Findings Of Fact Respondent Michael Harris is a licensed cosmetologist having been issued license number CL 0104278. However, respondent's license has not been current from July 1, 1982 through at least July 24, 1984. Prior to April 13, 1983, respondent acquired and began operating Northwood Barber Shop, a cosmetology salon located at 513 Northwood Road, West Palm Beach, Florida. However, respondent never obtained a cosmetology salon license to operate at the location and did not obtain a barber shop license from the Florida Barbers Board to operate at that location until December 2, 1983. On or about April 13, 1983, respondent was operating Northwood Barber Shop. In addition, on or about April 13, 1983, respondent himself was practicing cosmetology and holding himself to be a cosmetologist without being duly licensed as a cosmetologist. After December 2, 1983, respondent was lawfully operating the Northwood Barber Shop, having been issued a barber shop license by the Florida Barbers Board. However, on June 14, 1984, respondent again was practicing cosmetology and holding himself out to be a cosmetologist without being duly licensed. Respondent did not raise or prove as a defense that he was licensed as a barber by the Florida Barbers Board on either April 13, 1983 or Jun 14, 1984. On the contrary, respondent's admissions to petitioner's inspector on those dates and other occasions affirmatively suggest that respondent was not licensed as a barber.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that the Board of Cosmetology impose upon respondent Michael Harris an administrative fine in the amount of $500.00. Recommended this 4th day of September, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of September, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore R. Gay, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Michael Harris 513 Northwood Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33407 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Myrtle S. Aase, Executive Director Board of Cosmetology 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent committed the allegations contained in the Amended Administrative Complaint and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Department and the Board of Massage Therapy ("Board") have regulatory jurisdiction over licensed massage therapists such as Respondent. The Department furnishes investigative services to the Board and is authorized to file and prosecute an administrative complaint, as it has done in this instance, when cause exists to suspect that a licensee has committed one or more disciplinable offenses. On March 13, 2007, the Department issued Respondent license number MA 49800, which authorized her to practice massage therapy in the state of Florida. With the exception of the instant proceeding, Respondent's license has not been the subject of prior disciplinary action. Respondent's Training and Application for Licensure Respondent was born in China and, at all times relevant to this proceeding, was a citizen of China. Respondent ultimately immigrated to the United States (the record is silent as to the date) and, on July 6, 2007, enrolled at Royal Irvin College ("Royal Irvin"), an institution located in Monterey Park, California, that offered massage therapy instruction. Some five months later, upon Respondent's successful completion of a course of study comprising 500 hours, Royal Irvin awarded her a degree. Subsequently, on February 26, 2007, Respondent passed the National Certification Examination for Therapeutic Massage and Bodywork. At or around that time, Respondent relocated to south Florida in pursuit of employment as a massage therapist. From what can be gleaned from the record, it seems that the owner of a massage studio, Ming Goa, informed Respondent that she required a Florida license to be eligible for hire. Owing to the fact that Royal Irvin was not a Board-approved massage school, Respondent needed to complete a course of study at an approved institution or, alternatively, an apprenticeship program. On or about March 5, 2007, and at the apparent suggestion of Mr. Goa, Respondent traveled to the Fort Lauderdale campus of the Florida College of Natural Health ("FCNH"), a Board-approved massage school. On that occasion, Respondent met with FCNH's registrar, Glenda Johnson, to discuss the steps necessary to obtain a Florida license. The particulars of Respondent's dealings with Ms. Johnson and Respondent's subsequent application for licensure are discussed shortly; first, though, a description of FCNH——and its responsibilities under Florida law——is in order. FCNH, an incorporated nonpublic postsecondary educational entity, 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 (2012).3/ 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, Florida Statutes. 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- (Aug. 16, 1998), which provided in relevant 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. (emphasis added). 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.4/ Regarding these required practices, section 1005.04, Florida Statutes (2007), 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; * * * 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. . . . 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. * * * (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.5/ 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. Returning to the events at hand, Respondent met with Ms. Johnson, FCNH's registrar, on March 5, 2007. Notably, it has not been shown that Ms. Johnson lacked the authority to create official diplomas and transcripts on behalf of FCNH; on the contrary, the greater weight of the evidence establishes that Ms. Johnson possessed the actual authority, on that date and at all relevant times, to generate such records.6/ The meeting, which took place on a weekday during normal business hours, was held in Ms. Johnson's office——located on the first floor of a multi-story building on FCNH's Fort Lauderdale campus. Upon Respondent's arrival (at the main entrance), a receptionist summoned Ms. Johnson, who, a few minutes later, appeared in the lobby and escorted Respondent to her office. During the meeting that ensued, Respondent advised Ms. Johnson (with her limited English skills) that she was a recent graduate of Royal Irvin and that she wished to obtain licensure in Florida as a massage therapist. Ms. Johnson immediately telephoned Royal Irvin, spoke with an employee of that institution, and requested that Respondent's records be faxed to FCNH. It appears that the Royal Irvin records were furnished a short time later, at which point Ms. Johnson informed Respondent, erroneously, that her existing coursework was sufficient for licensure and that she could simply transfer her previously-earned credits to FCNH. All Respondent needed to do, Ms. Johnson incorrectly explained, was study FCNH-prepared materials concerning the Florida rules and statutes relevant to massage therapy. Significantly, Ms. Johnson also informed Respondent——again, incorrectly——that her Royal Irvin credits satisfied the requirement that a Florida applicant complete two hours of board-approved coursework relating to the prevention of medical errors.7/ As their March 5, 2007, meeting wound to a close, Ms. Johnson escorted Respondent to FCNH's library, which was located on the second floor of the same building. Respondent examined the materials that had been provided to her until roughly 5:00 p.m., at which time Ms. Johnson advised her to return the following morning "to study for another day." Ms. Johnson also instructed Respondent bring funds to cover the licensure application fee and FCNH's tuition. As instructed, Respondent returned the next morning to FCNH's library, where she continued her studies until mid-to late-afternoon. At that point, Ms. Johnson had Respondent sign an application for a Florida massage therapy license, wherein Respondent truthfully disclosed, among other things, that she had completed 500 hours of study at Royal Irvin; that Royal Irvin was not approved by the Board; and that she had not attended an apprenticeship program. Upon her collection of the license application fee (as well as "tuition" for FCNH——more on this in a moment), Ms. Johnson furnished Respondent with a portfolio that contained several items, including an FCNH document titled "Certificate of Completion – Therapeutic Massage Training Program (Transfer of Licensure)" that bore Ms. Johnson's signature. In the days that followed, Ms. Johnson furnished Respondent's application for licensure to the Department. The application was accompanied by various supporting documents, which included: the "Certificate of Completion" identified in the preceding paragraph of this Order; a "Transfer of Credit Form" signed by Ms. Johnson, which indicates that FCNH accepted Respondent's credits from Royal Irvin, and, further, that Respondent's coursework at Royal Irvin included two credit hours involving the prevention of medical errors and three credit hours relating to HIV/AIDS; an FCNH transcript (signed by Ms. Johnson and bearing the school's seal) showing that Respondent had completed a 500-hour program titled "Therapeutic Massage Training Program (Transfer of Licensure)"; Respondent's transcript from Royal Irvin; and a copy of Respondent's national certification as a massage therapist. Subsequently, on March 13, 2007, the Department notified Respondent that her application had been granted and that she would be mailed her license in four to six weeks. Six weeks came and went without a license, at which point Respondent contacted the Department and learned that certain documentation was missing. Unsure of what records the Department still required, Respondent contacted Ms. Johnson, who, in turn, furnished the Department with an FCNH document titled "Certificate of Completion – 2 Hours of Prevention of Medical Errors." This certificate bore FCNH's seal, as well as Ms. Johnson's signature. 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. (These documents, which Respondent's FCNH diploma comprises, will be referred to hereafter, collectively, as the "Diploma.") Although the Department seeks to characterize the issuance of Respondent's license as a "mistake" on its part, such a contention is refuted by the final hearing testimony of Anthony Jusevitch, the executive director of the Board. Mr. Jusevitch testified, credibly, that Respondent's application materials contained no facial irregularities or flaws that would have justified a denial: Q. Okay. Now, based on both your experience, and your review of this application file, is there anything in that application file that you would see that would be an apparent error or omission in this file? A. No, there's nothing in this file that's an apparent error or omission. Final Hearing Transcript, p. 20. Subsequent Events In December 2011, an individual with the National Certification Board for Therapeutic Massage and Bodywork ("NCB") placed a telephone call to Melissa Wade, an FCNH managerial employee, to report that the NCB had received a number of applications to sit for the National Certification Examination (which the NCB administers) from FCNH graduates whose transcripts seemed irregular. What these applicants had in common was that they had earned their massage therapy diplomas from Royal Irvin, and that the same member of FCNH's administration——i.e., Ms. Johnson——had accepted their transfer credits. The NCB sent copies of the suspicious credentials to FCNH. Ms. Wade reviewed the materials and detected some 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, who admitted that she had created and signed the problematic certificates, but denied——untruthfully, at least with respect to her dealings with Respondent——ever having taken money for doing so. (Ms. Johnson provided the rather dubious explanation that she had been merely trying to "help" people.) Ms. Johnson's employment with FCNH was terminated a short time later. Thereafter, Ms. Wade notified the Department 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 cooperated. The investigation uncovered approximately 220 graduates, including Respondent, whose credentials FCNH could not confirm. At present, Respondent has neither surrendered her Diploma, nor has she otherwise acceded to the allegation that the credentials FCNH conferred upon her are invalid. Although the evidence demonstrates that Ms. Johnson should not have awarded Respondent an FCNH Diploma (because, among other reasons, Respondent had not completed two hours of board- approved coursework in the area of medical error prevention), there is no evidence that FCNH has initiated a legal proceeding to revoke or withdraw Respondent's Diploma. At present, therefore, there is no legally binding or enforceable determination that the Diploma is void or that Respondent is without rights and privileges thereunder. Further, and just as important, it has not been shown that Respondent provided Ms. Johnson (or any other FCNH employee) with false information, nor does the evidence support a finding that Respondent knew or should have known that Ms. Johnson's issuance of the Diploma was anything but routine and in accordance with FCNH's academic policies. Under the circumstances, it was entirely reasonable for Respondent to rely upon Ms. Johnson's representations, as Respondent was entitled under the law to receive accurate information from FCNH concerning, among other things, the transferability of credits to FCNH, as well as the relationship between FCNH's academic program and the state's licensure requirements for massage therapists.
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 not guilty of the offenses charged in the Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of August, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S EDWARD T. BAUER 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 6th day of August, 2013.
Findings Of Fact Mr. R. H. Carswell, the Respondent, is the owner-operator and manager of Carswell's Marina Barber Shop, City Marina, Panama City, Florida. The subject shop has a sign denoting the fact that there is a beauty shop and a barber shop in the building. (a) A floor plan has been submitted to the Florida State Board of Barbers' Sanitary Commission as required by Section 472.24(6), Florida Statutes, to partition a barber shop section from a beauty shop section. No approval of said plan has been issued in writing. A plexiglass partition separates the barber area from the cosmetology area. There was a person working in subject barber shop who is a licensed cosmetologist but is not licensed as a barber. This person has been practicing the art of cosmetology. There are persons working in subject barber shop who are not practicing the art of barbering.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Hae Suk Bornholdt, committed the offense alleged in an Amended Administrative Complaint issued June 12, 2000, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed upon Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Department of Health, Board of Massage Therapy (hereinafter referred to as the "Board"), is the state agency charged with the authority and duty to regulate the practice of massage therapy in the State of Florida. Chapters 20, 456, and 480, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Hae Suk Bornholdt, applied for licensure as a massage therapist in the State of Florida on December 1, 1999. Ms. Bornholdt's application for licensure was approved and she was licensed as a massage therapist in the State of Florida effective December 28, 1999. Respondent's license number is MA 30419. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Ms. Bornholdt was employed by Fame Limited, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Fame"). Fame is located at 4799 North Federal Highway, Boca Raton, Florida. Fame is a massage establishment. On December 2, 1999, an undercover policy investigation was begun of Fame in response to anonymous complaints of sexual activities between massage therapists and male clients of Fame. Robert F. Flechus, a detective with the Boca Raton Police Department, entered Fame posing as a client. Detective Flechus paid $80 for a massage. He was greeted by Ms. Bornholdt, who identified herself as "Tina." Ms. Bornholdt led Detective Flechus to a locker room where he undressed, left his clothes in a locker, and wrapped a towel around himself. Detective Flechus took a sauna and was then led by Ms. Bornholdt to a shower room where he showered. Ms. Bornholdt washed Detective Flechus, including his buttocks, with a sponge. After showering, Ms. Bornholdt led Detective Flechus into a room where she gave him a massage. During the massage, Ms. Bornholdt suggested that Detective Flechus masturbate while she massaged his stomach. When he refused, Ms. Bornholdt took Detective Flechus' hand and attempted to place it on his penis. Detective Flechus immediately pulled his hand away. Ms. Bornholdt then removed the towel that was partially covering Detective Flechus' genitalia and began to stroke his penis. Detective Flechus stopped Ms. Bornholdt and got up off the massage table. Ms. Bornholdt failed to properly drape Detective Flechus when she allowed his penis to be exposed to her during the shower and while he was on the massage table. Ms. Bornholdt was not licensed as a massage therapist on December 2, 1999. Ms. Bornholdt acted as a massage therapist with Detective Flechus and other clients prior to receiving her license on December 28, 1999. Detective Flechus' testimony in this matter was clear, consistent, and credible. Ms. Bornholdt's testimony on the other hand was inconsistent, unconvincing, and not credible.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Board of Massage Therapy finding that Hae Suk Bornholdt committed the offense alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint issued on June 12, 2000; it is further RECOMMENDED that the Board of Massage revoke Ms. Bornholdt's license to practice massage therapy and assess the costs of investigating and prosecuting this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of August, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 16th day of August, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Dennis G. King, Esquire Rudolph C. Campbell, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building 3, Mail Stop 39 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Lawrence K. Fagan, Esquire LaValle, Brown, Ronan & Soff 750 South Dixie Highway Boca Raton, Florida 33432 William H. Buckhalt, Executive Director Board of Massage Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703
The Issue Whether Respondent Sabina Dahlberg's Massage Therapy violated Sections 480.46(1)(k) and 480.043(7), Florida Statutes (1993), whether Respondent Sabina Dahlberg violated Section 480.046(1)(k), Florida Statutes (1993), and if so, what penalties should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Sabina Dahlberg (Dahlberg) holds a massage therapy license from the state of Florida, license number, MA0011128. Dahlberg owns Sabina Dahlberg’s Massage Therapy which holds a massage establishment license from the state of Florida, license number MM004301. In March, 1993, Dahlberg opened a vitamin store, Powerhouse Vitamins, at 732 S. Federal Highway, Dania, Florida. At that time Dahlberg was involved in professional body building and did not provide massage therapy services. Subsequent to the opening of the vitamin store, Dahlberg began to give massages in the rear of the building. There is a neon sign in the front window of the store which says "massages." Dahlberg filed an application with the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (Department) to obtain the necessary license for a massage therapy establishment. The license was issued to Sabina Dahlberg’s Massage Therapy located at the 732 South Federal Highway address. Between August 1993 and March 1994, Dahlberg employed licensed massage therapists Cynthia Williams and Dorothy Martin. Donna Booras, who was then under the apprenticeship of Dorothy Martin, also worked at Dahlberg’s establishment. In August, 1993, Ruth "Debbie" Cerminaro was also working at the establishment known as Powerhouse Vitamins. Ms. Cerminaro had a cosmetology license and was hired to perform facials, body wraps, and body waxing. Ms. Cerminaro did not have a license to give massages. Sometimes Dahlberg’s mother, Ursula Metzler, would help out at the store by answering the telephones and selling vitamins. At one time Ms. Metzler was considering becoming an apprentice in order to obtain a license to practice massage. Dahlberg testified that her mother never performed massages; however the pages from the store’s appointment book indicate that on March 3, 1994, Ursula had two appointments. In each massage room there is a sign which tells the customers, "Don’t even ask" for illegitimate acts. A customer could get a half-hour massage for $25 or a full hour massage for $45. The half-hour massage consisted of massaging the back and the back of the legs. The hour massage consisted of massaging the back, the front and back of the legs, the arms, the chest, and the colon. It was not unusual for customers to leave tips. In 1993 and 1994, Dahlberg had an arrangement with Dr. and Mrs. Spingarn to give the Spingarn’s massage therapy. Mrs. Spingarn had been involved in an accident and was receiving massage therapy as well as pool therapy from Dahlberg. For the most part, Mrs. Spingarn’s therapy was paid through workers’ compensation insurance. Dr. Spingarn was a dentist and at times Dahlberg would provide massage therapy to Dr. Spingarn in exchange for dental services. Dr. Spingarn would be given the massages at his office, the Powerhouse Vitamins’ location, or at his home. Because of the severity of her injuries, Mrs. Spingarn usually received her massage therapy at home, but she had also been given therapy at her husband’s office. When she received therapy at home, Dahlberg would massage her for about one and one-half hours and provide therapy in the swimming pool for about an hour. The home sessions would usually begin in the morning around ten or eleven o’clock and go into the afternoon. Around August 2, 1993, the Broward County Sheriff’s office received information alleging that Dahlberg and other employees at her business had engaged in sexual activity with customers at the business. Detectives Chris Percival (Percival) and Joseph Ventura (Ventura) of the Broward County Sheriff’s Office were assigned to conduct an undercover operation to determine if prostitution was occurring at Dahlberg’s place of business. On August 7, 1993, Ventura went to Powerhouse Vitamins and requested a massage. He was shown to a room in the back of the store, where he removed his clothes and placed a towel around his waist. A female named Debbie entered the massage room and told him to lay on his belly on the massage table. Debbie put lotion on her hands and began to massage Ventura’s back. Halfway through the massage, Ventura asked Debbie if she worked for tips and what could he get for a tip. Debbie wanted to know what he wanted, and he told her that he wanted to be taken care of. She told him to roll over on his back. Debbie wanted to know if Ventura was a cop and he assured her that he was not. Debbie began to rub lotion on his upper leg area. She removed the towel, poured lotion on his groin area, and began to masturbate Ventura. Ventura told her to stop that he was nervous. Debbie stopped and then resumed the back massage. A few minutes later the massage ended. Ventura paid her for the massage, including a tip, and left. On August 10, 1993, Detective Chris Percival (Percival) went to Powerhouse Vitamins for an appointment with Dahlberg for a massage at 4:30 p.m. During the massage, Percival told Dahlberg that he was impotent. About twenty to twenty-five minutes into the massage, Dahlberg applied lotion to her hands and began to masturbate Percival. Percival stopped her and told her that he thought that she had taken care of his problem. He paid her for the massage and included a tip. On August 10, 1993, Dahlberg gave a massage to Pat Spingarn at Mrs. Spingarn’s home. The message session started at ten o’clock and lasted for about one and one-half hours. They broke for lunch and then did pool therapy for an hour. The distance from Mrs. Spingarn’s home to Dahlberg’s establishment is approximately a 45 minute drive. There was sufficient time for Dahlberg to provide therapy to Mrs. Spingarn and return to her business establishment to give a massage to Percival beginning at 4:30 P.M. On the afternoon of March 2, 1994, Percival went to Powerhouse Vitamins for a massage with Sabina at 4:30. Sabina remembered him from his previous visit. Percival was shown to a room in the rear of the building where he disrobed. Sabina came in and began to give him a massage. About half way through the massage, Sabina told Percival to roll over face up. Sabina put a lubricant on her hands and massaged his penis. Once Percival achieved an erection, Sabina stopped. Percival paid her and left. Respondent’s Exhibit Three is a page from the business’s appointment book for March 2, 1994. There is a notation that Sabina was not working that afternoon; however, the notation was written over an erasure that appeared to be an appointment from 4:30 to 5:30 p.m.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that Respondent Sabina Dahlberg’s Massage Therapy is guilty of the violations set forth in Counts I and II of the Administrative Complaint in DOAH Case No. 94-01866 and revoking the massage establishment license of Sabina Dahlberg’s Massage Therapy and that a Final Order be entered finding that Sabina Dahlberg is guilty of the violation set forth in Count I of the Administrative Complaint in DOAH Case No. 96-1991, dismissing Count II of the Administrative Complaint in DOAH Case No. 96- 1991, and revoking the massage therapy license of Sabina Dahlberg. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 29th day of May, 1997. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of May, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Ruby Seymour Barr, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Jerome H. Shevin, Esquire 100 North Biscayne Boulevard, 30th Floor Miami, Florida 33132 Joe Baker, Executive Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue Whether the Barbers' Board should discipline the Respondent (a licensed barber and barbershop) for permitting a person in his employ to practice barbering without a license in violation of Sections 476.204(1)(a) and (h) and 476.194(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1987).
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Bruce Heineman, holds a valid Florida barber license, license number BB-0018489 which was originally issued on May 8, 1968, and has been continuously licensed as a barber since that time. No record of prior disciplinary action appears in Respondent's file. Respondent, Bruce Heineman operates a barbershop under the business name of "Cuttin Corners," located at 3107 South Orlando Drive, #7B, Sanford, Florida 32771. Said barbershop operates under a current valid barbershop license which was originally issued to Respondent on September 9, 1986. Sara Kemmeck, an inspector with the Department, testified that she personally observed an employee of Respondent, Tina Prescott, giving a customer a haircut on August 31, 1988, at his barbership. Upon demand, the employee was unable to produce a valid barbers license. The unrebutted evidence demonstrated that Tina Prescott was engaged in the practice of barbering without a valid license for a minimum of two weeks, while an employee of Respondent. Tina Prescott was issued a cosmetology license on November 7, 1988, license number CL-0174999, which permits her to practice barbering in a licensed barbershop.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Section 476.01(5), Florida Statutes, by employing persons to work as barbers who were unlicensed as barbers. Whether Respondent's license should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended for such alleged violation.
Findings Of Fact A notice of violation was served on Respondent, owner of the University Plaza Barber and Style Salon, charging him with violating Section 476.01(6), Florida Statutes, which statute prohibits any person to hire or employ any person to practice barbering without a valid certificate of registration. The Administrative Complaint served on Respondent charges Respondent: "You have employed unlicensed barbers or apprentices to work as barbers in your shop". The Respondent had people working in his shop not registered as barbers but who were registered as cosmetologists and who were working as cosmetologists. Respondent operates a single shop registered as a barber shop and as a registered cosmetologist shop. He is a licensed barber and a licensed master cosmetologist. At the time of the notice of violation the sign in the front of the shop indicated only barber shop. At the time of hearing the sign indicated barber and beauty salon retain center. At the time of the violation notice Respondent did not have a partition in his shop that separated the barber shop from the area in which the cosmetologists worked. At the time of hearing a partition was in existence. Respondent presently has two barber chairs in one partitioned-off area and an area in which six licensed cosmetologists work. Each partitioned area has a separate door but the shop itself has one door leading into a waiting room.
The Issue The Respondent is charged in a two count amended administrative complaint. Count I alleges a violation of Section 477.029(1)(a) F.S., practicing cosmetology without a current active license. Count II alleges a violation of Sections 477.029(1)(i) and 477.0263(1) F.S., engaging in cosmetology services in areas other than in a licensed cosmetology salon.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of cosmetology. Respondent Cathy Runkle has never been a licensed cosmetologist in the State of Florida. She has learned her hair cutting/trimming skills from books and video tapes borrowed from the public library. At all times material hereto, Cathy's Place, Cathy Runkle, and Cathy's Hair Design have been unlicensed as cosmetology salons. Sometime during "the Christmas holidays" (between December 25, 1990 and January 1, 1991) Respondent, her daughter, and two women friends, one of whom was Mildred Schwarz, were gathered socially at Respondent's home in Daytona, Florida. Because Respondent had just given her daughter an attractive "home permanent" and hair trim, the subject came up of whether or not the four women could start a business doing the same thing for others in their own homes and in the homes of prospective customers. Respondent prepared a sample advertising flyer in pencil on an 8 1/2 by 11-inch piece of paper that read, "Cathy's Hair Designs, Perms $40.00, Cut $10.00, Hair styling in your home." Respondent's name, home address, and telephone number were also on the sample flyer. Mildred Schwarz traced over some of the pencilled lettering on the sample flyer. The next day, Respondent gave a copy of the sample flyer to each of the three other women who had been part of the discussion. She did this so that they could decide if they wanted to be involved in such a project with her. Later during the holiday period, Respondent and her daughter visited another friend, Pam Rendon, in Mrs. Rendon's home, also in Daytona, Florida. Mr. and Mrs. Rendon had been friends of Mr. and Mrs. Runkle for at least two years prior to this occasion. Mrs. Rendon runs a motel which is attached to her home. The office of the motel is also in the home. During this particular visit, a copy of the sample flyer was shown to Mrs. Rendon. Mrs. Rendon cautioned against any such business venture because it was too much hassle for Respondent, a housewife. Mrs. Rendon explained some of the pitfalls of running one's own business, including the need to purchase insurance. When Respondent and her daughter went home, the copy of the flyer brought by Respondent and her daughter was inadvertently left on Mrs. Rendon's office desk. It was never re- copied or distributed at the motel, and it was never even posted on the motel bulletin board. Mr. and Mrs. Rendon testified that it must have been thrown out in the trash. Respondent thought about the proposed project and decided against going into business. Mildred Schwarz confirmed that the business idea was never seriously considered in the first place and that Respondent never approached her about it again. Ms. Schwarz does not know what became of her copy of the flyer. There is also no evidence as to what became of the remaining two copies of the flyer. Respondent never created or distributed any more copies. Petitioner received a copy of the flyer in the mail as part of an anonymous complaint and presented no evidence that other copies were ever publicly circulated by anyone. On one occasion either before or after the creation of the original flyer but still at a time material to the period of March 1, 1990 through March 6, 1991, the dates alleged in the amended administrative complaint, Respondent had a prearranged date for lunch with Mildred Schwarz. When Respondent arrived to pick up Ms. Schwarz at Ms. Schwarz' Daytona, Florida home, Ms. Schwarz asked Respondent to trim her hair. Respondent complied with the request. Later, Ms. Schwarz picked up Respondent's lunch check, but not as a quid pro quo for the hair trim. There is no reasonable monetary correlation between the price of this particular shared meal and the cost of a hair cut as listed on the flyer. In fact, Ms. Schwarz testified that she had "owed" Respondent the meal before and apart from the hair cut. On another occasion, Respondent used a home permanent kit on Ms. Schwarz in Ms. Schwarz' home. Later, Ms. Schwarz also administered a home permanent to Respondent at Respondent's home. Both women apparently followed the directions for laymen included in the kits. These events were a courtesy exchange of favors between the two women without any disparity of cost in the permanent wave kits, which were not purchased from a cosmetology supply house. Neither Respondent nor Ms. Schwarz was ill or incapacitated at any material time. Respondent never held herself out to be a licensed cosmetologist, and Ms. Schwarz never thought she was one. Either before or after the creation of the original flyer, but still at a time material to the dates alleged in the administrative complaint, Respondent trimmed the hair of Pam Rendon and of her husband, Frank Rendon. She did this for each of them on several occasions. The Runkles and the Rendons play tennis together regularly and regularly visit in each others' homes. Respondent often invites herself or is invited by Mrs. Rendon to have coffee and sun herself beside Mrs. Rendon's motel pool. Respondent frequently babysits for Mrs. Rendon. No witness remembers exactly when or how the hair cutting occasions arose but each was spontaneous. Sometimes they occurred during a pick-up lunch when the families were gathered in the Rendons' kitchen. Sometimes they occurred when just Respondent and Mrs. Rendon were together and Mrs. Rendon asked Respondent to "do something" with Mrs. Rendon's hair. Once, at Mrs. Rendon's request, Respondent left what she was doing in her own home and came to Mrs. Rendon's house and "finished" a bad haircut Mrs. Rendon had started on herself. Respondent did not expect to be compensated for her helpfulness. Mrs. Rendon never offered Respondent compensation for her services. Mr. Rendon offered to pay Respondent on at least four separate occasions when she trimmed his hair, and Respondent consistently refused to take any money. Neither Mr. or Mrs. Rendon was ill or incapacitated during any of these events. Respondent never held herself out to be a licensed cosmetologist, and the Rendons never thought she was one. Neither the Schwarz home nor the Rendon home is a licensed cosmetology salon. Petitioner also established that on a single occasion within the time frame of the amended administrative complaint Respondent's husband took her out to dinner at a Daytona, Florida restaurant in exchange for her stopping what she was doing (presumably preparing their dinner) so as to cut and permanent his hair. Respondent's husband knew she was not a licensed cosmetologist. On one other occasion, Respondent had a prearranged social visit with an old friend elsewhere in Florida. The friend telephoned and asked Respondent to buy a home permanent kit on the way. Respondent bought the kit at a Pic'N'Save for approximately $7.00 and used it on the friend when she visited with the friend. After Respondent refused the friend's offer to reimburse her for the permanent wave kit and her gas, the friend secretly slipped a $10.00 bill into Respondent's purse to cover the monies expended by Respondent. The Respondent did not return the $10.00 because she did not look in her purse until she got home. This event occurred during the time frame alleged in the amended administrative complaint. Petitioner also established that at a social luncheon Respondent and other women guests, mostly Respondent's relatives by marriage, did various things to one another's hair. As a result, the bottle of wine and the food which were already on the hostess' table were dedicated to Respondent for her skill and efforts. Petitioner did not affirmatively prove that this event took place in Florida, and therefore jurisdiction of it has not been proven. Petitioner also established that while in New Mexico, Respondent gave her mother a home permanent and trimmed her mother's hair and that Respondent's mother bought Respondent lunch on a quid pro quo basis. New Mexico is outside Petitioner's jurisdiction. Neither of these incidents clearly occurred during the time frame alleged in the amended administrative complaint.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Cosmetology enter a final order dismissing all charges against Respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of May, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of May, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitute specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2) F.S. upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF): Petitioner's PFOF: 1-3, 5-7, 9 Accepted. 4, 8, 10, 15, Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the credible evidence as a whole. 11-14, 17-19 Rejected as stated because not supported by the greater weight of the credible evidence as a whole or rejected as containing legal argument. Covered in FOF 5-11. 16 Accepted that this is a direct quotation from an exhibit but it is out of context and misleading from the greater weight of the credible evidence as a whole. Respondent's PFOF: COUNT I 1-2, 4 Rejected as legal argument. 3 The first sentence is rejected as legal argument. The second sentence is accepted. 5, 10-15 Accepted in substance but otherwise is rejected as incomplete or subordinate or as mere recitation of testimony. Legal argument is also rejected. 6-9 What is not legal argument on credibility issues or is not subordinate to the facts as found has been accepted. COUNT II 1-2 Rejected as legal argument but covered in substance. Copies furnished to: Herbert Runkle 2075 South Halifax Daytona Beach, Florida 32118 Lois B. Lepp, Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Ms. Kaye Howerton, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issues to be determined in this matter are whether Respondent, BBK Florida, LLC, a licensed massage business, allowed an unlicensed person to practice massage therapy; and, if so, what disciplinary action is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of massage therapy in Florida. See § 20.43(3)(g)21., and ch. 456 and 480, Fla. Stat. BBK is a licensed massage business in the state of Florida. BBK operates under the name “BBK Massage Spa” and is located in Ocoee, Florida. The Department brings this action alleging that BBK allowed an unlicensed person to practice massage at its establishment. The Department charges BBK with violating section 480.046(1)(f) and (p), Florida Statutes. Section 480.046(1)(f) prohibits the “[a]iding, assisting, procuring, or advising any unlicensed person to practice massage contrary to the provisions of this chapter or to a rule of the department or the board.” The Department’s allegations focus on the activities of Xiaohui Lu at BBK on January 17, 2017. Ms. Lu is not, nor has she ever been, licensed to practice massage in the state of Florida. At the final hearing, the Department presented the testimony of Amy Harmon, a Department Investigation Specialist. Ms. Harmon has served as an Investigation Specialist since 2010. She conducts approximately 700 to 1,000 investigations a year. Ms. Harmon inspects several different types of businesses including massage facilities, optical establishments, and pain management institutions. Her goal is to inspect each business for which she is responsible at least once a year. Ms. Harmon explained that the primary reason for inspecting massage establishments is to safeguard the public against health risks. As stated in section 480.033(3), “massage” involves: [T]he manipulation of the soft tissues of the human body with the hand, foot, arm, or elbow, whether or not such manipulation is aided by hydrotherapy, including colonic irrigation, or thermal therapy; any electrical or mechanical device; or the application to the human body of a chemical or herbal preparation. Consequently, the Florida Legislature has specifically determined that: [T]he practice of massage is potentially dangerous to the public in that massage therapists must have a knowledge of anatomy and physiology and an understanding of the relationship between the structure and the function of the tissues being treated and the total function of the body. Massage is therapeutic, and regulations are necessary to protect the public from unqualified practitioners. It is therefore deemed necessary in the interest of public health, safety, and welfare to regulate the practice of massage in this state. § 480.032, Fla. Stat. In light of this legislative directive, Ms. Harmon explained that when she inspects a massage business, her goal is to ensure that customers are not touched or treated in an inappropriate manner. Ms. Harmon remarked that licensed massage therapists receive extensive training in anatomy and physiology. They are specifically taught how to manipulate soft tissue without damaging a person’s muscles, neck, or spine. Therefore, she ensures that all persons who provide massages are properly licensed in Florida, and that their licenses are appropriately displayed in the business. She also examines the massage facility’s sanitary conditions. On the morning of January 17, 2017, Ms. Harmon conducted a routine inspection of BBK. Ms. Harmon relayed that BBK is located in a strip mall. When she entered the store, she walked into a large lobby area with a reception desk and several chairs. A single hallway led straight back from the lobby and ended in a kitchen space. Several doorways lined the hallway. At least three of these rooms are used for massage services. Curtains partition the massage rooms from the hallway. Ms. Harmon did not find anyone present in the lobby. Therefore, she headed toward the hallway. As she reached the hallway, she saw a woman walk out of one of the massage rooms. Ms. Harmon observed that the woman (later identified as Ms. Lu) was holding her hands out in front of her with her palms up. Her hands were covered in oil. Ms. Harmon announced to Ms. Lu that she was an inspector with the Department. Ms. Harmon then asked Ms. Lu if she had a message therapy license. Ms. Lu responded that she did not have a massage license, but she was not performing a massage. Instead, Ms. Lu produced a body wrapper license issued by the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, as well as a New York drivers license. Ms. Harmon then walked into the massage room that Ms. Lu had just vacated. There, she found a man lying on a massage table draped in a sheet. Ms. Harmon did not observe any body wrapping materials or supplies in the room. (Neither did Ms. Harmon subsequently find any body wrapping advertisements on the premises.) Ms. Harmon deduced that the oil on Ms. Lu’s hands was used for massages, not body wrapping treatments. Consequently, Ms. Harmon concluded that the customer was prepared to receive a massage, and that Ms. Lu was going to provide it. Ms. Harmon did not ask Ms. Lu if she was, in fact, giving a massage to the man on the table. Neither did she actually see Ms. Lu physically touch the customer. However, based on her observations, she firmly believed that when she walked into BBK, Ms. Lu was in the process of providing a massage to the man lying on the table in the massage room. At that point, another woman, who identified herself as Min Zhang, emerged from the last room down the corridor (the kitchen). Ms. Zhang produced a Florida massage therapy license for Ms. Harmon, as well as a Florida drivers license. Ms. Zhang then entered the massage room to attend to the customer. Ms. Harmon further recounted that, in another room, she found a suitcase belonging to Ms. Lu by a bed. Ms. Harmon learned from the two women that Ms. Lu had only arrived at BBK that morning. In response to the Department’s allegations, BBK flatly denied that Ms. Lu was practicing massage when Ms. Harmon inspected its business on January 17, 2017. Instead, BBK asserted that Ms. Zhang, who is properly licensed, was the individual massaging the client at the time Ms. Harmon entered the establishment. Ms. Zhang testified at the final hearing. Ms. Zhang was the store manager on the date of the inspection. Ms. Zhang holds a valid massage therapy license with the State of Florida. Ms. Zhang declared that January 17, 2017, was Ms. Lu’s first day at BBK. She had never met or spoken to Ms. Lu before that morning. Consequently, Ms. Zhang claimed that she was unaware that Ms. Lu did not have a massage therapy license when Ms. Harmon arrived at the business. Ms. Zhang understood that BBK hired Ms. Lu through the internet. She did not participate in BBK’s decision to allow Ms. Lu to work at its facility. Ms. Zhang relayed that on the morning of the inspection, she was the first employee to arrive at BBK. Ms. Lu appeared shortly thereafter. Ms. Zhang introduced herself, then showed Ms. Lu around the store. Before long, the client showed up. Ms. Zhang testified that she led the client back to massage room 3 for an hour-long massage. According to Ms. Zhang, she, not Ms. Lu, was massaging the customer when Ms. Harmon entered BBK. Ms. Zhang stated that she heard Ms. Harmon walk in the front door. She then left the massage room and met Ms. Harmon in the lobby. Ms. Zhang testified that Ms. Lu was not in a massage room or the hallway. Instead, she was located back in the kitchen. After Ms. Zhang exited massage room 3, she saw Ms. Lu walking to the lobby to meet Ms. Harmon. Thereafter, both Ms. Zhang and Ms. Lu produced their licenses and identifications for Ms. Harmon. Ms. Zhang expressed that it was at this time that she learned that Ms. Lu was not a licensed massage therapist. Ms. Zhang readily acknowledged that a person is not allowed to practice massage therapy without a license. Ms. Zhang professed that she was well aware that Ms. Lu could not have massaged any BBK clients unless she held a license in Florida. Ms. Zhang emphasized that neither she, nor BBK, would allow anyone to provide massages without a license. Ms. Zhang maintained that Ms. Lu never touched the client. BBK also presented the testimony of Juan Feng. Ms. Feng identified herself as the main manager of BBK. Ms. Feng runs the business, while Ms. Zhang manages the day-to-day operations. Ms. Feng was not present at BBK during Ms. Harmon’s inspection on January 17, 2017. According to Ms. Feng, BBK first communicated with Ms. Lu after it posted a job opening for a massage therapist over the internet. Ms. Feng conveyed that BBK’s advertisement specifically stated that a Florida massage license was required for the position. Ms. Lu, who was living in New York, called BBK about the job. Ms. Feng testified that Ms. Lu represented that she was licensed in both New York and Florida. Because Ms. Lu appeared qualified for the massage therapist job, BBK invited her to come to Florida for a trial employment period. Ms. Lu travelled by bus. She arrived in Florida on the afternoon of Monday, January 16, 2017. She showed up at BBK for the first time on Tuesday morning, January 17, 2017 (the date of Ms. Harmon’s inspection). Ms. Feng remarked that, while she had spoken with Ms. Lu approximately three times over the phone, she never met her in person before the Department’s inspection. Ms. Feng learned about the inspection from Ms. Zhang, who called her just after Ms. Harmon left. Ms. Feng repeated that the first time she, or anyone else at BBK, was aware that Ms. Lu did not have a Florida massage therapy license was during Ms. Harmon’s inspection. Ms. Feng pronounced that she would never have hired Ms. Lu if she had known that Ms. Lu did not have a valid Florida license. Ms. Feng expressed that after the inspection, she explained to Ms. Lu that she would not be allowed to work at BBK without the required massage license. Ms. Feng represented that Ms. Lu never returned to BBK following Ms. Harmon’s inspection. Ms. Feng understood that Ms. Lu went back to New York. (Neither party called Ms. Lu to testify at the final hearing.) Although Ms. Feng was not present at BBK during the inspection, she testified that she has seen the store’s security video recording of Ms. Harmon’s visit. According to Ms. Feng, BBK has four video cameras mounted inside the facility. Two cameras survey the lobby, and two cameras are positioned at either end of the hallway. However, Ms. Feng disclosed that the video recording from January 17, 2017, no longer exists. The video footage is automatically recorded over after seven days. Therefore, while she claimed to have watched the video shortly after Ms. Harmon departed the store, BBK could not produce the video for the Department or at the final hearing. At the final hearing, Ms. Feng described what she watched on the video. Ms. Feng relayed that she saw Ms. Zhang and Ms. Lu arrive in the morning. But, when the client appeared, it was Ms. Zhang who escorted him back to massage room 3. Later, after Ms. Harmon entered the lobby, Ms. Feng testified that Ms. Zhang, not Ms. Lu, exited massage room 3. Ms. Zhang walked across the hall to the bathroom, then went to meet Ms. Harmon in the lobby. At that point, Ms. Feng saw Ms. Lu emerge from the kitchen and approach the front of the store. Ms. Zhang and Ms. Lu met Ms. Harmon in the lobby. Ms. Harmon then sat down in the lobby, wrote her report, and left the store.4/ Ms. Feng declared that contents of the video establish that Ms. Lu never went into massage room 3. Based on her review, Ms. Feng opined that when Ms. Harmon saw Ms. Zhang advancing up the hallway, she mistakenly determined that it was Ms. Lu coming out of the massage room. Based on the competent substantial evidence provided at the final hearing, the clear and convincing evidence in the record establishes that BBK aided, assisted, or advised an unlicensed person (Ms. Lu) to practice massage in violation of section 480.046(1)(f) and (p). Accordingly, the Department met its burden of proving that BBK should subject to an administrative sanction.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a final order: finding that BBK Florida, LLC, violated section 480.046(1)(f) and (p); and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000, as well as a reprimand. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of March, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. BRUCE CULPEPPER 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 13th day of March, 2018.
