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.
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent engaged in sexual misconduct in the practice of massage therapy, in violation of chapter 480, Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what is the appropriate sanction.
Findings Of Fact The following Findings of Fact are based on the testimony presented at the final hearing, exhibits accepted into evidence, and admitted facts set forth in the pre-hearing stipulation. Petitioner is the State agency charged with regulating the practice of massage therapy pursuant to section 20.43, Florida Statutes; chapter 456, Florida Statutes; and chapter 480, Florida Statutes. At all times material to the Complaint, Respondent was licensed to practice massage therapy in Florida since April 27, 2016, having been issued license number MA81902. Respondent’s address of record is 3830 Williamsburg Park Road, Jacksonville, Florida 32257. She also maintains an address of 121 East Norwood Avenue, Apartment C, San Gabriel, California 91776. Respondent moved from her native country, China, to the United States in 2012. Respondent’s native language is Mandarin Chinese and her ability to communicate in English is very limited. The JSO Vice Unit is the law enforcement office which investigates prostitution at massage therapy establishments in Jacksonville. Detective N.E. has been a civilian law enforcement officer for approximately 13 years. He was working in the JSO Vice Unit on June 29, 2017. As a member of the vice unit, Detective N.E. has conducted approximately 10 to 20 undercover prostitution investigations of massage therapy establishments. On or about June 29, 2017, JSO conducted an undercover prostitution investigation at Luxury Massage located at 3830 Williamsburg Park Road, Suite 4, Jacksonville, Florida. Detective N.E. entered Luxury Massage undercover, posing as a client. Detective N.E. requested a 30-minute massage from Respondent, for which he paid Respondent $50. Respondent escorted Detective N.E. to a massage room where Detective N.E. completely disrobed and laid face down on the massage table. As Detective N.E. lay on his stomach, Respondent began performing a massage on him. A towel was covering him as he lay on his stomach. Respondent massaged Detective N.E.’s back, and she later asked him to flip over onto his back, which he did. While Detective N.E. was on his back, Respondent began massaging his chest. At some point, Respondent pointed to Detective N.E.’s penis. Then Detective N.E. asked Respondent “is $60 good?” Respondent nodded her head indicating, “yes.” Detective N.E. continued to ask Respondent questions, for example, whether Respondent would use oil and Respondent verbally responded, “yes.” When asked whether she had towels to avoid making a mess, Respondent again verbally responded, “yes.” Although Respondent did not testify at hearing, Respondent’s verbal responses were recorded on a concealed recording device as part of the investigation. At hearing, Detective N.E. testified that Respondent grabbed his penis after she pointed to it. However, there was no allegation that Respondent touched Detective N.E.’s penis in the police report, which was prepared following Respondent’s arrest. On cross-examination, Detective N.E. explained that Respondent’s touching of his penis is not routinely included in the police report. The undersigned finds it unusual that touching of genitalia would be excluded from a police report when conducting a prostitution investigation. Detective N.E.’s testimony on this point is not accepted. Respondent denied that she engaged in any sexual activity in her response to the Complaint. Based on the totality of the circumstances, the undersigned finds that Respondent offered to massage Detective N.E.’s penis for $60.00. After the encounter, Detective N.E. gave a signal and Respondent was arrested by other law enforcement officers who came on the scene. Respondent was positively identified by Detective N.E. on the scene and at the final hearing. Katelin Reagh is a licensed massage therapist and based on her education, training, and experience, she is accepted as an expert in massage therapy. Ms. Reagh opined that offering to massage a patient’s genitalia is not within the scope of practice for massage therapy. As noted in the deposition testimony of Ms. Reagh, there is no accepted practice within the scope of licensed massage therapy that allows a therapist to ever touch, or offer to touch, the genitalia of a patient. Respondent’s actions on June 29, 2017, were outside the scope of generally accepted treatment of massage therapy patients. Respondent used the massage therapist-patient relationship to attempt to engage Detective N.E. in sexual activity when she offered to massage Detective N.E.’s penis, by pointing at the detective’s penis and agreeing to accept $60 payment for the service. There is no evidence that Respondent has had any prior discipline imposed against her license.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Health, Board of Massage Therapy, enter a final order finding the following: Ms. Fengyan Liu, L.M.T. in violation of section 480.0485 and rule 64B7-26.010; Revoking her license to practice massage therapy; Imposing a fine of $2,500; and Assessing costs in an amount to be determined by the Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of November, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S YOLONDA Y. GREEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of November, 2018.
The Issue Whether Respondent's license to practice massage in the state of Florida should be disciplined under the facts and circumstances of this case.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: The Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of massage in the state of Florida. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was a licensed massage therapist in the state of Florida, holding license number MA 0007149. At all times material to this proceeding, Frank Calta's Health Connection (Health Connection) was not licensed as a massage establishment in the state of Florida. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent did hold a license for a massage establishment in the state of Florida. In October 1989, the Respondent filed a licensure application with Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medicine, Dietetics and Nutrition Practice Council (Council) for licensure as a Nutritional Counselor. In answering a request for all work experience as a Nutritional Counselor in the application, Respondent listed the Health Connection as an employer from "11/87 to present" (October 1989) and as to the position held, listed "massage therapist". Respondent's answers to questions in the application were under oath wherein he declared under penalty of perjury that his statements were true and correct. As part of this application to the Council, Respondent submitted a notarized statement by Frank Calta of the Health Connection indicating that Respondent had worked as a massage therapist at the Health Connection from "September 5, 1987 to the present" (September 11, 1989). The testimony of both Respondent and Frank Calta at the hearing established that Respondent was not employed by the Health Connection as such in that he was not paid a salary by the Health Connection or that he worked regular hours for the Health Connection. However, this same testimony established that Respondent did perform massages for Frank Calta and members of the Health Connection in between sets of exercises and at the end of the exercises. These massages were conducted at either the Health Connection located at the 4626 Busch Boulevard, Tampa, Florida address or the Florida Avenue Tampa, Florida address during the period from September 5, 1987 through September 11, 1989. The Respondent was compensated for these massages by the individual members or by Frank Calta through the use of the Health Connection. Other than the individual members of the Health Connection, the Respondent did not solicit business from the "general public" as such. It was Respondent's contention that these massages were performed at sports events. However, there was no evidence that the individual members or Frank Calta were involved in any type of sport competition at the time of the massages by the Respondent, but only exercising to keep their bodies in shape. There was sufficient competent substantial evidence to establish facts to show that Respondent was practicing "massage" as that term is defined in Section 480.033(3), Florida Statutes, in an unlicensed "establishment" as that term is defined in Section 480.083(7), Florida Statutes, during the period from September 5, 1987 through September 11, 1989. There was no evidence presented to show that Respondent's license as a massage therapist had ever been disciplined or that any disciplinary action, other than the instant case, had been taken against the Respondent.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and the penalty guidelines set out in Rule 21L-30.002, Florida Administrative Code, it is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That the Board enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 480.036(1)(n), Florida Statutes, and for that violation issue the Respondent a letter of reprimand and assess an administrative fine of $250.00. DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of February, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of February, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 91-2613 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in the case. Rulings on Proposed Finding of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner 1. - 4. Adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order in Findings of Fact 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. 5. - 7. Adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order in Finding of Fact 5. 8. - 9. Adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order in Finding of Fact 6. Neither relevant nor material to this proceeding other than as to Respondent's credibility as a witness. - 13. Adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order in Finding of Fact 7 and 9. 14. Rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence in the record but in any event, is neither material nor relevant to this proceeding other than as to the extent of the disciplinary action taken. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent 1. Respondent has submitted what is titled Proposed Finding of Facts. However, it more of a conclusion of law or legal argument than finding of fact. As to the facts set out in paragraph 5 (unnumbered) see Finding of Fact 7. COPIES FURNISHED: Lois B. Lepp, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Aaron Benjamin 8319 Cross Timbers Drive East Jacksonville, FL 32244 Anna Polk, Executive Director Board of Massage 1940 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, is a state government licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, in particular Section 20.165, Florida Statutes, Chapters 120, 455 and 480, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Respondent, Joyce Ann Borcina, is now, and was at all times material hereto, a licensed massage therapist in the State of Florida, having been issued license number MA 0011685. Respondent was, at all times material hereto, the owner and operator of Joy Therapeutic Massage, Inc., which was, at those times, a licensed massage establishment, license number MM 0002999, located at 2298 Northwest Second Avenue, office number 21, Boca Raton, Florida. As of the date of hearing, Joy Therapeutic Massage, Inc., was not licensed as a massage establishment. On or about July 15, 1993, an officer of the City of Boca Raton Police Department, operating undercover, received massage services from "Debby" at Joy Therapeutic Massage, Inc. The Officer paid $40 for the massage, tipped Debby $10, and asked her whether there "were any other services available?" Debby replied that she would be able to massage him both topless and bottomless for $100. On July 19, 1993, the Officer, again acting undercover, received massage services from respondent at Joy Therapeutic Massage, Inc. During the course of that massage, the Officer told respondent that the prior massage therapist had "said that I could get a massage and that she would be topless and bottomless." Respondent replied that "she couldn't do that unless she got to know me a little better." Notwithstanding, when the Officer turned over on his back to continue the massage, respondent began disrobing until she was naked and, as she began to massage him again grabbed his penis. The Officer declined, what he perceived and apparently was, an attempt to masturbate him, but inquired, as he was preparing to leave, whether "there [was] anything else we can do?" Respondent replied, "that maybe next time, as long as I could get to know her a little better." The Officer then paid respondent $50 for the massage and left. On July 27, 1993, the Officer, still operating undercover, kept an appointment for a massage with respondent at Joy Therapeutic Massage, Inc. At the commencement of that session, while she was disrobing, respondent agreed to engage in "regular sex" with the Officer for $100. Shortly thereafter, when she had finished disrobing, the Officer identified himself as a police officer and placed respondent under arrest. According to the court records filed in this case [Petitioner's exhibit 4], respondent pled nolo contendere to a one-count violation of Section 480.047(1)(c), Florida Statutes, which renders it unlawful for any person to "[p]ermit an employed person to practice massage unless duly licensed," a first degree misdemeanor. In response to such plea, the court withheld adjudication of guilt, placed respondent on probation for a term of six months, with the special condition that she perform thirty-five hours of community service, and imposed court costs of $105. Respondent offered no proof at hearing to explain the circumstances surrounding her plea of nolo contendere.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered finding respondent guilty of the charges set forth in Counts Two through Four of the administrative complaint, dismissing Count One of the administrative complaint, and revoking respondent's license as a massage therapist. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 23rd day of March 1995. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 23rd day of March 1995.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of massage (Chapters 20.30, 455, and 480, Florida Statutes). The Respondent is a licensed massage therapist, holding license number MA 0004771 (P's Exh. 2). The Respondent holds a massage establishment license for Massage by Olga, license number MM001233 (P's Exh. 1). Massage by Olga is located at 643 Tanglewood, Daytona Beach, Florida 32114. No other businesses are located at that address (T-31). The Petitioner is charged with inspecting the establishment premises. Section 480.043(9), Florida Statutes, and Rule 21L-26.005, Florida Administrative Code. It is the usual and common practice of inspectors to make unannounced inspections (T-10-11). To make announced inspections would contravene the reason for the inspection, giving licensees time to clean up their licensed premises (T-11, 28). The Petitioner's inspector, Linda Mantovani, who works out of Jacksonville, Florida, attempted to make an inspection of the establishment, Massage by Olga, on January 30, 1991 (T-13). She knocked on the front door and waited seven (7) minutes. No one came to the door. Ms. Mantovani observed two cars in the driveway of the establishment (T-14). Ms. Mantovani heard noise coming from inside the establishment (T-14- 15). Ms. Mantovani went around to the side entrances and windows, and again knocked on the front door (T-15-16). Ms. Mantovani's knocks were unanswered (T-15). Ms. Mantovani waited outside the establishment for another 15 to 20 minutes to see if anyone left. She observed no one leaving or entering the establishment (T-16). Ms. Mantovani observed a sign on the front door of the establishment which said: Appointments & Information by telephone-only No appointments, No knock!!!! Do not ring bell unless on time (+ or - 5 min.) Phone number....lost it, find it! Inspectors see rule #2. No exceptions (T-14, 23-24; P's Exh. 4). Ms. Mantovani formed the impression that people were inside the establishment (T-15, 18) The Respondent told Ms. Mantovani that although she parked her car at the licensed premises, she frequently walked to lunch in the neighborhood. Ms. Mantovani contacted the Respondent by telephone without difficulty. The Respondent told Ms. Mantovani that she did not live at the licensed premises; that she was there only for appointments; and she would make herself available for Ms. Mantovani for inspection purposes. Ms. Mantovani advised the Respondent that the Petitioner made unscheduled inspections. The Respondent told Ms. Mantovani that she could not promise that she would be at the licensed premises when Ms. Mantovani was in Daytona. The Respondent also stated that it was her practice not to answer the door, except to receive scheduled patrons. Ms. Mantovani refused to schedule an inspection, or to call and ascertain that the Respondent was available and inspect at that moment.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that the charges be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of February, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of February, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 91-6559 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-15. Adopted. 16-17. Rejected as contrary to more credible portion of Ms. Mantovani's testimony. 18. Adopted and moved to Paragraph 3. COPIES FURNISHED: Anna Polk, Executive Director Board of Massage Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Jack McRay, Esq. General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Lois B. Lepp, Esq. Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Rita Brigugulio 643 Tanglewood Daytona Beach, FL 32114
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the agency of the State of Florida responsible for the licensing and regulation of the practice of massage therapy. Petitioner also certifies those eligible to perform colonic irrigations in the State of Florida. Chapter 480, Florida Statutes, is known as the "Massage Practice Act". Section 480.033(6), Florida Statutes, defines the term "colonic irrigation" as follows: (6) "Colonic irrigation" means a method of hydrotherapy used to cleanse the colon with the aid of a mechanical device and water. Colonic irrigations can be performed by a licensed massage therapist only at a licensed massage establishment. Section 480.046(1), Florida Statutes, provides certain grounds for the discipline of licensed massage therapists, including the following: (1)(n) Practicing massage at a site, location, or place which is not duly licensed as a massage establishment, except that a massage therapist, as provided by rules adopted by the board, may provide massage services, excluding colonic irrigation, at the residence of a client, at the office of the client, at a sports event, at a convention, or at a trade show. Petitioner's Rule 61G11-30.001(1)(m), Florida Administrative Code, provides, in pertinent part, as follows: (1)(m) . . . a massage therapist may provide massage services, excluding colonic irrigation, at the residence of a client, at the office of the client, at a sports event, at a convention, or at a trade show. . . . At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was licensed by Petitioner as a massage therapist and was certified by Petitioner to perform colonic irrigations. Respondent's massage therapist license number is 7954. Respondent placed an advertisement in the Yellow Pages of the 1993 telephone book for Miami, Florida, that advertised the following service on an outcall basis: COLON IRRIGATION WITH DISPOSABLES. Lexa Jones is licensed by Petitioner as a massage therapist and is certified to perform colonic irrigations. Ms. Jones teaches massage therapy in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. One of her students brought to her attention the Respondent's advertisement in the Miami Yellow Pages. Ms. Jones testified at the formal hearing that she called the number listed in the advertisement and talked to a woman who stated that she had placed the advertisement. Respondent is the person who placed the advertisement and Ms. Jones clearly believed that she was talking with the Respondent. Ms. Jones was unable to testify that the person with whom she talked by telephone was the Respondent. 1/ Based on the statements made to her by telephone and on the contents of the advertisement, Ms. Jones filed a complaint against Respondent with the Board of Massage. Mr. Charles Frear, an environmental inspector employed by Petitioner, investigated this complaint. On October 6, 1993, Mr. Frear inspected Respondent's home and interrogated her about the services she was performing. The Respondent told Mr. Frear that she had placed the advertisement in the telephone book, but that the service she was performing on an outcall basis was a "colon irrigation" and that she performed this service in hotel rooms. Respondent showed Mr. Frear an enema kit that Respondent said she used to perform the "colon irrigation." The kit, intended for one time use, was sterile and sealed in a plastic carton. The kit included an enema bag, a tube, soap, and lubricating jelly. Respondent told Mr. Frear that she believed that there was a difference between a "colonic irrigation" and a "colon irrigation" since the former involves a large machine that is used to regulate the flow of water while the latter uses an enema bag and a tube. An enema forces liquid into the colon by means of an enema bag and tubing. The injection of liquid through the anal canal and into the colon serves to remove fecal material and bacteria from the colon. A clean, hygienic area is needed for the administration of the enema and its subsequent evacuation on a toilet. There was no evidence that Respondent used any tool in performing her services other than the enema kit and water. Respondent asserts that the enema kit should not be construed to be a "mechanical device" as that term is used in defining "colonic irrigation" by Section 480.033(6), Florida Statutes. The term "mechanical device" as used in Section 480.033(6), Florida Statutes, is not defined by statute or rule. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language contains the following definitions pertinent to this proceeding. A "device" means "something devised or constructed for a particular purpose; especially a machine used to perform one or more relatively simple tasks." "Mechanical" means "of or pertaining to machines or tools." A "machine" is "any system, usually of rigid bodies, formed and connected to alter, transmit, and direct applied forces in a predetermined manner to accomplish a specific objective, such as the performance of useful work [or] a simple device, such as a lever, pulley, or inclined plane, that alters the magnitude or direction, or both, of an applied force. ..." A "tool" can mean "anything regarded as necessary to carry out one's occupation or profession." The enema kit is used to force water through a person's anal canal and rectum for the purpose of cleaning the colon. Based on the foregoing definitions and on the expert testimony presented, it is found that an enema kit is a mechanical device. It is further found that an enema is a form of "colonic irrigation".
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner enter a final order that adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained herein and finds Respondent guilty of violating the provisions of Section 480.046(1)(n), Florida Statutes. It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner issue to Respondent a letter of reprimand and fine her the sum of $500.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of December, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of December, 1994.
The Issue Should discipline be imposed by the Department of Health, Board of Massage Therapy (the Petitioner), against Stanley Carroll's (the Respondent) license as a massage therapist for alleged violations of Sections 480.046(1)(o) and 480.0485, Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact Facts Established by the Answer This is an action to impose administrative penalties and assess costs related to the investigation and prosecution of the allegations against Respondent pursuant to Sections 456.072, 480.046(1)(o) and 480.0485, Florida Statutes. This tribunal has jurisdiction pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes (2003). Venue shall be determined pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 28-106.207. Effective July 1, 1997, Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of massage therapy pursuant to Section 20.43, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 480, Florida Statutes. At all times material hereto, Respondent has been licensed as a massage therapist, having been issued license number MA 20209 on September 12, 1995. Respondent's last known address is 5135 San Juan Avenue, Jacksonville, Florida 32210-3137. O.C. was a patient of Respondent during the year 2000. Facts Established by Responses to Request for Admissions Respondent Stanley Carroll possesses Florida massage therapist license number MA 20209. Respondent was issued Florida massage therapist license number MA 20209 on September 12, 1995. Respondent practices massage therapy at the "Hands that Care," 5135 San Juan Avenue, Jacksonville, Florida 32210. Respondent began providing massage therapy to O.C. in late July 2000 or early August 2000. O.C. was referred to Respondent by K.C. O.C. saw Respondent approximately ten times during the year 2000. During massage therapy sessions with Respondent, O.C. would be covered by only a sheet. Respondent would move the sheet that covered O.C. during massage therapy sessions so that Respondent would not be completely covered during massage therapy sessions. When Respondent would massage O.C.'s pectoral muscles, Respondent would fold the sheet covering O.C. down to expose her breasts. During some massage therapy sessions, Respondent would massage O.C.'s left hip and left upper thigh in an attempt to return feeling to those areas that was lost due to the removal of a lymph node when O.C. was a child. When Respondent would massage O.C.'s left hip and left upper thigh, Respondent would move the sheet covering O.C. and expose O.C.'s pubic area. When Respondent would massage O.C.'s left hip and left upper thigh, Respondent would place one of his hands next to her pubic area. Respondent called O.C. and invited her to his massage establishment for a $30.00 massage, which is half of Respondent's normal fee (at that time). After O.C. was dressed, Respondent walked O.C. to her car (in her last visit to Respondent). Respondent told a Department of Health investigator that he did touch "delicate areas" on O.C.'s body. On May 24, 1999, the Florida Department of Health filed an Amended Administrative Complaint against Respondent in discipline case number 98-12083 and his massage therapist license, alleging that Respondent violated Subsection 480.046(1)(c) of the Florida Statutes by being convicted of battery on patient M.J. for inappropriately touching M.J.'s breasts and nipples. Respondent disputed the material facts as alleged in Amended Administrative Complaint 98-12083. In DOAH case number 99-3719, Administrative Law Judge, (ALJ) Suzanne F. Hood found that Respondent violated Subsection 480.046(1)(c) of the Florida Statutes by being convicted of misdemeanor battery for intentionally touching M.J. against her will and that this battery would have not have occurred, but for Respondent and M.J.'s massage therapy session. The Board of Massage Therapy rendered a Final Order in disciplinary case number 98-12083 in which it adopted the findings of fact and conclusions of law of Administrative Law Judge Suzanne F. Hood in DOAH case number 99-3719. The Board of Massage Therapy's Final Order in disciplinary case 98-12083 imposed an administrative fine in the amount of $500.00 and investigative costs in the amount of $1,452.05. Additional Facts O.C. was first seen by Respondent on August 1, 2000. At that time, a questionnaire was completed by O.C., Respondent's Exhibit numbered two. O.C. indicated in her response to the questionnaire that this was the first experience O.C. had with massage therapy. By report, in the questionnaire, the medical history referred to PMS/painful menstruation. Other than the questionnaire which was filled out on the initial visit, no other documentation was established concerning the therapy. That questionnaire, in addition to commenting on the medical history by report, described the fact that O.C. rarely exercised and spent a lot of time in her day standing while at work. Respondent's Exhibit numbered two, the questionnaire, has a statement at its end where it says "I have had the massage treatment and protocol explained to me. I understand that areas will be massaged. With this information I give my permission for a massage, I know I may stop the massage at any time for whatever reason. (pain, discomfort or just being uncomfortable with the massage.)" What O.C. hoped to gain from the massage therapy was relaxation, given the stress levels she experienced at the time. All the massage therapy which Respondent provided was at his location referred to as "Hands That Care," 5135 San Juan Avenue, Jacksonville, Florida. There were 10 sessions involved with the therapy, which commenced around 7:30 p.m. on each occasion. At these visits, Respondent and O.C. would be alone in the room where the therapy was provided. At the therapy sessions, O.C. would be completely undressed with a drape over her when she was on the massage table receiving therapy. That drape was a sheet with which she covered herself. She tried to ensure that the private or sensitive areas of her body were covered with the sheet. The sheet was sufficient to cover her exposed body. Nonetheless, the client felt a draft at times around her genital area, and her breasts were exposed during certain forms of massage. This was referred to as frontal massage. That massage involved the pectoral area of her body. O.C. did not feel that there was a problem with her pectoral area being massaged. When O.C. first went for a massage, she and Respondent discussed clothing options for the course of the massage. Respondent told her that there were different options, among them that she could completely disrobe and there would not be any restriction, taken to mean any restriction in the performance of the massage. He told her that she could wear her panties if that made her feel comfortable. She chose to completely disrobe. On an estimated two or three times, O.C. describes that Respondent's ". . . hand might have swept across my nipple, but (she) tried to disregard it and hoped that it was an accident." When O.C. described the "swipe" across her nipple, she meant the actual touching of the nipple. She was not persuaded that the touching was intentional. She hoped that it was not and, at the time, did not believe that it was. O.C. had not consented to any type of lymphatic drainage breast massage or any type of breast massage from Respondent. Her request was for "relaxation massage." On the last visit with Respondent, which took place sometime in 2001, presumably the earlier part of that year, O.C. experienced a problem with Respondent in which he engaged in inappropriate conduct. On that occasion when O.C. entered the room, the room was dimly lit, as it had been on her other visits, and music was provided. The massage session began with a frontal massage, with O.C. on her back draped. The massage period took approximately two hours. O.C. was relaxed with her eyes closed. In the last massage period, one of the areas being addressed was the scar tissue on the inside of O.C.'s upper left thigh. This area is roughly portrayed on the drawing which was admitted as Respondent's Exhibit numbered three. That scar was the result of surgery, in which nerve damage was suffered by O.C. Respondent was trying to break down the tissue associated with the scar to bring about some correction in the condition. Respondent explained to O.C. that massage therapy can help nerve damage. During the last visit when Respondent was working on the scar that was left when the lymph node was removed, the massage did not feel pleasant, in that some sensation in the area was still being experienced by O.C., notwithstanding related areas of numbness. At some point while Respondent was working on the scar tissue, the draping was not covering the area to include her genitalia. At this juncture, Respondent put his hand on O.C.'s genitalia, the clitoris, and began rubbing the clitoris for a period of a minute or less. The touching involved the clitoris itself and the area around it. After that Respondent pulled O.C. up from the table. The sheet was not covering her at the time and as Respondent was pulling O.C. up his hand was still in the clitoris area. O.C. was shocked by Respondent's conduct and did not know how to handle the situation. She had not given Respondent permission to touch, rub, or massage the genital area, to include her clitoris. O.C. never experienced pain in her genital area and never asked Respondent to touch the clitoris or the area around the clitoris or to massage in those places. O.C. had never requested fertility massage or an approach known as the Wurn technique. After helping O.C. up from the table, Respondent asked O.C. to get dressed and to meet him outside. When Respondent left the room, O.C. left the table and went to the dressing room and dressed herself. She met Respondent outside the office area of the building. At this time Respondent asked O.C. if he had ever touched her inappropriately. O.C. simply shook her head in acknowledgement of his comment. She was embarrassed. Respondent also made a comment to the effect that younger people are more susceptible to certain touches than older persons. Respondent encouraged O.C. to come back for more massage therapy and assured her that he would work with her schedule and that if money to pay for the therapy was an issue, then he would work with her on that subject as well. She shook her head as if to agree. She left and never came back. The experience which O.C. had with Respondent on her last visit left her very embarrassed beyond the event. She had not had massage therapy before her experience with Respondent and did not know what to expect, but realized that his placing his hands on her clitoris or the area around the clitoris was not appropriate. The Respondent describes the massage performed on O.C. as a full body massage. This involves the neck, back, legs, feet, hands and head. The therapy is a mix between deep tissue and what Respondent considers Swedish Massage. Ordinarily, the patient is uncovered in the specific areas that are being worked on. Respondent asks permission before performing massage in the delicate areas such as around the breast. It is assumed that is what transpired with patient O.C. Respondent's involvement with O.C. in massaging an area related to her breast was addressing her pectoral muscles. Respondent did not deny the possibility that he touched O.C.'s nipple. He explained, "I don't recall swooping across the breast. If I touched any, it would have been when your pushing breast up and the breast tissue slipping and I would move my hand down to adjust for that. . ." Respondent stated that he had no intention to touch the nipple. Upon the facts presented it is not found that Respondent intended to touch her nipple, unlike the experience with the clitoris and clitoral area. Respondent acknowledges that the drape covering O.C. when he helped her to sit up on the massage table fell down to her waist when he last saw her. Respondent acknowledges that the deliberate touching of the nipples or the area of the clitoris or vaginal area is inappropriate conduct for a massage therapist. EXPERT OPINION TESTIMONY Jennifer Mason has been licensed in Florida as a massage therapist for 10 years. No discipline has ever been imposed against her license. She is an anatomy instructor at the CORE Institute of Massage Therapy in Tallahassee, Florida, where she instructs in musculoskelatal anatomy. Ms. Mason has instructed hundreds of students at Core Institute, and she has given hundreds of massages as a licensed therapist. She is expert in the field of massage therapy and was received as an expert for offering opinions concerning the practice of massage therapy. Ms. Mason practices a form of massage therapy that is similar in technique to that employed by Respondent in this case. From what Ms. Mason explained, the size and manner of draping employed by Respondent in the O.C. case and the amount of clothing worn by the patient are not at odds when taking into account what Ms. Mason believes is appropriate. Ms. Mason established that the massage therapist would never engage in the touching, rubbing, or massaging of a female patient's nipples. She does not believe that touching the nipples would be appropriate even if its accidental. Under the facts in this case, her belief that accidental touching would be inappropriate is not accepted. Ms. Mason established that it is inappropriate for a massage therapist to rub or touch a female patient's genital area, including the clitoris. Kenneth C. Oram has been licensed as a massage therapist in Florida and is an expert in the field of neuromuscular massage therapy. He has no disciplinary history in Florida in his field. He believes that a therapist could inadvertently touch the patient's nipple. He does not ascribe fault to that form of touching. His opinion in that sense is accepted given the facts in this case. Mr. Oram agrees with Ms. Mason that intentional touching of the nipples and genital area, to include the clitoris, is sexual misconduct. Those opinions are accepted. His opinion is that touching the genital area when assisting a patient from the massage table, such as was the case with O.C. is inappropriate. That opinion is accepted. Prior Disciplinary Action In Department of Health, Petitioner v. Stanley Michael Carroll, Respondent, before the State of Florida Board of Massage Therapy, Case No. 98-1208A3, Respondent was required to pay an administrative fine of $500.00 for violating Subsection 480.047(1)(c), Florida Statutes, as more particularly described in the Answers to Request for Admissions reported in these facts.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered finding Respondent in violation of Section 480.0485, Florida Statutes (2000), and revoking his massage therapist license. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of May, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES C. ADAMS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of May, 2004.
The Issue The issues presented in this case are whether Respondent has violated the provisions of chapters 456 and 480, Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The following findings of fact are based on the testimony, evidence admitted at the formal hearing, and the agreed facts in the pre-hearing stipulation. The Department is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of massage therapy pursuant to section 20.43, Florida Statutes, and chapters 456 and 480. At all times material to the allegations in this case, Respondent was licensed to practice as a massage therapist in the State of Florida, having been issued license number MA 79509. At all times material to the allegations in this matter, Respondent was employed as a massage therapist at Daytona College, in Daytona Beach, Florida. Respondent’s address of record is 10 Spanish Pine Way, Ormond Beach, Florida 32174. S.W. is a licensed mental health counselor who has been licensed for approximately 22 years. She resides in Clermont, Florida, which is where she lived at the time of the massage. In July 2017, S.W. and C.W., her 23-year-old daughter, traveled to the Daytona Beach area to visit S.W.’s elderly mother. On July 19, 2017, S.W. and C.W. went to Daytona College, for the first time, for a massage. Upon arriving at the school, they were greeted by the receptionist. S.W. and C.W. were scheduled for 80-minute massages to take place at 3:30 p.m. However, the ladies arrived ten minutes late, so the massages began late. Upon arrival, the ladies were asked whether they needed to use the restroom, which they did. After using the restroom, the ladies were taken to the massage area for their services. S.W. selected the male massage therapist based on her past positive experiences with male therapists. S.W. had received a number of massages in the past, including massages by men. She allowed her daughter to be scheduled with the female massage therapist because she believed her daughter preferred a woman. S.W. was scheduled for a massage with Respondent, and C.W. was scheduled with Elizabeth Branson. Respondent escorted S.W. to the massage room first. Ms. Branson escorted C.W. to the room a few minutes later. As Respondent escorted S.W. to the massage room, S.W. described the areas in which she wanted special attention, including her neck, shoulders, scalp, and feet. Respondent asked S.W. whether she needed massage in the sciatic area. S.W. had problems in the sciatic area, so she consented to have the area massaged. The common room where massages occurred at Daytona College contained eight massage tables separated by curtains. Respondent took S.W. into the massage room and instructed her to undress to her comfort level. Respondent left the room while S.W. undressed down to her underwear. When Respondent reentered the room, S.W. was draped with a sheet. Respondent tucked the drape into S.W.’s underwear and lowered it onto her buttocks. A short time later, S.W. could hear her daughter in the area near her, but she could not see her. C.W. whispered to S.W. to let her know she was in the room. At some point, S.W. heard her daughter exit the room. C.W. finished her massage before S.W., even though S.W.’s service began before C.W.’s. C.W. recalled that her mother was unusually quiet during the massage instead of being “chatty,” as she normally would be. C.W. waited in the hallway outside the massage room for four or five minutes for S.W.’s massage to finish. After S.W. came out of the massage room, C.W. immediately noticed that something was wrong. When S.W. exited the room, she was “wired” and not relaxed, as she would normally appear after a massage. C.W. described her as appearing nervous and agitated. C.W. could tell that something was wrong, but S.W. did not say anything at that time. The two ladies walked to the front desk. As was her routine, S.W. paid for both massages and left a $10 tip. She did not make a complaint regarding the massage with the receptionist before leaving the school. Concerned regarding her mother’s behavior, C.W. asked S.W. what happened. S.W. stated that something weird happened. The ladies left the school and began driving to their destination. S.W. continued to be upset and ultimately, began crying. She was so upset that initially, she could not articulate what occurred. S.W. ultimately told C.W. that Respondent had placed his hand under her underwear and touched her clitoris. S.W. contacted her friend Mike, a law enforcement officer. S.W. explained to Mike what happened, and he suggested that she contact the police to report what happened to her. S.W. and C.W. called the police and requested that an officer meet the ladies at Daytona College. They also contacted the school and advised them that S.W. had been inappropriately touched during her massage. They arrived back at the school approximately 20 minutes later. The officer arrived shortly after S.W. and C.W. The officer interviewed S.W. and she reported to him that while massaging her thighs, Respondent “grazed” her vaginal area with his finger. S.W. also reported that Respondent touched her clitoris with his finger. S.W. declined to pursue criminal charges and stated she would file a complaint with the Department. However, she expressed that she wanted to ensure there was a record of the incident so another woman would not have the same experience. On or about July 26, 2017, one week later, S.W. filed a complaint with the Department of Health. S.W. submitted a typewritten statement regarding the events involving Respondent. S.W. related that at the beginning of the massage, she gave Respondent permission to pull down her underwear and tuck in the drape. She stated that toward the end of the massage, Respondent “grazed” her vagina outside her underwear. He then placed his finger under her underwear and began massaging her clitoris for a couple of seconds. She stated that she grabbed Respondent’s hand and pushed it away. In response, Respondent abruptly told S.W. that the massage was done. In addition to the report to the police and the Department, S.W. also reported the incident to the school administrators, Dr. Ali and Mr. Brooks. Dr. Ali met with S.W. and C.W. when they returned to the school. Dr. Ali described S.W. as appearing embarrassed, subdued, and uncomfortable. Mr. Brooks was also present during the meeting. He was called to campus after he received a report that something inappropriate happened. He observed that S.W. appeared upset. Although there was no expert offered to testify in this matter, Chris Brooks, LMT, provided insight regarding the type of massage provided to S.W. He explained the difference between sensualized touch and sexualized touch. A sensualized touch is not uncommon in massage. On the other hand, sexualized touch is used to evoke sexual pleasure. At hearing, S.W. was clear and unwavering in her recollection of the events involving Respondent touching her vaginal area. S.W. appeared anxious, uncomfortable, and her voice cracked when she testified that Respondent moved her underwear and touched her vaginal area. Specifically, she testified that Respondent grazed her vagina on top of the front of her underwear. She was in such shock that it happened she could not say anything. Respondent then put a bare finger underneath her underwear and began massaging her clitoris. She still could not speak, so she quickly grabbed his hand and pushed it away. Consistent with her statement to the police officer and her written statement, she credibly testified that Respondent touched her vaginal area with his finger. At hearing, Respondent denied touching S.W.’s vagina during the massage. He also denied rubbing her clitoris. Mr. Brooks, who is personally and professionally acquainted with Respondent, testified that Respondent seemed shocked to learn of S.W.’s complaint. Respondent testified that he draped S.W.’s legs in such a way that it caused the draping to “bunch” between the area massaged and the genitalia. Respondent argues that S.W. could not determine whether the draping touched her genitals when Respondent massaged her legs. However, when pressed on this point, S.W. unequivocally testified that she was certain it was Respondent’s finger that touched her clitoris. Respondent had no prior complaints of inappropriate touching before S.W.’s complaint. Although Mr. Brooks asked him about the complaint on the date of the incident, there was no evidence offered at hearing that Respondent was formally interviewed by the school administration. However, Respondent was terminated from his job at Daytona College based on S.W.’s complaint. Respondent was also not interviewed by the police officer investigating the complaint. Respondent was not charged with a crime. Respondent has no prior disciplinary action involving his license to practice massage therapy. The evidence demonstrates that Respondent crossed the boundaries of appropriate massage into sexual misconduct when he massaged S.W.’s clitoris with his finger. While Respondent’s testimony seemed sincere, S.W. was more persuasive. Based on the totality of the evidence presented at hearing, there is clear and convincing evidence that Respondent touched S.W.’s vaginal area or clitoris with his finger. The placement of a massage therapist’s finger on the vaginal area or clitoris of a patient is outside the scope of the professional practice of massage therapy.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Massage Therapy enter a final order finding: Respondent guilty of violating sections 480.046(1)(p) and 480.0485 as further defined in rule 64B7-26.010; Imposing a fine of $2,500; and Revoking Respondent’s license to practice massage therapy. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of April, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S YOLONDA Y. GREEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of April, 2019.
