The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint? If so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Agency is a state government licensing and regulatory agency. Respondent is now, and has been since February 27, 1990, licensed to practice nutrition counseling in the State of Florida. His license number is NC 0000165. Respondent represents that he specializes in treating patients with natural remedies and that he is a homeopathic physician. Homeopathy is a school of medical thought in which diseases are treated with minute doses of drugs that are capable of producing in healthy persons symptoms like those of the disease to be treated. Respondent has neither a license to practice medicine in the State of Florida, nor a medical degree from a medical school. He does have, however, a Master of Herbology diploma that he received from a college of herbology in Canada. In addition, on August 15, 1985, Respondent received a certificate of completion from the American School of Oriental and Homeopathic Therapy certifying that he had completed the schools's "course of homeopathic therapy which includes homeopathic diagnosis, herbalism, nutrition and homeopathic therapeutic methods." Respondent also has an honorary doctor of divinity degree that he received from the World Christian Ministries. In or around October of 1993, Respondent disseminated by mail, for the purpose of soliciting business, an advertisement that was prepared under his direction 1/ and read as follows: NEW LIFE AND HEALTH DR. JANUSZ KALUSOWSKI Are you looking for a natural doctor that cares? One that listens to you and targets the origin of your ailments? Look no more! Help is on its way! New Life and Health would like to welcome Dr. Janusz Kalusowski, internationally renowned HOMEOPATH, IRIDOLOGIST and NUTRITIONIST to Broward County. For 32 years Dr. K. (as he is commonly known) has been devoting himself to conducting self-help seminars reflecting his belief that when people are properly informed, they can help themselves achieve and maintain health and happiness. For 14 years, Dr. K. was located in Dade County and recently he has relocated to Ft. Lauderdale. Dr. K. is introducing BIO-MAGNETIC THERAPY to South Florida. This therapy is least costly and it is one that the client can do at home. The therapeutic magnets are tiny and can be worn on the body all day to energize the metabolism and work on building the immune system. The result! Your body becomes increasingly capable of fighting off various diseases. To learn more about bio-magnetics and how they work, Dr. K. is presently holding free seminars on Saturdays at 11:00 A. M. Seminars are held at the doctor's new location on: 1750 E. COMMERCIAL BLVD. SUITE NUMBER 3 FORT LAUDERDALE, FLA. 33334 (305)772-1665 Note: Dr. K. is available for private consultations. If you would like Dr. K. to appear as a guest lecturer for your group/organization please call: "Leila" at (305)772-1665 Learn how to self-heal yourself with bio-magnets. You owe it to your health! Respondent had sought to obtain the prior approval of the Agency's predecessor, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), before disseminating the advertisement. The Department did not respond to Respondent's request for approval as quickly as Respondent had hoped. Unwilling to wait any further, Respondent disseminated the advertisement without having received a response from the Department. Bio-magnetism is used in the medical field for diagnostic purposes. It provides no medically recognized therapeutic benefit, however. The use of bio-magnetism as a therapeutic modality may indirectly harm a patient inasmuch as it may result in the patient not timely seeking the medical treatment the patient needs. Respondent's advertising bio-magnetism as a treatment for human ailments was beyond the scope of his practice as a nutrition counselor.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medicine enter a final order: dismissing Counts One and Two of the Administrative Complaint; finding Respondent guilty of the violation of subsection (1)(j) of Section 468.518, Florida Statutes, alleged in Count Three of the Administrative Complaint; and disciplining him for having committed this violation of subsection (1)(j) of Section 468.518, Florida Statutes, by suspending his nutrition counseling license for a period of one year and requiring him to serve one year of probation, subject to those terms and conditions the Board deems appropriate, commencing immediately after the end of his suspension. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 6th day of October, 1995. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of October, 1995.
The Issue The issues in this case are: (1) whether Respondent violated Subsection 489.119(6)(b), Florida Statutes (2000); (2) whether Respondent violated Subsection 489.1425(1), Florida Statutes (2000); (3) whether Respondent violated Subsections 489.129(1)(f), (g), (i), (j), (m), and (q), Florida Statutes (2000); and (4) if so, what penalties should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Douglas V. Reynaert, was originally licensed as a certified general contractor in the State of Florida on June 10, 2000. For reasons not presented at this proceeding, the Board revoked Respondent's license as a general contractor on November 6, 2003. Consequently, Respondent is no longer able to engage in contracting in the State of Florida. Doug Reynaert and Sons, Inc., does not have a certificate of authority as a contractor qualified to do business in the State of Florida. The Dietzman Contract On or about March 27, 2000, three months prior to Petitioner's being issued a contractor's license, Doug Reynaert and Sons, Inc., entered into a construction contract with Homer Dietzman ("Dietzman contract"). The construction contract provided that Doug Reynaert and Sons, Inc., would construct a new house for Mr. Dietzman and his wife at 4515 - 6th Street West, Lehigh Acres, Florida, at a cost of $70,900. According to the contract, the construction of the house was to be completed by October 20, 2000. The Dietzman contract did not contain a contractor number either for Respondent or Doug Reynaert and Sons, Inc. As noted in paragraph 1, Respondent was not licensed as a contractor until June 2000, more than two months after the Dietzman contract was executed. Moreover, Doug Reynaert and Sons, Inc., was never licensed or certified as a contractor qualified to do business in Florida. The Dietzman contract did not contain the written statement explaining the consumers' rights under the Construction Industries Recovery Fund required in Subsection 489.1425(1), Florida Statutes (2000). According to the Dietzman contract, the house was to be completed by the end of October 2000. However, Doug Reynaert and Sons, Inc., did not begin construction on the house until September 2000; and by the end of October 2000, the company had only completed the slab. On or about February 15, 2001, Doug Reynaert and Sons, Inc., stopped all construction work on the Dietzman house, even though the project was not complete. After the construction work on the house stopped, Mr. Dietzman called the foreman for Doug Reynaert and Sons, Inc., who was overseeing the project, and asked why the workman were not doing any work on the house. In response to Mr. Dietzman's inquiry, Mr. Dietzman was told by the foreman for Doug Reynaert and Sons, Inc., that "We're all done." The Dietzman construction contract included a Specification Sheet that provided that the contractor, Douglas Reynaert and Sons, Inc., would provide all permits and county impact fees, drawings, builder's risk insurance, hurricane engineering fees, survey, lot clearing and fill allowance, city water or well package, and city sewer or septic system. The Specification Sheet also detailed the exterior and interior features to be included in the Dietzman house. Many of the features included in the Specification Sheet, which was a part of the construction contract, were not provided by the contractor. Features that the contractor was to provide, but which, in fact, were not put in the Dietzman house were the following: dead bolt locks on exterior doors; stain- resistant carpeting; no-wax vinyl in the kitchen and bathrooms; two ceiling fans; lighting allowance; landscape package; 18-cubic-foot refrigerator with ice maker; self-cleaning range; built-in dishwasher and microwave; 40-gallon quick recovery water heater and laundry tub; washer and dryer; Monet faucets; custom cabinets; full-length vanity mirrors; garbage disposal; window blinds or verticals; water treatment; softener/reverse osmosis/aerator; well; some soffit; Bahai sod; two toilets; some cathedral ceilings; 10.0 seer-rated air conditioner; and prefabricated shower. On or about February 19, 2001, about two weeks after Doug Reyaernt and Sons, Inc., stopped working on the Dietzman house, Mr. Dietzman prepared a list of the contract items that were incomplete and mailed the list to Respondent. Mr. Dietzman also attempted to personally contact Respondent about the company's failing to complete the house, but the office of Doug Reynaert and Sons, Inc., was closed. Eventually, in late February or early March 2001, after learning that Respondent was in the office of Doug Reynaert and Sons, Inc., Mr. Dietzman went there and talked to Respondent about the incomplete construction project. In response, Respondent stated that he would complete the project if Mr. Dietzman paid him $25,000.00 above the contract price. Mr. Dietzman refused to pay any additional money to Doug Reynaert and Sons, Inc., to complete the project and decided to finish the home himself. Based on the contract amount, only $6,450.00 was due upon completion of the project. However, based on the money that Mr. Dietzman had paid to Doug Reynaert and Sons, Inc., as of late February 2001, he was under no obligation to pay any additional money until the project was complete. During the course of the project, Mr. Dietzman paid Douglas Reynaert and Sons, Inc., $64,450.00 of the total contract amount of $70,600.00. Mr. Dietzman expended a total of $14,571.00 to complete and/or include all the items listed in the construction contract that were not performed and/or provided by Douglas Reynaert and Sons, Inc. This amount does not include costs associated with mileage to pick up supplies, recording fees paid to the clerk of the court, nor an unexplained fee paid to the Department. Of the total costs expended by Mr. Dietzman to complete the house, $8,121.00 was in excess of the contract price. Mr. Dietzman completed the house, and after it was completed, he lived there for three years before selling it. During the period between March 2, 2001, and April 30, 2001, five subcontractors filed separate liens of claims on the Dietzman property, which alleged unpaid amounts of $1,785.00; $650.00; $137.00; $5,998.00; and $619.15. According to the liens of claim, the subcontractors had last furnished labor services or materials in January, February, and March 2001. Mr. Dietzman believes that the claims of lien filed against his property expired without satisfaction. Notwithstanding Mr. Dietzman's subjective belief, no evidence was presented upon which to determine whether the claims of lien, in the first instance, were valid; and, if so, whether they were satisfied or whether they expired. However, when Mr. Dietzman sold the house in December 2003, the title to the house was clear. On March 20, 2001, Mr. Dietzman filed a Uniform Complaint Form with the Department arising from the contract with Doug Reynaert and Sons, Inc. The Uniform Complaint Form stated that Doug Reynaert and Sons, Inc., had abandoned the construction project and that Respondent had indicated that he would not finish the house unless the Dietzmans paid him another $25,000.00. The Department's costs related to the investigation and prosecution of the Dietzman contract, excluding costs associated with an attorney's time, are $287.37. The Gammie Contract On or about May 20, 2000, Leila Gammie and her sister, Karen Gammie, entered into a construction agreement with Doug Reynaert and Sons, Inc. ("Gammie contract"). Pursuant to the Gammie contract, Doug Reynaert and Sons, Inc., was to build a house for Karen and Leila Gammie at 1124 Southwest 15th Terrace, Cape Coral, Florida, for $92,420.00, and the buyers were required to pay the builder $3,000.00 when the agreement was signed. The Gammie contract was a one-page document and did not include the beginning and completion date for the project. Also, the contract did not include a general contractor's license number, certification number, or a written statement explaining the consumers' rights under the Construction Industries Recovery Fund. Leila Gammie paid a deposit of $6,000.00, by two checks of $3,000.00 each, to Doug Reynaert and Sons, Inc. The first payment was made on May 20, 2000, the day the Gammie contract was fully executed, and the second payment was made on June 3, 2000. The May 20 and June 3, 2000, checks were deposited in the account of Doug Reynaert and Sons, Inc., on May 26, 2000, and June 8, 2000, respectively. On July 15, 2000, the Gammie contract was amended by the parties to increase the price of building the house to $95,279.00 and to establish Reynaert and Sons, Inc.'s, responsibility for paying closing costs. Crossland Mortgage approved Leila and Karen Gammie for a construction loan to build the house. The construction loan agreement was executed in July 28, 2000, and required that construction be completed by February 1, 2001. Respondent signed the "Assent by Contractor" section of the construction loan agreement in which he certified that he was the general contractor for the borrowers and that in consideration of the lender making the mortgage loan, he agreed to be bound by the terms of the construction loan agreement. On July 28, 2000, Respondent executed a Crossland Mortgage Corporation's Contractor's Acknowledgment, in which he certified that Doug Reynaert and Sons, Inc., had entered into a construction contract with Leila and Karen Gammie "on May 20, 1999 [sic]" for the construction project described in the construction loan agreement. In the Contractor's Acknowledgment, Respondent also confirmed that the contract price was $95,279.00 and that Doug Reynaert and Sons, Inc., had already received $6,000.00, which had been applied toward the construction contract. Respondent's signature on the Contractor's Acknowledgement was notarized. On July 28, 2000, Leila and Karen Gammie executed an addendum to the construction loan in which they authorized the lender to make scheduled payments directly to Doug Reynaert and Sons, Inc. Leila Gammie, Karen Gammie, and Respondent, as representative for Doug Reynaert and Sons, Inc., are signatories on a loan document titled, "Construction Draw Guideline." That form was executed on July 28, 2000, and listed Doug Reynaert and Sons, Inc., as the contractor to whom payments would be made. Leila Gammie recorded a Notice of Commencement on August 3, 2000, in Lee County, Florida. After the Notice of Commencement was filed, Leila Gammie made regular visits to the lot on which her house was to be constructed. On each occasion, she observed that Doug Reynaert and Sons, Inc., had not started the construction project. She then contacted Respondent to inquire about when construction of her house would begin. In response, Respondent told Leila Gammie that he would not go forward with the project unless she gave him $10,000.00 above the contract price. She refused to give Respondent any more money and Doug Reynaert and Sons, Inc., never started the job. By letter dated March 15, 2001, the Harris Trust Bank of Montreal, the apparent successor or assignee of the lender, Crossland Mortgage, advised Leila Gammie and Karen Gammie that the project had not progressed as scheduled and that for "this reason and other findings, Doug Reynaert and Sons, Inc., is no longer an approved builder of Harris Trust/Bank of Montreal." Leila Gammie engaged another contractor who built the house, which is her present residence. On March 20, 2001, Leila and Karen Gammie filed a Uniform Complaint Form with the Department arising from the contract with Doug Reynaert and Sons, Inc. In the Uniform Complaint Form, Leila and Karen Gammie stated that Doug Reynaert and Sons, Inc., kept changing the original start date of the construction project from August 2000 until February 2001 and that Respondent ultimately told Leila Gammie that he would not begin the project unless she paid him an additional $10,000.00. The Department's costs related to the investigation and prosecution of the Gammie contract, excluding costs associated with an attorney's time, are $287.37. Alleged Contracts with James Pledger and Angela Barnes The 2002 Administrative Complaint assigned DOAH Case No. 04-1547PL alleged certain violations related to an alleged construction contract between James Pledger and Doug Reynaert and Sons, Inc. However, no evidence was presented regarding this alleged contract and the violations related thereto. The 2001 Administrative Complaint assigned DOAH Case No. 04-1546PL alleged certain violations related to an alleged construction contract between Doug Reynaert and Sons, Inc., and Angela Barnes. However, no evidence was presented regarding this alleged contract and the violations related thereto.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, enter a final order adopting the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and requiring Respondent, Douglas V. Reynaert, to pay restitution to Leila and Karen Gammie in the amount of $6,000.00 and to Homer Dietzman in the amount of $14,571.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of October, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 29th day of October, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles J. Pellegrini, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Douglas V. Reynaert 4815 Hidden Harbour Boulevard Fort Myers, Florida 33919 Tim Vaccaro, Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Leon Biegalski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
The Issue Whether the proposed changes to proposed Rule 64B-5.001 published in the Florida Law Weekly (FAW) on December 17, 2004, (the proposed changes), constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority pursuant to the provisions of Section 120.56(1) and (2), Florida Statutes (2004).1 Whether the proposed changes are inconsistent with the Final Order entered in DOAH Case 04-3172RP on November 23, 2004.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Department of Health, Board of Massage Therapy, should discipline the Respondent, Yuping Jiang, based on the manner in which she applied for and obtained her license.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, who was born in China, came to the United States in 2007 and enrolled in the Select Therapy Institute in California to study massage therapy. She completed a 650-hour course of study and graduated in February 2008. In April 2009, she sat for and passed the examination administered by the National Certification Board for Therapeutic Massage and Bodywork (NCBTMB). In May 2010, the Respondent moved to Fort Lauderdale to work as a massage therapist. Her employer made an appointment for her at the Pompano campus of the Florida College of Natural Health (FCNH), which is approved by the Board of Massage Therapy (Board), to determine what was necessary for the Respondent to be licensed in Florida as a massage therapist. When the Respondent and her employer arrived at FCNH's Pompano campus, the receptionist directed them to see Glenda Johnson, who was the school's registrar. The Respondent showed Johnson her Select Therapy Institute diploma and transcript and her NCBTMB certificate, which Johnson reviewed. It is not FCNH's normal practice for the registrar to review transcripts to determine how much credit to accept from another school. This is normally done by the school's education department. However, Johnson appeared to have the authority to make the determination, and it was reasonable for the Respondent to believe that Johnson was authorized to do so. Johnson then had the Respondent fill out and sign an application for licensure in Florida by examination based on her 650-hour course of study at, and diploma from, Select Therapy Institute and her NCBTMB certificate. Everything in the application filled out and signed by the Respondent was true and correct at that time. Johnson also had the Respondent fill out and sign an FCNH enrollment agreement. Johnson signed the agreement, as registrar, to enroll the Respondent at FCNH. The enrollment agreement included a statement that FCNH would evaluate collegiate and post-secondary training, military experience, or civilian occupations, and the Respondent would be given appropriate credit, if criteria to measure the value of such training and experience were met, as determined by FCNH. Johnson then gave the Respondent a copy of the statutes and rules governing the practice of massage therapy in Florida and told the Respondent to study them. The Respondent spent about three hours in the registrar's office studying the statutes and rules. There was no instructor present. The Respondent did not ask anyone any questions about the statutes and rules, and she was not tested or graded on what she studied. When the Respondent finished studying the statutes and rules, she asked Johnson what else was required of her and was told all she had to do was pay a total of about $650, which covered both FCNH's tuition and the Board's $205 license application fee. Although it did not seem that much was being required of her, she testified that she trusted Johnson, as the school's registrar. Cf. § 1005.04(1)(a) & (d), Fla. Stat. (2012)(a nonpublic, secondary institution accredited by the Commission for Independent Education must disclose to prospective students the transferability of credit to and from other institutions and accurate information regarding the relationship of its programs to state licensure requirements). Actually, even if credit for all other educational requirements for Florida licensure by examination were transferred from Select Therapy Institute, the Respondent was required to complete a ten-hour class in Florida statutes and rules. Fla. Admin. Code R. 64B7-32.003 (Apr. 25, 2007). (Notwithstanding some testimony to the contrary, other mandatory courses of study are not required by rule to be Florida- specific.) Id. Like all other educational requirements for licensure by examination, this class had to be taken in-person, with a faculty member present. Fla. Admin. Code R. 64B7-32.001 (Mar. 25, 1986). The Respondent paid Johnson in cash. Johnson said she would submit the Respondent's application, fee, and necessary supporting documentation to the Board. There was no evidence as to what happened to the balance of the cash paid to Johnson, but subsequent events suggest that Johnson probably pocketed it. At some point after the Respondent left the Pompano campus, Johnson completed section III of the Florida license application, which is a transfer of credit form, and the Respondent's FCNH transcript. The transfer of credit form indicated that FCNH was accepting: 150 credit hours from the Select Therapy Institute in the category Anatomy and Physiology (for a course titled Musculoskeletal); 225 credit hours in the category Basic Massage Therapy and Clinical Practicum (for a course titled Neuromuscular Massage); 10 credit hours in the category Theory and Practice of Hydrotherapy (without specifying the course taken); and 97 credit hours in the category Allied Modalities (for a course titled Sports Massage). The form indicated that the Respondent needed the following additional hours to qualify for examination: ten hours in the category Statutes/Rules and History of Massage; five hours in the category Theory and Practice of Hydrotherapy; two hours in the category Allied Modalities (for medical error prevention); and three hours in the category HIV/AIDS. Finally, the form showed the total credit hours for all schools: 150 credit hours in the category Anatomy and Physiology; 225 credit hours in the category Basic Massage Therapy and Clinical Practicum; ten credit hours in the category Statutes/Rules and History of Massage; 15 credit hours in the category Theory and Practice of Hydrotherapy; 97 credit hours in the category Allied Modalities; and three credit hours in the category HIV/AIDS. At some point after the Respondent left the Pompano campus, Johnson also completed a FCNH transcript for the Respondent indicating that the Respondent completed all the credit hours on the credit transfer form (a total of 500 credit hours, including 20 hours having been taken at FCNH), and assigning credits for those credit hours (a total of 25.84 credits, including 1.33 earned at FCNH). In fact, the Respondent did not take any classes at FCNH. At some point after the Respondent left the Pompano campus, Johnson also completed FCNH certificates of completion for the Respondent indicating that the Respondent took and successfully completed FCNH's two-hour class titled Prevention of Medical Errors and 20 hours of FCNH's Therapeutic Massage Training Program (Transfer of License). In fact, the Respondent did not take FCNH's Prevention of Medical Errors class or any other classes at FCNH. Johnson sent the Respondent's license application (with $205 fee), Select Therapy Institute diploma and transcript, and NCBTMB certificate, together with the documents Johnson completed after the Respondent left the Pompano campus, to the Board. She did not provide copies to the Respondent. Based on those submissions, the Board issued the Respondent massage therapy license MA 59583. The two-year license was renewed for another two years in August 2011. The Respondent's license application included both the representation that the answers and statements in or in support of her application were true and correct and the acknowledgement that any false information on or in support of the application was cause for denial, suspension, or revocation of her license. Although true and correct when the Respondent filled it out and signed it, the Respondent's application was not true and correct as submitted to the Board on her behalf, with the false supporting documentation prepared by Johnson. In December 2011, it came to the attention of Melissa Wade, FCNH's vice-president for Compliance and Institutional Effectiveness, that a number of people were claiming to have graduated from FCNH's Pompano campus based on documentation indicating that they did not complete FCNH's 768-hour course of study that was approved by the Board. Wade investigated and was unable to find any record of the individuals having been students at FCNH. Wade investigated further and discovered discrepancies in the documentation being submitted by those individuals. Wade investigated further and discovered that Johnson never registered these individuals as enrolled students. Johnson was terminated from her employment as registrar for the school. Beginning in January or February 2012, Wade began notifying the Board about the individuals purporting to be FCNH graduates, but who never actually were registered as enrolled students and did not complete the school's Board-approved course of study. As more such individuals were identified, the Board was notified. The Respondent was one of the individuals reported to the Board. In August 2012, a Department investigator contacted the Respondent regarding a complaint that she provided fictitious transcripts and certificates to the Board as her basis for licensure. In September 2012, the Respondent explained that she simply submitted her information to Johnson, who told her what was required in order to receive a FCNH diploma and a Florida license. She admitted it did not seem that much was being required of her, but she stated that she trusted Johnson, as the school's registrar. In October 2012, in an attempt to resolve the Department's issues regarding her license, the Respondent took and successfully completed Board-approved continuing education (CE) classes titled Living with HIV/AIDS (three CE hours), Massage Therapy Laws and Rules-–Legal Update 2011 (ten CE hours), and Preventing Medical Errors (two CE hours). Later in October 2012, the Department filed emergency suspension orders and administrative complaints against a number of licensees who submitted suspect FCNH documentation with their applications, including the Respondent. During the time the Respondent practiced as a licensed massage therapist in Florida, there have been no complaints of any kind against her either by the Department or any consumer. It was not proven by clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent had any intent to defraud the Department or the Board. However, even assuming that Johnson had at least apparent authority to transfer credit hours from Select Therapy Institute and assign FCNH credit, it is clear that the application submitted on the Respondent's behalf by Johnson was supported by documentation that falsely represented that the Respondent took 20 hours of classes at FCNH, including a ten-hour class on Florida statutes and rules and a two-hour class in Prevention of Medical Errors. At the same time, those false misrepresentations were made by FCNH, through its registrar, not by the Respondent.
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 dismissing the Administrative Complaint against the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of June, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 11th day of June, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Anthony Jusevitch, Executive Director Board of Massage Therapy Department of Health Bin C06 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3256 Jennifer A. Tschetter, General Counsel Department of Health Bin A02 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Martin P. McDonnell, Esquire Rutledge, Ecenia, and Purnell, P.A. 119 South Monroe Street, Suite 202 Post Office Box 551 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0551 Candace Rochester, Esquire Department of Health Bin C65 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265
