Findings Of Fact At all times material to the allegations of this case, the Respondent has been licensed as a massage therapist in the State of Florida, license no. MA 0007093. The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility under Florida law of regulating massage therapists. At all times material to the allegations of this case, the Department required that licensees obtain continuing education credits in order to renew massage therapy licenses. The license renewal card sent by the agency to the licensee requires verification that the licensee has met all continuing education requirements. Respondent executed a renewal notice form that represented she had met all requirements for license renewal, including the continuing education commitment. On November 5, 1993, the Department issued a letter to Respondent advising her that her license had been randomly selected for audit for the continuing education requirements for the period January 1, 1991 through January 31, 1993. By such notice, Respondent was requested to complete an audit form and to attach proof of attendance for the continuing education courses attended for the audit period. In order to qualify for acceptance, continuing education courses must be approved by the Department. Courses which have not received approval may not be counted to fulfill continuing education requirements. The Respondent filed a response to the audit including courses which had not been approved by the agency. In follow-up, the Department, by form notice dated December 7, 1993, advised the Respondent that her audit was incomplete. More specifically, the Department advised Respondent that the provider of the continuing education (CE) identified by Respondent was not an approved provider and that the number of courses of approved CE did not show attendance of at least twelve hours. To date, the Respondent has not provided proof of compliance with the CE requirements of the Department. Courses which Respondent attended in connection with another license held by Respondent (nurse), do not comply with the criteria for her license as a massage therapist. Respondent is aware of the different Boards and regulations pertaining to the licenses she holds.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Board of Massage, enter a final order revoking Respondent's license as a massage therapist and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000.00. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 29th day of August, 1995, 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 29th day of August, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-0148 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner: 1. Paragraphs 1 through 14 are accepted. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent: 1. None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan Lindgard Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Diana Wentworth 1500 Pelican Lane Vero Beach, Florida 32963-2644 Anna Polk Executive Director Board of Massage Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issues presented in this case are whether Respondent has violated the provisions of chapters 456 and 480, Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The following findings of fact are based on the testimony, evidence admitted at the formal hearing, and the agreed facts in the pre-hearing stipulation. The Department is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of massage therapy pursuant to section 20.43, Florida Statutes, and chapters 456 and 480. At all times material to the allegations in this case, Respondent was licensed to practice as a massage therapist in the State of Florida, having been issued license number MA 79509. At all times material to the allegations in this matter, Respondent was employed as a massage therapist at Daytona College, in Daytona Beach, Florida. Respondent’s address of record is 10 Spanish Pine Way, Ormond Beach, Florida 32174. S.W. is a licensed mental health counselor who has been licensed for approximately 22 years. She resides in Clermont, Florida, which is where she lived at the time of the massage. In July 2017, S.W. and C.W., her 23-year-old daughter, traveled to the Daytona Beach area to visit S.W.’s elderly mother. On July 19, 2017, S.W. and C.W. went to Daytona College, for the first time, for a massage. Upon arriving at the school, they were greeted by the receptionist. S.W. and C.W. were scheduled for 80-minute massages to take place at 3:30 p.m. However, the ladies arrived ten minutes late, so the massages began late. Upon arrival, the ladies were asked whether they needed to use the restroom, which they did. After using the restroom, the ladies were taken to the massage area for their services. S.W. selected the male massage therapist based on her past positive experiences with male therapists. S.W. had received a number of massages in the past, including massages by men. She allowed her daughter to be scheduled with the female massage therapist because she believed her daughter preferred a woman. S.W. was scheduled for a massage with Respondent, and C.W. was scheduled with Elizabeth Branson. Respondent escorted S.W. to the massage room first. Ms. Branson escorted C.W. to the room a few minutes later. As Respondent escorted S.W. to the massage room, S.W. described the areas in which she wanted special attention, including her neck, shoulders, scalp, and feet. Respondent asked S.W. whether she needed massage in the sciatic area. S.W. had problems in the sciatic area, so she consented to have the area massaged. The common room where massages occurred at Daytona College contained eight massage tables separated by curtains. Respondent took S.W. into the massage room and instructed her to undress to her comfort level. Respondent left the room while S.W. undressed down to her underwear. When Respondent reentered the room, S.W. was draped with a sheet. Respondent tucked the drape into S.W.’s underwear and lowered it onto her buttocks. A short time later, S.W. could hear her daughter in the area near her, but she could not see her. C.W. whispered to S.W. to let her know she was in the room. At some point, S.W. heard her daughter exit the room. C.W. finished her massage before S.W., even though S.W.’s service began before C.W.’s. C.W. recalled that her mother was unusually quiet during the massage instead of being “chatty,” as she normally would be. C.W. waited in the hallway outside the massage room for four or five minutes for S.W.’s massage to finish. After S.W. came out of the massage room, C.W. immediately noticed that something was wrong. When S.W. exited the room, she was “wired” and not relaxed, as she would normally appear after a massage. C.W. described her as appearing nervous and agitated. C.W. could tell that something was wrong, but S.W. did not say anything at that time. The two ladies walked to the front desk. As was her routine, S.W. paid for both massages and left a $10 tip. She did not make a complaint regarding the massage with the receptionist before leaving the school. Concerned regarding her mother’s behavior, C.W. asked S.W. what happened. S.W. stated that something weird happened. The ladies left the school and began driving to their destination. S.W. continued to be upset and ultimately, began crying. She was so upset that initially, she could not articulate what occurred. S.W. ultimately told C.W. that Respondent had placed his hand under her underwear and touched her clitoris. S.W. contacted her friend Mike, a law enforcement officer. S.W. explained to Mike what happened, and he suggested that she contact the police to report what happened to her. S.W. and C.W. called the police and requested that an officer meet the ladies at Daytona College. They also contacted the school and advised them that S.W. had been inappropriately touched during her massage. They arrived back at the school approximately 20 minutes later. The officer arrived shortly after S.W. and C.W. The officer interviewed S.W. and she reported to him that while massaging her thighs, Respondent “grazed” her vaginal area with his finger. S.W. also reported that Respondent touched her clitoris with his finger. S.W. declined to pursue criminal charges and stated she would file a complaint with the Department. However, she expressed that she wanted to ensure there was a record of the incident so another woman would not have the same experience. On or about July 26, 2017, one week later, S.W. filed a complaint with the Department of Health. S.W. submitted a typewritten statement regarding the events involving Respondent. S.W. related that at the beginning of the massage, she gave Respondent permission to pull down her underwear and tuck in the drape. She stated that toward the end of the massage, Respondent “grazed” her vagina outside her underwear. He then placed his finger under her underwear and began massaging her clitoris for a couple of seconds. She stated that she grabbed Respondent’s hand and pushed it away. In response, Respondent abruptly told S.W. that the massage was done. In addition to the report to the police and the Department, S.W. also reported the incident to the school administrators, Dr. Ali and Mr. Brooks. Dr. Ali met with S.W. and C.W. when they returned to the school. Dr. Ali described S.W. as appearing embarrassed, subdued, and uncomfortable. Mr. Brooks was also present during the meeting. He was called to campus after he received a report that something inappropriate happened. He observed that S.W. appeared upset. Although there was no expert offered to testify in this matter, Chris Brooks, LMT, provided insight regarding the type of massage provided to S.W. He explained the difference between sensualized touch and sexualized touch. A sensualized touch is not uncommon in massage. On the other hand, sexualized touch is used to evoke sexual pleasure. At hearing, S.W. was clear and unwavering in her recollection of the events involving Respondent touching her vaginal area. S.W. appeared anxious, uncomfortable, and her voice cracked when she testified that Respondent moved her underwear and touched her vaginal area. Specifically, she testified that Respondent grazed her vagina on top of the front of her underwear. She was in such shock that it happened she could not say anything. Respondent then put a bare finger underneath her underwear and began massaging her clitoris. She still could not speak, so she quickly grabbed his hand and pushed it away. Consistent with her statement to the police officer and her written statement, she credibly testified that Respondent touched her vaginal area with his finger. At hearing, Respondent denied touching S.W.’s vagina during the massage. He also denied rubbing her clitoris. Mr. Brooks, who is personally and professionally acquainted with Respondent, testified that Respondent seemed shocked to learn of S.W.’s complaint. Respondent testified that he draped S.W.’s legs in such a way that it caused the draping to “bunch” between the area massaged and the genitalia. Respondent argues that S.W. could not determine whether the draping touched her genitals when Respondent massaged her legs. However, when pressed on this point, S.W. unequivocally testified that she was certain it was Respondent’s finger that touched her clitoris. Respondent had no prior complaints of inappropriate touching before S.W.’s complaint. Although Mr. Brooks asked him about the complaint on the date of the incident, there was no evidence offered at hearing that Respondent was formally interviewed by the school administration. However, Respondent was terminated from his job at Daytona College based on S.W.’s complaint. Respondent was also not interviewed by the police officer investigating the complaint. Respondent was not charged with a crime. Respondent has no prior disciplinary action involving his license to practice massage therapy. The evidence demonstrates that Respondent crossed the boundaries of appropriate massage into sexual misconduct when he massaged S.W.’s clitoris with his finger. While Respondent’s testimony seemed sincere, S.W. was more persuasive. Based on the totality of the evidence presented at hearing, there is clear and convincing evidence that Respondent touched S.W.’s vaginal area or clitoris with his finger. The placement of a massage therapist’s finger on the vaginal area or clitoris of a patient is outside the scope of the professional practice of massage therapy.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Massage Therapy enter a final order finding: Respondent guilty of violating sections 480.046(1)(p) and 480.0485 as further defined in rule 64B7-26.010; Imposing a fine of $2,500; and Revoking Respondent’s license to practice massage therapy. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of April, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S YOLONDA Y. GREEN 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 5th day of April, 2019.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, a massage therapist, obtained a license: (a) by means of fraudulent misrepresentations; (b) which she knew had been issued in error; and/or (c) without having completed a course of study at an approved school, as Petitioner alleges. If so, it will be necessary to determine an appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact The Department issued Hao license number MA 60237, which authorized her to practice massage therapy in the state of Florida. The Department and the Board of Massage Therapy ("Board") have regulatory jurisdiction over licensed massage therapists such as Hao. The Department provides investigative services to the Board and is authorized to file and prosecute an administrative complaint, as it has done this instance, when cause exists to suspect that a licensee has committed a disciplinable offense. The Florida College of Natural Health ("FCNH") is an incorporated nonpublic postsecondary educational entity. FCNH holds a license by means of accreditation that authorizes its operation in Florida as an independent college. The Florida Commission for Independent Education ("CIE"), which regulates nonpublic postsecondary institutions, issued the necessary license to FCNH pursuant to section 1005.32, Florida Statutes. In addition to being duly licensed by the state, FCNH is accredited by the Accrediting Commission of Career Schools and Colleges and by the Commission on Massage Therapy. Finally, FCNH is a "Board-approved massage school" within the meaning of that term as defined in section 480.033.2/ At the times relevant to this proceeding, the minimum requirements for becoming and remaining a Board-approved massage school were set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B7- (Apr. 25, 2010), which provided in pertinent part as follows: In order to receive and maintain Board of Massage Therapy approval, a massage school, and any satellite location of a previously approved school, must: Meet the requirements of and be licensed by the Department of Education pursuant to Chapter 1005, F.S., or the equivalent licensing authority of another state or county, or be within the public school system of the State of Florida; and Offer a course of study that includes, at a minimum, the 500 classroom hours listed below . . . . Apply directly to the Board of Massage Therapy and provide the following information: Sample transcript and diploma; Copy of curriculum, catalog or other course descriptions; Faculty credentials; and Proof of licensure by the Department of Education. As an institution holding a license by means of accreditation, FCNH must comply with the fair consumer practices prescribed in section 1005.04 and in the rules of the CIE.3/ Regarding these required practices, section 1005.04, Florida Statutes (2009), provided during the relevant time frame as follows: Every institution that is under the jurisdiction of the commission or is exempt from the jurisdiction or purview of the commission pursuant to s. 1005.06(1)(c) or (f) and that either directly or indirectly solicits for enrollment any student shall: Disclose to each prospective student a statement of the purpose of such institution, its educational programs and curricula, a description of its physical facilities, its status regarding licensure, its fee schedule and policies regarding retaining student fees if a student withdraws, and a statement regarding the transferability of credits to and from other institutions. The institution shall make the required disclosures in writing at least 1 week prior to enrollment or collection of any tuition from the prospective student. The required disclosures may be made in the institution's current catalog; Use a reliable method to assess, before accepting a student into a program, the student's ability to complete successfully the course of study for which he or she has applied; Inform each student accurately about financial assistance and obligations for repayment of loans; describe any employment placement services provided and the limitations thereof; and refrain from promising or implying guaranteed placement, market availability, or salary amounts; Provide to prospective and enrolled students accurate information regarding the relationship of its programs to state licensure requirements for practicing related occupations and professions in Florida; Ensure that all advertisements are accurate and not misleading; Publish and follow an equitable prorated refund policy for all students, and follow both the federal refund guidelines for students receiving federal financial assistance and the minimum refund guidelines set by commission rule; Follow the requirements of state and federal laws that require annual reporting with respect to crime statistics and physical plant safety and make those reports available to the public; and Publish and follow procedures for handling student complaints, disciplinary actions, and appeals. In addition, institutions that are required to be licensed by the commission shall disclose to prospective students that additional information regarding the institution may be obtained by contacting the Commission for Independent Education, Department of Education, Tallahassee. (emphasis added). At the time of the events giving rise to this proceeding, the CIE's rule relating to fair consumer practices provided in relevant part as follows: This rule implements the provisions of Sections 1005.04 and 1005.34, F.S., and establishes the regulations and standards of the Commission relative to fair consumer practices and the operation of independent postsecondary education institutions in Florida. This rule applies to those institutions as specified in Section 1005.04(1), F.S. All such institutions and locations shall demonstrate compliance with fair consumer practices. * * * (6) Each prospective student shall be provided a written copy, or shall have access to an electronic copy, of the institution's catalog prior to enrollment or the collection of any tuition, fees or other charges. The catalog shall contain the following required disclosures, and catalogs of licensed institutions must also contain the information required in subsections 6E- 2.004(11) and (12), F.A.C.: * * * (f) Transferability of credits: The institution shall disclose information to the student regarding transferability of credits to other institutions and from other institutions. The institution shall disclose that transferability of credit is at the discretion of the accepting institution, and that it is the student's responsibility to confirm whether or not credits will be accepted by another institution of the student's choice. If a licensed institution has entered into written articulation agreements with other institutions, a list of those other institutions may be provided to students, along with any conditions or limitations on the amount or kinds of credit that will be accepted. Such written agreements with other institutions must be valid and in effect at the time the information is disclosed to the student. The agreements shall be kept on file at all times and available for inspection by Commission representatives or students. Any change or termination of the agreements shall be disclosed promptly to all affected students. No representation shall be made by a licensed institution that its credits can be transferred to another specific institution, unless the institution has a current, valid articulation agreement on file. Units or credits applied toward the award of a credential may be derived from a combination of any or all of the following: Units or credits earned at and transferred from other postsecondary institutions, when congruent and applicable to the receiving institution's program and when validated and confirmed by the receiving institution. Successful completion of challenge examinations or standardized tests demonstrating learning at the credential level in specific subject matter areas. Prior learning, as validated, evaluated, and confirmed by qualified instructors at the receiving institution. * * * (11) An institution is responsible for ensuring compliance with this rule by any person or company contracted with or employed by the institution to act on its behalf in matters of advertising, recruiting, or otherwise making representations which may be accessed by prospective students, whether verbally, electronically, or by other means of communication. Fla. Admin. Code R. 6E-1.0032 (July 23, 2007)(emphasis added). As a duly licensed, accredited, Board-approved massage school, FCNH was, at all relevant times, authorized to evaluate the transferability of credits to FCNH from other massage schools, so that credits earned elsewhere——including from schools that were not Board-approved——could be applied toward the award of a diploma from FCNH. In making such an evaluation, FCNH was obligated to follow the standards for transfer of credit that the Board had established by rule.4/ Further, when exercising its discretion to accept transfer credits, FCNH was required to complete, sign, and attach to the student's transcript the Board's Transfer of Credit Form, by which the school's dean or registrar certified that the student's previously earned credits, to the extent specified, were acceptable in lieu of the student's taking courses at FCNH. At all relevant times, FCNH's registrar was Glenda Johnson. As registrar, Ms. Johnson had apparent authority, at a minimum, to evaluate the transferability of credits, and she possessed actual authority to generate and execute the Transfer of Credit Form certifying to the Board that an applicant's previously earned credits were acceptable to FCNH. In December 2011, an individual with the National Certification Board for Therapeutic Massage and Bodywork ("NCB") placed a telephone call to Melissa Wade, a managerial employee of FCNH, to report that the NCB had received a number of applications to sit for the National Certification Examination from FCNH graduates whose transcripts seemed irregular. (Hao's application was not among these; she had taken, and passed, a national licensing examination in February 2010.) What these applicants had in common was that they had earned their massage therapy diplomas from Royal Irvin College in Monterey Park, California, and they had fewer credit hours on their transcripts than FCNH's typical students. The NCB sent copies of the suspicious credentials to FCNH. Ms. Wade reviewed the materials and detected purported anomalies in them. She was unable to find records in the school's files confirming that the putative graduates in question had been enrolled as students. Ms. Wade confronted Ms. Johnson with the problematic transcripts and certificates. Ms. Johnson admitted that she had created and signed them. Shortly thereafter, in December 2011, FCNH terminated Ms. Johnson's employment. Ms. Wade later notified the Board that some of FCNH's diplomates might not have fulfilled the requirements for graduation. This caused the Department to launch an investigation, with which FCNH fully cooperated. The investigation uncovered some 200 graduates whose credentials FCNH could not confirm. One of them was Hao. Hao was born in China and at some point immigrated to the United States. In 2007 Hao studied massage therapy at Acupuncture and Massage Institute of America ("AMIA") in Hacienda Heights, California. At AMIA, Hao successfully completed a 750-hour curriculum in massage therapy, graduating on December 18, 2007. Thereafter, Hao relocated to Florida intending to work as a massage therapist. Before she could begin working, however, Hao needed to obtain a Florida license. Because AMIA was not a Board-approved massage school, Hao needed to complete either a course of study at an approved school or, alternatively, an apprenticeship program. In June 2010, Hao went to the Pompano campus of FCNH, where she met with Ms. Johnson. Hao decided to enroll in FCNH, and Ms. Johnson prepared the necessary documents. Hao gave Ms. Johnson copies of her educational credentials from AMIA. In her capacity as registrar, Ms. Johnson completed a Transfer of Credit Form, and FCNH's internal Calculation Form for a Graduate From Another Massage Therapy School. Ms. Johnson took Hao's FCNH enrollment forms and collected $400.00 in cash as the fee for handling the transfer of Hao's credits and her registration as a student of FCNH. Having collected the money, Ms. Johnson furnished Respondent with several items, including an FCNH document titled "Certificate of Completion — 15 Hours of Therapeutic Massage Training Program (Transfer of Licensure)" that bore Ms. Johnson's signature and the school's seal; an FCNH document titled "Certificate of Completion — 2 Hours of Prevention of Medical Errors," which bore FCNH's seal, as well as Ms. Johnson's signature; the Transfer of Credit Form signed by Ms. Johnson, which indicates that FCNH accepted Hao's credits from AMIA; and an FCNH transcript (signed by Ms. Johnson and bearing the school's seal) showing that Hao had completed a 500- hour program titled "Therapeutic Massage Training Program (Transfer of Licensure)." Collectively, the credit transfer form, the FCNH certificates, and the FCNH transcript "signify satisfactory completion of the requirements of an educational or career program of study or training or course of study" and constitute a "diploma" within the meaning of that term as defined in section 1005.02(8), Florida Statutes. The several documents comprising Hao's FCNH diploma will be referred to hereafter, collectively, as the "Diploma." Ms. Johnson produced a Department of Health application for a massage therapy license and helped Hao fill it out. Hao then signed the three-page application, which is dated June 17, 2010. The application which Hao executed states, truthfully, that she obtained a massage therapy certificate in December of 2007 from AMIA and that the school is not Board approved. The application states, correctly, that Hao completed 750 hours of study at AMIA. The evidence does not establish that Hao knowingly made a false statement of material fact in the application or otherwise intended to perpetrate a fraud on the Department. Ms. Johnson forwarded Hao's application and supporting documents to the Department, and soon afterward the Department issued Hao a license to practice as a massage therapist. The evidence fails to support a finding that Hao misrepresented her educational attainments when she met with Ms. Johnson. The evidence, moreover, does not support a finding that Hao knew or should have known that Ms. Johnson's evaluation of her credits was anything but routine and in accordance with FCNH's academic policies. The evidence does not support a finding that Hao knew or should have known that FCNH, as the transferee school accepting her AMIA courses, would award her academic credit or credentials which she had not legitimately earned. Hao was not shown to have had any prior familiarity with FCNH forms and documents; its recordkeeping practices; or its internal policies regarding the registration and enrollment of students, the evaluation of transcripts for the purpose of transfer of credits, or the issuance of certificates and other educational credentials. Hao was not shown to have had any reason to suspect that the FCNH Enrollment Agreement she signed would not be properly entered into the school's records, or to believe that the FCNH transcript issued for her benefit purported to award her any credits other than those she rightfully had earned. To sum up Hao's transaction with FCNH, she went to the Board-approved, state-licensed massage school in June 2010, where she met with the registrar, Ms. Johnson, a member of the school's administration who she had no reason to believe would deceive her. It was reasonable under the circumstances for Hao to rely upon Ms. Johnson, and she was entitled under the law to receive accurate information from the registrar regarding, among other things, the transferability of credits to FCNH, and the relationship between FCNH's academic program and the state's licensure requirements for massage therapists. Further, Ms. Johnson, who at all times was acting within the course and scope of her employment as the school's registrar, had actual authority to prepare and certify educational credentials on behalf of FCNH. The evidence does not establish that Hao was or should have been aware of any limitations on Ms. Johnson's authority, nor does the evidence show that Hao gave Ms. Johnson false information. From Hao's perspective, Ms. Johnson had apparent authority, at least, to accept Hao's credits from AMIA and to prepare, execute, and issue such transcripts and certificates as would be appropriate to the situation. Hao has not surrendered her Diploma or otherwise acceded to the allegation that the credentials FCNH conferred upon her are invalid. FCNH has not initiated a legal proceeding to revoke or withdraw Hao's Diploma. At present, therefore, there is no legally binding or enforceable determination that the Diploma is void or that Hao is without rights and privileges thereunder.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Massage Therapy enter a final order finding Hao not guilty of the offenses charged in the Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of August, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 20th day of August, 2013.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent engaged in sexual misconduct in the practice of massage therapy, in violation of section 480.0485, Florida Statutes; engaged in improper sexual activity, in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B7-26.010; or failed to appropriately drape a client, in violation of section 480.046(1)(i); and, if so, what is the appropriate sanction.
Findings Of Fact The Department, Board of Massage Therapy, is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of massage therapy within the state of Florida, pursuant to section 20.43 and chapters 456 and 480, Florida Statutes. Mr. Pruneda is a licensed massage therapist within the state of Florida, having been issued license number MA 63779. Mr. Pruneda's current address and address of record is 18 Walcott Drive, Boynton Beach, Florida 33426. On or about November 13, 2016, Mr. Pruneda was employed at Shanti Ohm Spa at 321 Northeast Second Avenue, Delray Beach, Florida 33444. On or about November 13, 2016, Patient L.G., a 29-year- old female, received a massage from Mr. Pruneda. Patient L.G. had received massages about 20 times before, and had received a massage from Mr. Pruneda on one prior occasion. The spa was normally closed on Sundays, but Patient L.G. called and requested massage appointments for massages for herself and her fiancé for Sunday, November 13, 2016. Mr. Pruneda testified that when an appointment for a massage is made, the receptionist gives the names of the massage therapists and the patient chooses among them. However, Patient L.G. testified that she did not request Mr. Pruneda. In any event, the spa made special arrangements for Mr. Pruneda and another massage therapist to come in to the spa on that Sunday. On November 13, 2016, Patient L.G. said that after filling out some paperwork, Mr. Pruneda came into the reception area and that was when she first learned he would be her massage therapist. Before the massage began, Patient L.G. disrobed and lay face-down on the massage table and covered herself with a large draping. Patient L.G. was wearing her underwear but no bra. Patient L.G. testified that at the beginning of the massage, Mr. Pruneda spent an excessive amount of time massaging the backs of her legs and that the strokes were coming very close to her buttocks, making her feel uncomfortable. After he moved on to her lower back, the massage went quickly, and she said that she remembered wishing he would spend more time on her back. After her back, he massaged her arms. Then Mr. Pruneda asked Patient L.G. to turn over onto her back, and Patient L.G. complied. Patient L.G. credibly testified that when she turned over, Mr. Pruneda did not avert his eyes and that he then failed to properly drape her, so she had to cover her breasts with the blanket herself. She did not give consent for him to leave her undraped. Patient L.G. testified that Mr. Pruneda again spent an excessive amount of time massaging the tops of her legs and that she felt his hand going under the strap of her underwear. She testified that he then moved her underwear aside and touched her genital area. She testified that she told him "no, no, no, no." She said that her eyes were closed and that she was in shock and fear. Patient L.G. testified that he had his hand on her shoulder and said to her, "If you say no it is no, if you say yes it is yes." She said that he did not try to improperly touch her again. She said that she felt uncomfortable and she adjusted the blanket. She testified that Mr. Pruneda continued the massage on her arms, up to the top, and then massaged her shoulders. Patient L.G. did not give informed consent for Mr. Pruneda to remove the draping from her breasts. Patient L.G. did not give informed consent for Mr. Pruneda to adjust or remove her underwear. Mr. Pruneda agreed that he had performed a massage on Patient L.G. on one prior occasion, but his testimony was otherwise contrary to that of Patient L.G.'s in every relevant aspect. He denied that he exposed Patient L.G's breasts, failed to appropriately drape her breasts, pulled aside her underwear, or touched her genital area. He testified that he simply performed a deep tissue massage with the appropriate level of care and professionalism. Mr. J.N., Patient L.G.'s fiancé, testified that although he and Patient L.G. each had an appointment for a 60-minute massage, his massage was completed first, and he had to wait for 10 to 15 minutes for his fiancé to complete hers. He said that when she came out, he noticed discomfort on her face and asked her if everything was okay. She replied that it was. On the way home, he asked her two more times if everything was okay, receiving the same response. He testified that when they had almost arrived at the house, she finally told him that she had been the victim of sexual misconduct. Patient L.G. confirmed this account, explaining that she said nothing to her fiancé in response to his questioning until they were close to the house to avoid an incident at the spa. Patient L.G. testified that after she returned to the house, she called the spa to report what had happened and, a couple of days later, also contacted the police. Mr. Pruneda introduced Exhibit R-3, a "Square Sales List" from Shanti Ohm Spa, which contained entries dated November 13, 2016, showing a tip of $20 from Patient L.G. to "Jorge," and a tip of $20 from J.N. to his therapist. The list also shows a single line drawn through the tip of $20 from Patient L.G. There was speculation at hearing that this was because the tip was later returned to Patient L.G., but no evidence from spa personnel was offered to explain the entries on the list. Mr. Pruneda argues that Patient L.G. would not have left a tip had she actually been sexually assaulted. Patient L.G. admitted at hearing that she did leave a $20 tip for Mr. Pruneda. She stated that she believed if she failed to do so, her fiancé would realize something was wrong and that she wished to avoid an incident while at the spa. Mr. Pruneda introduced into evidence a copy of a November 14, 2016, posting from a social media internet site belonging to a business specializing in cosmetic makeovers. The document showed Patient L.G. after a cosmetic makeover and contained her comment stating, "Thank you so much . . . I had so much fun today and feel amazing!! Off to rock this photo shoot thanks to you ladies!!" While Mr. Pruneda argues that this social media posting showed that Patient L.G.'s attitude on November 14, 2016, was completely inconsistent with that of a person who had actually suffered a sexual assault on the previous day, this argument is not accepted. Patient L.G. admitted the posting, but explained that the appointment had been made some time before, could not be rescheduled, and that she was obliged to go on with the session in order to meet deadlines for her upcoming wedding. Both the original and the Amended Administrative Complaint also charged that Mr. Pruneda touched Patient L.G.'s breasts without her consent. Further, Ms. Mason, expert witness of Petitioner, testified by deposition, based in part upon her review of the administrative report that had been prepared, that she was of the opinion that Mr. Pruneda's improper touching of Patient L.G.'s breasts constituted sexual misconduct. Yet at hearing, no evidence of Mr. Pruneda improperly touching or trying to massage Patient L.G.'s breasts was presented.1/ At that time, Patient L.G., the only person who could have made such an accusation, testified: Q: Did Mr. Pruneda ever try to massage anywhere on your chest? A: He was massaging my shoulder area. But no. Patient L.G. testified that after the incident, she was very upset for a very long time. Mr. J.N. testified that Patient L.G. felt nervous and had breakdowns. He testified that their relationship had changed a little bit, but that they were working to make it better and improve it going forward. Patient L.G.'s testimony as to the events that took place at the Shanti Ohm Spa on November 13, 2016, was precise, clear, and convincing. Ms. Mason credibly testified that she was familiar with the standards of practice of massage therapists in Florida and that the failure to properly drape a patient without express permission falls below those standards. Mr. Pruneda was fired from Shanti Ohm Spa.2/ He was restricted from the practice of massage therapy on female patients and, at the time of hearing, was no longer working as a massage therapist. Ms. Escalas testified that she has been married to Mr. Pruneda for 20 years and had been with him several years before they were married. She testified that the charges against him have damaged their lives and that it has been shameful to have to admit that he was being investigated. She testified that he was now working in a cleaning company, and eventually, would be working at a shower door company, but was making less money than he made as a massage therapist. Ms. Lima testified that although Mr. Pruneda is not her biological father, he has been just like her father for 20 years. She said that he has always demonstrated high values as a person and that he has never acted badly in all of that time. She testified that the accusations have greatly damaged the family. Mr. Pruneda has been licensed as a massage therapist for 30 years. Mr. Pruneda has never had any prior discipline imposed in connection with his massage therapy license. The case management system of the Clerk and Comptroller of Palm Beach County, Florida, contains no record of felony, criminal traffic, or misdemeanor charges involving Mr. Pruneda.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Massage Therapy enter a final order finding Jorge L. Pruneda in violation of sections 480.0485 and 480.046(1)(i) and rule 64B7-26.010; imposing a fine of $3,500; revoking his license to practice massage therapy; and imposing costs of investigation and prosecution. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of November, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of November, 2017.
The Issue Did Respondent, Jianping Liu, L.M.T. (Ms. Liu), induce patients N.D. and J.H. to engage in sexual activity or engage in sexual activity outside the scope of practice or the scope of generally accepted examination or treatment? Did Ms. Liu massage patient N.D. at a location not licensed as a massage establishment and without exemption? Did sexual misconduct occur in Respondent, Queen Spa, Inc.’s (Queen Spa), massage establishment? Did Queen Spa’s backpage.com and anyitem.org advertisements induce or attempt to induce, or engage or attempt to engage, clients in unlawful sexual misconduct? Did Queen Spa fail to include its license number in its backpage.com and anyitem.com advertisements?
Findings Of Fact Section 20.43 and chapters 456 and 464, Florida Statutes, charge the Department with licensing and regulation of massage therapy. At all times material to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Ms. Liu was a licensed massage therapist in the State of Florida. She holds license MA 68834. At all times material to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Queen Spa was a licensed massage therapy establishment in the State of Florida. It holds license MM 32567 registered at 10915 Bonita Beach Road, Unit 1121, Bonita Springs, Florida 34135, and license MM 32546 registered at 51 9th Street South, Naples, Florida 34102. Patient N.D. was a criminal investigation detective for the narcotics and vice division of Lee County Sheriff’s Office. On March 27, 2014, N.D., as part of an undercover investigation, scheduled an appointment for a massage at Ms. Liu’s home, 9951 Utah Street, Bonita Springs, Florida 34135. During the massage, Ms. Liu touched N.D.’s penis and asked if he wanted it massaged. N.D. offered an additional $50.00 tip and Ms. Liu began masturbating his penis. Ms. Liu was charged with prostitution. On April 30, 2014, Ms. Liu entered into a deferred prosecution agreement with the Lee County State Attorney’s Office. Ms. Liu’s home on Utah Street has a home occupational license issued by the city for a massage therapy administration office. It is not a licensed massage establishment. J.H. is a police officer in the crime suppression unit for the City of Naples, Florida. On May 9, 2014, the Naples Police Department began investigating Ms. Liu’s massage parlor. On July 24, 2014, J.H., as part of an undercover investigation, scheduled a massage appointment with Ms. Liu at the Queen Spa in Naples. After the massage, J.H. gave Ms. Liu a $20.00 tip and she gave him a separate business card. She explained this card was for “special customers” and had a different phone number than her regular card. J.H. scheduled a second massage for July 29, 2014. At some point near the end of that massage, J.H. asked if Ms. Liu offered special or extra services. Ms. Liu replied by asking if he was trouble or a cop. J.H. asked how much it would cost, but Ms. Liu did not take additional payment. Ms. Liu then began masturbating J.H.’s penis until he ejaculated. Ms. Liu contends that penis manipulation is part of a “full body” massage. But she testified during the hearing that this was an additional service to the full body massage. Further, she testified that she only conducted each “extra service,” because J.H. and N.D. requested it. This establishes that masturbation was not part of the massage. It was a sexual service. Testimony of the expert witness Jennifer Mason also proves this fact. Backpage.com is a classified advertising website that contains listings explicitly for prostitution. The adult entertainment section of backpage.com is linked to the majority of the Naples police investigations into prostitution. Ms. Liu posted ads for Queen Spa on backpage.com and anyitem.org. The backpage.com ad titled “erotic pleasure” was listed in the adult services section. The anyitem.org ad titled “erotic pleasure” was listed in the escort section. Ms. Liu contends the postings did not advertise sexual services and that the application on her phone mistranslated the word erotic from Mandarin to English. However, the character of backpage.com and posting the advertisements as adult services, rather than as massage services, supports the conclusion the postings advertised sexual activities. The backpage.com and anyitem.com advertisements did not include the license number of Queen Spa. Touching of the genitalia is not within the scope of a full body massage. Stimulation of the genital area is considered sexual misconduct. It is not part of an ethical massage. There is no therapeutic value to massaging a client’s penis. Sexual innuendo or stimulation is a problem in massage therapy. The industry has worked to remove it from the practice to create a safe and therapeutic environment. Training of massage therapists requires them to “decline, leave the room, terminate the massage” when sexual stimulation is requested by a patient. When discussing “extra services,” Ms. Liu told J.H. about her friend who got into trouble after performing certain acts and that the friend had lost her license; “no license, no job”. Ms. Liu engaged in sexual misconduct with J.H. just three months after she signed a deferred prosecution agreement disposing of the Lee County charges.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Department of Health, Board of Massage Therapy, enter a final order: finding that Respondent, Jianping Liu, L.M.T., violated sections 480.0485 and 480.046(1)(o), Florida Statutes; revoking her license; requiring the payment of an administrative fines in the amount of $2,750.00; and awarding costs for the investigation and prosecution of this case to the Department. Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is also RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Department of Health, Board of Massage Therapy, enter a final order: finding that Respondent, Queen Spa, Inc., violated sections 480.046(1)(e) and 480.0465, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B7-26.010; revoking its license; requiring the payment of an administrative fine in the amount of $4,000.00; and awarding costs for the investigation and prosecution of this case to the Department. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of October, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II 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 2nd day of October, 2015.
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent engaged in sexual misconduct in the practice of massage therapy, in violation of provisions of Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B7- 26.010 and sections 480.046(1)(o) and 480.0485, Florida Statutes; and, if so, what is the appropriate sanction.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Health, Board of Massage Therapy, is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of massage therapy in the state of Florida, pursuant to section 20.43 and chapters 456 and 480, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this proceeding, Ms. Xu was a licensed massage therapist in the state of Florida, holding license number MA56426. During all times relevant to the complaint, Ms. Xu was employed by Massage Elite, located at 800 East Hallandale Beach Boulevard in Hallandale Beach, Florida. On November 22, 2010, Officer F.C., working in an undercover capacity with Officer C.T., went to Massage Elite, where they were greeted by Ms. Xu, who introduced herself as Diana. Ms. Xu stated that a one-hour full body massage was $70.00. They each paid, and Officer F.C. was taken to a separate room and told to disrobe and lie face down. Minutes later, Ms. Xu came into the room and began a massage. After some time, Ms. Xu asked Officer F.C. to turn over. After he did so, Ms. Xu began touching Officer F.C. on his penis, asking, "Do you want me to massage this?" Officer F.C. asked her, "How much?" Ms. Xu replied, "Sixty dollars." Officer F.C. said he only had $30.00, and Ms. Xu replied, "No, not for thirty, maybe next time." The massage was then completed. On November 23, 2010, Officer F.C. returned to Massage Elite. Other arrests were made at that time, but Ms. Xu was not on the premises. On November 30, 2010, Officer F.C. returned to Massage Elite with Officer R.A. He asked for Diana, and they called her from the back. Ms. Xu came in. Officer F.C. made a positive identification, based upon her appearance, that Ms. Xu was the same woman who had earlier introduced herself to him as Diana, and had given him the massage. She was placed under arrest. Ms. Xu's contrary testimony, to the effect that she was not at work on November 22, 2010, that she had never seen Officer F.C. before November 30, 2010, is not credible, and is rejected. Ms. Wei Zhou, Ms. Xu's daughter, testified through deposition that she came to Florida for Thanksgiving in 2010, and that her mother stayed with her the entire time in a hotel. She said she could not remember exactly when she was there or if she arrived before or after Thanksgiving Day. At another point in her testimony, she said she arrived around the 19th or 20th of November. She said she couldn't remember if her grandmother traveled with her or not. She indicated that she did not know what kind of work her mother did. Her testimony, to the extent it was intended to establish that Ms. Xu did not work at Massage Elite on November 22, 2010, was not credible. Her vague account of events did not cast doubt on Officer F.C.'s clear and convincing testimony. As noted in the deposition testimony of Ms. Jennifer Mason, there is no reason for a licensed massage therapist to ever touch the genitalia of a patient. Officer F.C. paid for a massage, and Ms. Xu began to give him a massage. She was governed by the requirements of the massage therapist-patient relationship. Ms. Xu's actions on November 22, 2010, were outside the scope of generally accepted treatment of massage therapy patients. Ms. Xu used the massage therapist-patient relationship to attempt to induce Officer F.C. to engage in sexual activity and to attempt to engage him in sexual activity. Ms. Xu engaged in sexual misconduct in the practice of massage therapy. There is no evidence that Ms. Xu has ever had any prior discipline imposed against her license.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health, Board of Massage Therapy, enter a final order finding Ms. Ranjie Xu in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B7-26.010 and section 480.0485, Florida Statutes, constituting grounds for discipline under section 480.046(1)(o), Florida Statutes; revoking her license to practice massage therapy; imposing a fine of $1000.00; and imposing costs of investigation and prosecution. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of April, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of April, 2017.
