorizes the Board of Hearing Aid Specialists (hereinafter referred to as the "Board"), to adopt rules it deems necessary to carry out the provisions of Chapter 484, Florida Statutes. On April 24, 1987, the Board caused to be published Rule 21JJ-7.007, Florida Administrative Code, in Volume 13, Number 17, Florida Administrative Weekly. On May 20, 1987, a public hearing was held to allow comments concerning the challenged rule. Following this meeting and a meeting before the Board on July 10 and 11, 1987, a Notice of Change, changing the challenged rules was published in the July 24, 1987, edition of the Volume 13, Number 30, Florida Administrative Weekly. Rule 21JJ-7.007, Florida Administrative Code, was filed with the Department of State on July 23, 1987. Volume 13, Number 31, Florida Administrative Weekly. It was effective August 12, 1987. Rule 21JJ-7.007(2), Florida Administrative Code, provides the following: Fraudulent, False, Deceptive or Misleading Advertising. An advertisement or advertising is fraudulent, false, deceptive or misleading, if it: (2) Conveys the impression that the licensee or trainee possesses qualifications, skills, or other attributes which are false, other than a simple listing of earned professional achievements and degrees. Rule 21JJ-7.007(3) and (3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, provide the following: Fraudulent, False, Deceptive or Misleading Advertising. An advertisement or advertising is fraudulent, false, deceptive or misleading, if it: Is misleading or deceptive because its content or the context in which it is presented makes only a partial disclosure of relevant facts. Specifically, it is misleading and deceptive to advertise a discounted price, without identifying the specific product or service against which the discounted price applies, and without specifying the usual price for the product or service identified. Advertising is an extremely important part of the hearing aid business. It is the principal manner in which hearing aid licensees attract clients. Advertising may assist consumers in making an educated decision about hearing aid products and services. It is common for licensed hearing aid specialists and businesses employing licensed hearing aid specialists to include information such as the following in advertisements: The length of service in a particular community or in the hearing aid profession. Such advertisements can be an indication of the stability of a hearing aid business; Statements such as the following: "trust your hearing to the professionals", "ethical professional practice", "ask the expert" and "factory- trained"; Other types of training, such as factory training; and Educational experiences, including research and teaching experiences. The type of information listed in finding of fact 10 may be beneficial to the public and is not necessarily false, deceptive or misleading. Advertisements used by licensed hearing aid specialists do not include every bit of information about a product. For example, the following type of information may be included in an advertisement: One of the smallest hearing aids, designed for nerve deafness to 40 db. Model E-50 complete with one year warranty. This type of advertisement is not false, deceptive or misleading. It does not, however, contain all the relevant facts concerning the product advertised. Additional relevant information concerning the product may be voluminous, technical and of no use to a consumer. To include all information which may be relevant could require a very large advertisement which would be expensive. Advertisements used by licensed hearing aid specialists commonly indicate a reduction of a certain dollar amount or a percentage reduction for individual hearing aids, lines of hearing aids or all products carried by a specialist. Such advertisements do not necessarily list the specific product or service to which a discount applies or the price for each product or service before the discount. Where discounts apply to several products or services, to list each product and the price before discount would require a large advertisement which would be expensive. As of May 15, 1987, there were 1,016 licensed hearing aid specialists in the State of Florida. Two hundred and forty-four of the total number of licensed hearing aid specialists were on inactive status. Of the 772 active licensed specialists, 670 were members of the Petitioner as of December 4, 1987, or approximately 88 percent of all active licensed practitioners. The Petitioner has an ethics committee and a grievance committee which are active in reviewing advertising used by hearing aid specialists. Members of the Petitioner are subject to discipline, including expulsion from the Petitioner, for improper advertising. The following Summary of Estimate of Economic Impact of the Rule was published by the Department: The implementation of this proposal will have minimal impact upon the Board or the Department other than the costs involved in promulgation. There should be no adverse economic impact or benefit to current licensees or potential applicants as a direct result of the proposed rules. The Board feels the rule is imperative to clarify statutory provisions within Section 484.056(1)(f), F.S., by delineating for the activities which constitute fraudulent, false, deceptive or misleading advertising. It is therefore impossible to determine exactly what impact the proposed rule will have upon current or potential licensees. It is not foreseeable that the proposal will place an economic impact upon competition among current licensees, the open market for employment, or upon entities falling within the definition of "small entities" as defined in Section 288.703(1), F.S.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Donna A. Benoit, is a candidate for licensure as a hearing aid specialist. Her examination date was September 10-12, 1993. There were two sections to the examination for licensure: a practical portion that consisted of several subparts, and a written portion for which the minimum passing grade was 75.00. In order to achieve an "overall examination status" of passing, Petitioner was required to pass both sections. While Petitioner obtained a passing grade on the practical section, her grade on the written section was 74.00. Upon receipt of her test scores, Petitioner timely challenged the examination results. Initially, Petitioner listed twenty-two questions for which she received no credit as those to be challenged. At hearing, however, Petitioner elected to only challenge one: Question 10. The format for the written examination was multiple choice, and the instructions directed candidates to choose the best answer from among those suggested. Approximately 79 percent of the candidates taking the examination got Question 10 correct. Therefore, for statistical purposes, Question 10 should not be considered vague or ambiguous. An audiometric evaluation is required before a hearing aid can be fitted or sold. An audiometric evaluation consists of the following: puretone testing by air and bone conduction, effective masking when indicated, speech reception thresholds, speech discrimination scores, MCL and UCL, and selection of best fitting arrangement. An otoscopic examination of the ear is performed before the audiometric evaluation can be performed. An otoscopic examination does not, of itself, allow a hearing aid to be fitted or sold. Once the otoscopic examination is successfully completed such that a hearing aid may be fitted and sold, the audiometric evaluation must be performed. An audiometric evaluation as described in Section 484.0501, Florida Statutes, provides the minimal procedures in the fitting and selling of hearing aids. Petitioner's answer to Question 10, "D", was not the best selection from those available; consequently, the Department correctly scored Petitioner's response.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Board of Hearing Aid Specialists, enter a final order denying Petitioner's challenge to Question 10 of the hearing aid specialists examination administered September 10-12, 1993. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 21st day of April, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH 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 21st day of April, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-0303 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner: 1. Petitioner's one page letter filed March 28, 1994, has been considered argument and not in a format to allow rulings on specific facts. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent: Paragraphs 1 through 3, and 6 are accepted. The first two sentences and the last sentence of paragraph 4 are accepted; the remainder is rejected as irrelevant. The last sentence of paragraph 5 is accepted; the remainder is rejected as unnecessary or irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Donna A. Benoit 100 St. George Boulevard Apt. 402 Savannah, Georgia 31419 Vytas J. Urba Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack McRay Acting General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Suzanne Lee, Executive Director Board of Hearing Aid Specialists Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
