The Issue as to DOAH Case Number 94-0966 Whether disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent's license to practice as hearing aid specialist based on a violation of Sections 484.056(1)(g), Florida Statutes (1991) by allegedly selling old, stolen hearing aids as new hearing aids as alleged in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is, and has been at all times material hereto, a licensed hearing aid specialist in the State of Florida, having been issued license number AS 0002321. Respondent is a licensed hearing aid specialist and has been so licensed for approximately seven years. During the seven-year period as a licensed hearing aid specialist, Respondent has fitted over 2,500 hearing aid devices. Prior to the instant complaint, Respondent had no disciplinary actions against him relating to customer service. as to DOAH Case Number 94-0966 Ms. Ola Martin is seventy-two (72) years old and has a hearing problem. In 1993, Ms. Nancy Martin retained the services of Bob Horine at Hearing World, Inc., in Maitland, Florida, for purposes of purchasing a hearing aid for her mother, Ms. Ola Martin. On January 6, 1993, Ola Martin came in the offices of Hearing World, Inc., and was examined by Bob Horine, the owner. Horine did the audio testing on Ola Martin by mechanically checking her hearing and fitting her for hearing aids. The only persons in the office at that time were Respondent, Ola Martin, Horine, and Mrs. Martin's daughter, Nancy Martin, who had accompanied her mother to Hearing World, Inc. During the time that Horine was selling and fitting Ola Martin with her hearing aids, Respondent was in and out of the examination room. Respondent was introduced to Martin at that time. Respondent did not participate in the examination or taking of impressions of Ola Martin's ears for the hearing devices. The person responsible for fitting and selling the hearing aids to Ola Martin was Bob Horine. The contract for sale and delivery of the hearing aids to Ola Martin was made between Horine and Ola Martin. Ola Martin stated that she was returning to Kentucky in two days and asked if she could have rush service. Horine agreed and advised her to pick up her hearing aids the following day, January 7, 1993. Ola Martin paid $1,295.00 to Horine on the same day that he tested her hearing for hearing aids. Horine asked Respondent for assistance in obtaining rush service. Respondent agreed that he would take the paperwork to the SonoTone Laboratory in Casselberry. They agreed to expedite the manufacture of the hearing aids for Ola Martin. Ola Martin arrived the following day with her daughter to retrieve her hearing aids. She was informed that neither Horine, nor Dan Culley, Hearing Aid Specialist, were available for the fitting, and the fitting would be done by Respondent. After agreeing to perform the final fitting for Martin, Respondent retrieved her file and found hearing aid devices inside. The file contained two devices, one for each ear. Respondent took Martin back to the examination area and examined her ears to make sure that they were free of wax. Respondent then took the hearing aids, installed the batteries, and placed the aids into Martin's ears, asking her how they felt. Respondent then showed Martin how to work the hearing devices. Respondent then gave Martin a 25-word discrimination test from a distance of ten feet. During the fitting, Martin conveyed to Respondent that the hearing aids seemed a little too large. Respondent then took them to another room where he buffed the hearing aids with a drill in order to help them fit properly. When placed back in the ears of Martin, they seemed to fit properly. Respondent instructed Martin to leave the hearing aids in place for one hour on the first day, and then gradually to increase the wearing time until she was comfortably wearing the hearing aids at all times except at night. At no time did Martin communicate her dissatisfaction with the fit or sound of her hearing aids to Respondent. Martin was in a hurry to conclude her business with Respondent, as she was worried that her daughter was going to be angry with her for taking so long. The serial numbers on the hearing aid devices delivered to Martin are too small to be viewed by the naked eye and require magnification to be seen. Respondent did not check the invoice numbers against the numbers on the devices delivered to Martin. At Hearing World, hearing aids were checked in through the receptionist, who would prepare the hearing aid devices for delivery. The receptionist was responsible for checking the serial numbers against those listed on the invoice. Respondent assumed when he found the two hearing aids in Martin's file, that they were the hearing aids which had been manufactured by SonoTone for her. Respondent made a visual inspection of the hearing aids and did not check the serial numbers from the manufacturer against those on the hearing aid devices. Neither a visual inspection, nor from any communication from Martin, caused Respondent to believe that the hearing aids which he inserted at that time were not those manufactured for Martin. Respondent received no negative communication from Martin after the fitting of her hearing aids. Approximately two to three days after Respondent fitted Martin's hearing aid devices, he was informed by the receptionist that two hearing aid devices had arrived from SonoTone for Martin. Respondent then realized that the hearing aids which were in Ola Martin's possession were not manufactured for her. When Respondent informed Horine of the error, Horine told Respondent that he had used Respondent's models in testing, and had "stuck" [sic] them in her file by mistake. Horine told Respondent that he would take care of the matter and straighten out the erroneous delivery. The standard operating procedure employed at Hearing World, Inc. in fitting a client with hearing aids was as follows: Hearing aids would be ordered. The hearing aids would then be manufactured by SonoTone in Longwood and sent to Hearing World, Inc. The hearing aids would first come to the secretary at Hearing World, Inc. The secretary would then take the hearing aids out, inspect them, insert batteries, and test their functioning. The secretary would record the serial numbers on the invoice and check those with the serial numbers on the hearing devices and place the hearing devices in the client's file. The person fitting the hearing aids would then pick up the file. It was not negligent, incompetent or misconduct for Respondent to have picked up Ola Martin's file, and finding two hearing aids therein, place them in the client's ears with a visual check only. After making the slight adjustment for size and with no complaints from the client as to audio or fitting problems, Respondent would not have had cause to double check the manufacturer's number on the hearing aids with the manufacturer's number on the invoice. Although the hearing aids helped Ola Martin's hearing, upon her return to Lexington, Kentucky, she complained that they seemed too loud even when she turned them down as low as they would go. Martin went to the Miracle Ear office in Lexington to have her hearing aids examined, and was examined by James McFadden, a hearing aid specialist for 29 years. Martin complained to McFadden that her hearing aids did not fit properly and that the sound was not clear. Upon examining Ola Martin's device, McFadden observed that they did not fit properly. McFadden attempted to adjust the hearing aids to Martin's satisfaction, but was not able to do so. McFadden obtained the serial number from the hearing device and spoke to a Miracle Ear representative in Minneapolis. He was informed that the hearing aid devices were registered to a woman in the Miami area and were fitted to that woman in March, 1991. McFadden then retested Martin and made new impressions of her ears for another Miracle Ear hearing device. The hearing aids brought to McFadden by Martin were originally made for Isabella Miller and were sold through Jean Marohn, a Miracle Ear franchisee based in Fort Myers, Florida. The shipping date was March 27, 1991. Miracle Ear instructed Martin to return the hearing aids to the original seller, Horine, for a complete refund. Based upon her conversation with McFadden, Martin returned the hearing aids to her daughter in order to obtain a refund from Hearing World, Inc., in Orlando. Ola Martin's daughter contacted Hearing World and was reimbursed by Horine for the full amount paid for hearing aids. Subsequently, Ola Martin filed a complaint with the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation against Horine, but not as to Respondent. Dahlburg is the manufacturer of Miracle Ear. During the manufacturing process, a serial number is placed on the hearing instrument which is unique for that particular hearing instrument. It is registered to the single individual for whom the instrument is made. Upon construction of the hearing instrument, it is shipped to the franchisee for placement in the consumer's ear. A franchisee outside the Minneapolis area could not obtain a hearing device from Dahlberg within a 24-hour period. Miracle Ear replaced Martin's hearing aids with new Miracle Ear hearing instruments at no cost to her. Jean Burton Marohn is a licensed hearing aid specialist in the State of Florida and owner of a Miracle Ear franchise located in Ft. Myers, Florida. In the early 1990's, Respondent was employed by Marohn as a manager at the store in Miami that covered South Dade and Monroe Counties. Respondent was employed in that capacity until approximately September 1992, when the store closed and he lost his home and personal belongs to Hurricane Andrew. The hearing aids in possession of Ola Martin were, in fact, sold by the Miami store to Isabella Miller. The hearing aids originally constructed for Isabella Miller were returned by her to Marohn's office in Miami. Miller alleged she was dissatisfied with the product, and could not afford the payments. Although Marohn attempted to rectify the problem with the hearing aid devices, Miller refused to reclaim possession of the hearing aids. They remained in Marohn's Miami location because the manufacturer's return period had expired. At the time of the impending Hurricane Andrew, Marohn requested that Respondent remove from the store what items he could: typewriters, telephones, copy machines, fax machines, and audiometers because of the potential for looting after the storm passed through. Respondent did so and informed Marohn that, in addition to the above items, he also removed stock and merchandise from the store. None of the items removed by Respondent, including the hearing aid devices, were returned to Marohn after the hurricane. In March of 1993, Marohn received a telephone call from an attorney calling on behalf of Respondent informing her that Respondent wanted to return the items removed from her store in exchange for commissions that she owed him. Marohn informed Respondent's attorney that she had replaced the equipment that Respondent had removed and she refused to accept the return of her property. Marohn tendered a casualty loss to her insurance company, including items that Respondent removed with knowledge, including the hearing aids. At the time that Respondent discontinued employment with Marohn, he was due a minimum of $3,000.00 in commissions. Prior to Hurricane Andrew, Marohn provided Respondent with a number of hearing aid devices which were given to him and which he employed as display or demonstrative models. The hearing aids returned to Marohn by Miller at Miracle Ear were given to Respondent for demonstrative purposes. Respondent kept approximately 12 pair of canal hearing instruments, including Miller's, of different sizes and frequencies in his display case, which he called Pandora's Box. He took this display case with him when he moved to Central Florida. After Hurricane Andrew occurred, Respondent left Marohn's employment and moved to Central Florida. He also took with him certain items that he had removed from the store. Subsequent to Respondent's departure, a dispute arose between him and Jean Marohn over commissions that were due from his employment with her. Respondent contacted an attorney who attempted to reach a settlement with Marohn as to the items held in Respondent's possession and commissions owed to him by Marohn. Respondent is currently in litigation with Marohn over the commissions due. Upon departing the Miami area, Respondent began employment with Hearing World, Inc. on Woodcock Road, Orlando, Florida. Respondent was employed at Hearing World, Inc. by Bob Horine and Tony Andreozzi. Bob Horine was president and manager of the Hearing World facility. The only compensation received by Respondent was 30 percent of the sale of hearing aids sold by him. Whenever Respondent completed the final fitting for a customer for hearing aids sold by Horine, Respondent would not receive any compensation. as to DOAH Case Number 94-0967 On June 21, 1993, the Petitioner conducted an inspection at Respondent's place of employment in Maitland, known as Hearing World, Inc. The inspection revealed several violations of Florida law, as follows: The testing room facilities and files were missing waiver forms. A failure to have hearing aid models, supplies and services available on the premises. A failure to post prices. A failure to provide calibration certifi- cates for audiometers in use in the facility. At the time of the inspection at Hearing World, Respondent introduced himself to Petitioner's inspectors as a vice president of that company. At the time of the inspection, Respondent was employed at Hearing World located on Woodcock Road in Orlando, Florida as a sales representative. Under his compensation agreement, he was to be paid for 30 percent of his sales. The owners of the company, Hearing World, Inc., located at Woodcock Road, Orlando, Florida, were Bob Horine and Tony Andreozzi. Respondent had no ownership interest in Hearing World, and was neither stockholder, officer, director nor minority shareholder in the company. Respondent received no compensation from the sales of hearing devices sold by other owners, managers, or employees of Hearing World, Inc. The only agreement between Respondent Horine as to the position of vice president was contingent upon Respondent's buyout of Horine's interest in Hearing World, Inc. A transaction which never came to fruition. Respondent expended no personal funds in renovating the office; purchasing signs, equipment, advertising or office overhead. The occupational license for Hearing World, Inc., posted on the premises, did not contain Respondent's name. Although Horine's Hearing Aid specialist license had been either suspended or revoked, Respondent had no knowledge of that fact until after the June, 1993 inspection. Respondent at no time agreed or intended to be the licensed person on the premises responsible for the business and training of other employees. At the time of the June, 1993, inspection, Hearing World had been at that location approximately 30 days. At the time of the June, 1993, inspection, there was an audiometric testing room on the premises under construction. An individual, named John Harris, was overseeing the work on the telecoustics and was in the process of doing the final calibration on the audiometric testing room at the time of the inspection. It was completed within a few days thereafter. At the time of the June 1993 inspection, Hearing World carried its services outside the office location and provided in-home service. At the time of the inspection, Respondent was not conducting any testing in the office. He was practicing in-home service. At the time of the inspection, hearing aid models, supplies and services were on the premises but were in the possession of the respective sales representatives. They stored them in their individual display cases (Pandora's Box). A majority of all supplies were located in the employees' Pandora Boxes, since Hearing World, Inc. was predominantly a field operation. The bags were utilized by the employees when they left the office to make field calls. The employees would bring their equipment to the office premises. When called into the field, they would take their equipment with them, which included hearing aid models and supplies. Hearing aid prices were posted in the administrative office at Hearing World, Inc., where the clients would come to pay their bills. On June 21, 1993, Respondents wife, Barbara Segretario, was employed as an administrator on the premises at Hearing World, Inc. Barbara Segretario was responsible for handling all the paperwork, accepting money, paying bills, and making financial arrangements for the purchase of hearing aids or to pay for repairs. All clients who came into the office to pay a bill, make financial arrangements, purchase a hearing aid, or pay for a repair would come into her office at Hearing World, Inc. There was a price list for hearing aids posted in Barbara Segretario's office in front of her desk, next to the window to her left, said price was posted on June 21, 1993, at the time of the inspection. Every transaction at Hearing World, Inc. included a visit by the client to the administrative offices for financial arrangements where hearing aid prices were conspicuously posted. Hearing World employed a service representative on June 21, 1993. When the inspection occurred, the representative was off the premises. The service representative's service equipment, as well as hearing aid models and supplies, were kept with him so that they were present when he was on the premises. He left with them when he went into the field to do an in- home service on behalf of Hearing World, Inc. Generally, these services were not conducted on premises, but were carried into clients' homes. All of the sales personnel at Hearing World, Inc. had their own hearing aid models which were kept with them in a display case, which they had in their possession while on premises and carried with them into the field for in-home services. There were two audiometers in use on the premises at the time of the June 1993 inspection; however, Horine and Respondent could not provide a certificate of calibration for those instruments to the inspector. Respondent did not provide the certification to the Petitioner for the audiometer that he employed at the time of the inspection. There were other audiometers on the premises that were not in use and were not certified at the time of the June 1993 inspection. A copy of the certifications of the two audiometers being used on the premises on June 21, 1993 were mailed to Petitioner after being requested by the Inspector. As of the date of this hearing, Petitioner had not received the certifications that were mailed pertaining to the two audiometers employed on the premises at the time of the inspection.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing the Administrative Complaint as to DOAH Case No. 94-0966. It is further RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing Counts I, II, III and V of the Administrative Complaint as to DOAH Case No. 94-0967, finding Respondent guilty of violating Count IV of the Complaint and imposing an administrative fine of $100.00 for said offense. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of April, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of April, 1995. APPENDIX Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1, 2 (in part), 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 (in part), 9 (in part), 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 28, 30, 31 (in part), 32 (in part), 34, 36, 37, 38 (in part), 39 (in part), 40 (in part), 42, 46, 47, 48 (in part). Rejected as not proven by clear and convincing evidence: paragraphs 2 (in part), 8 (in part), 9 (in part), 12, 31 (in part), 32 (in part), 33, 38 (in part), 39 (in part), 40 (in part), 41, 48 (in part). Rejected as subsumed, irrelevant or immaterial: paragraphs 5, 15, 16, 20, 27, 29, 35, 43, 44, 45. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact for Case No. 94-0966 Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 (in part), 12, 13, 14, 15 (in part), 16, 17, 18 (in part), 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 33 (in part), 34, 35, 36 (in part), 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49 (in part) 50 (in part), 51 (in part), 52 (in part), 57, 58, 61, 64, 67, 68, 69, 70 (in part), 71, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81 (in part), 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 108 (in part), 109, 110, 111. Rejected as against the evidence: paragraph 11 (in part), 15 (in part), 18 (in part) 51 (in part), 52 (in part). Rejected as subsumed, irrelevant or immaterial: paragraphs 22, 27, 31, 32, 33 (in part), 36 (in part), 37, 49 (in part), 50 (in part), 53, 54, 55, 56, 59, 60, 62, 63, 65, 66, 70 (in part), 72, 81 (in part), 104, 105, 106, 107, 108 (in part), 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact for Case No. 94-0967 Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1, 2, 4 (in part), 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 47 (in part), 48 (in part), 49, 50, 51 (in part), 53. Rejected as subsumed or irrelevant or immaterial: paragraphs 3, 31, 37, 38. Rejeted as not proven by clear and convencing evidence: paragraphs 4 (in part), 7, 8, 9, 46, 47 (in part), 48 (in part), 51 (in part), 52. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan E. Lindgard, Esquire Senior Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 William J. Sheaffer, Esquire 609 East Central Boulevard Orlando, Florida 32801 Susan Foster Executive Director Hearing Aid Specialists Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Case History This case is presented for consideration based upon the Petition for Determination of the Invalidity of Rule 100-48.27(1) and (2), Florida Administrative Code, and the October 16, 1981, memorandum. This Petition was received by the Division of Administrative Hearings and assigned for consideration to the present Hearing Officer by order of the Acting Director of the Division of Administrative Hearings, dated March 23, 1982. An amendment was allowed on April 7, 1982, which brought about the deletion of George Selis and Harold A. Peck, Jr., as party Petitioners and added the party Petitioner Irene Selis. On April 9, 1982, a Prehearing Conference was held in which oral argument was allowed on Petitioners' Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories and Request for Official Recognition and on Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, Motion for More Definite Statement, Motion to Strike the Amended Petition and Motion to Expedite Discovery. An order was entered on April 12, 1982, which took Official Recognition of Items 1 through 6 in the request and reserved ruling on Items 7 through 9. Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, Motion to Strike and Motion for More Definite Statement were denied and the Amended Petition, as acknowledged before, was allowed. Petitioner's Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories related to the first set was denied and was denied concerning the second set with the exception of number 5 which was granted. Respondent's Motion to Expedite Compliance with the Amended First Request for Production was granted. At the hearing on April 16, 1982, Item 6 of the Petitioners' Request for Official Recognition was substituted for by stipulation of counsel and Respondent's substitute item was accepted. Items 7 through 9 of the Request for Official Recognition were admitted without objection. In the course of the final hearing, Petitioner presented Jay Alan Bertoch, President of the Florida Hearing Aid Society; George C. Martinez, member of the Board of Directors of the Society and Barbara Stanley, member of the Board of Directors of the Society. Martinez and Stanley also appeared in their individual capacities as registrants who employ and supervise trainees. Benjamin T. Wrubel and Howard Griesdorf, Stage II trainees in hearing aid programs in Florida under the supervision of Irene Selis, a named Petitioner, gave testimony. Respondent presented as a witness, Ralph Gray, Program Administrator, Hearing Aid Licensing, State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. Substantive Facts Petitioner, Florida Hearing Aid Society, Inc., is a nonprofit corporation duly registered in Florida, composed of approximately 270 of the 435 licensed and regulated fitters and sellers of hearing aids. In addition, there are trainees who are seeking licensure as fitters and sellers and manufacturers of hearing aids who are members of the Society. The licensees/registrants who are members of the Society are authorized to employ and supervise trainees in keeping with the provisions of Chapter 468, Florida Statutes, and Rule 10D- 48.27(1) and (.2), Florida Administrative Code. Trainees who are supervised by Society members and other registrants are required to serve a six-month apprenticeship which is divided into three stages: Stage I is a one month training period; State II is a two month training period and Stage III is a three month training period. Completion of this apprenticeship is necessary before the apprentice is eligible to become a registrant. The purposes of the Society, as set forth in its Articles of Incorporation, are as follows: To promote good will and cooperation among the hearing aid dealers in the State of Florida. To promote the welfare, in so far [sic] as hearing is concerned, of the hard-of-hearing public. To improve the professional standards of the hearing aid dealers of the State of Florida, and to inculcate among the members ethical principles that will lend dignity to the profession and insure [sic] continued public confidence in the profession. To promulgate among the general public knowledge and understanding as to the use and and value of instruments for the aid to hearing. To improve methods of dispensing, fitting and using hearing aids and to improve such aids. To foster and encourage the development of a closer relationship between the members of the general public, hearing aid dealers in the State of Florida, and the medical profession and others working and allied to the field of audiology; and especially by the coordination of professional and lay efforts, services and assistance. To foster the trade, profession and interest of all hearing aid dealers in the State of Florida. To collect and disseminate information of value to members and to the general public. To appear for and on behalf of the members before legislative committees, government bureaus, and other bodies with regard to matters effecting [sic] the heading aid dealers of the State of Florida. To conduct these activities and achieve these objectives without pecuniary profit. Do everything and anything reasonably necessary, suitable, proper, convenient or incidental to the aforesaid purposes or which properly may be done by a corporation not for profit organized for such purposes, under the laws of the State of Florida, and to possess all proper powers, rights and privileges permitted such a corporation not for profit by such law. The Florida Hearing Aid Society in effectuating its purposes participates in legislative activities and interacts with the Respondent with regard to rule making and other regulatory matters. In addition, the Florida Hearing Aid Society has a member who serves on the Hearing Aid Advisory Council of the Respondent, which Council is created by Section 468.1235, Florida Statutes. The Florida Hearing Aid Society conducts educational programs for its members and the Florida Society is a member of the National Hearing Aid Society, its counter part at a national level. The Florida Hearing Aid Society is the only Florida association of general membership representing registrants, trainees and others affiliated with the matters of fitting and selling hearing aids. Jay Alan Bertoch is the current president of the Florida Hearing Aid Society. George C. Martinez and Irene Selis are members of the Board of Directors of that Society. Members of the Society, at all times pertinent, have hired trainees who have undergone or are undergoing apprenticeships in keeping with Rule 10D- 48.27, Florida Administrative Code. Bertoch, Barbara Stanley and Martinez are Society members who are involved in that training process. Those individuals have indicated a reluctance to hire trainees in the future, due to the requirements of Rule 10D-48.27(1) and (2), Florida Administrative Code, which requires immediate supervision of Stage I and II trainees. The aforementioned individuals have also been influenced in their opinion, based upon the October 16, 1981, memorandum from Ralph Gray, Administrative Official with the Respondent, which memorandum is at issue through this rules challenge. This memorandum has contributed to the reluctance on the part of the registrants to utilize trainees. The Florida Hearing Aid Society voted through its Board to bring the rules challenge. The October 16, 1981, memorandum was directed to all licensed registrants in Florida who fit and sell hearing aids. A copy of the full text of that memorandum may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2, admitted into evidence. The memorandum speaks in terms of an interpretation of Subsection 468.126(2)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes, Part II, and Rule 100-48.27(1) and (2), Florida Administrative Code, and was authored by Ralph Gray, the Program Administrator for the Hearing Aid Licensure Program. Gray's duties, among other matters, include the investigation and decision to prosecute those registrants and trainees who would violate the terms and conditions of the statutes and rules pertaining to the fitting and selling of hearing aids. This so-called interpretation was made on the basis of inquiries that had been made of Respondent concerning testing clients and selling of hearing aids to those clients by Stage I and II trainees, without being in the same physical location as the sponsor/registrant. This refers to the sponsor of the trainee. Barbara Stanley's testimony identified the fact that when she, as registrant, accompanied her Stage I or II trainee in activities outside the office, as opposed to letting the trainee operate alone outside the office, she would lose income opportunities. Stanley and Martinez, in discussing the specific question of hiring trainees in the future, established that they would be bothered by that idea in view of the fact of cost to them as registrants and the financial burden that is placed on trainees. Typically, the trainees are salaried during their apprenticeship or work on commission during that time. The actual training afforded to the Stage I and II participant is not pursuant to a uniform course established by Respondent. The instruction provided by the sponsor/registrant is a matter of individual choice by that sponsor; however, reading and home study courses in the hearing aid fitting and selling field are recommended, together with some courses which are prepared by hearing aid manufacturers. Registrants Bertoch, Stanley, Martinez and Selis have provided instruction to their trainees in keeping with Respondent's guidelines. Benjamin T. Wrubel and Howard Greisdorf, Stage II trainees employed by Irene Selis, testified in the course of the hearing and indicated that in their circumstances, there were no differences in their activities as Stage I and II trainees on the question of their employment and supervision by their sponsor. These two individuals work on a commission basis and indicated that their inability to operate independent of their sponsor in Stage I and II has created an economic imposition for them.
The Issue May a person whose license has been revoked under the provisions of Chapter 468, Florida Statutes, be issued a trainee temporary certificate of registration-by the Department?
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner contends that he is eligible to be issued a trainee temporary certificate of registration to engage in the fitting or selling of hearing aids inasmuch as he is of good moral character and is over the age of twenty-one (21). The Respondent contends that the Petitioner is not eligible to be registered inasmuch as he had his certificate of registration revoked in 1971 and there are no provisions in the statutes for reinstatement once a license is revoked. Petitioner submitted his application for a trainee temporary certificate of registration in March of 1976. The application was returned in April of 1976 for the stated reason that "Since Mr. Lindsay's license was revoked by order of the Division of Health on February 12, 1971, and all licenses to hearing aid dealers are under the provisions of Chapter 468, Florida Statutes, I know of no provisions under these statutes to provide for a reinstatement of a hearing aid dealer's license after revocation. It appears that the hearing aid law statute is silent on this matter, therefore without specific authority to reconsider this application, I am returning to you the check you enclosed, being Check 6483 in the amount of $25.00 drawn on the Florida Bank at Fort Lauderdale, and the original of the application which was enclosed in your letter of March 26, 1976 which was received in this office on March 29." The Certificate as a Fitter and Seller of Hearing Aids Registration No. 165-06-68 granted Franklin J. Lindsay was revoked February 12, 1971, for the reason that Mr. Lindsay was the owner and proprietor of the Professional Hearing Aid Service and was an employing principal of one Mr. John E. Buehler who was found guilty of violating various provisions of Chapter 468, F.S., including the selling of a hearing aid to a customer as new when in fact the hearing aid was secondhand or rebuilt. Mr. Buehler's license was suspended for one year and Mr. Lindsay's license was revoked. The Petitioner has established by witnesses that he is of good moral character and has been rehabilitated and that he comes within the qualification of applicants as required for a trainee under Section 468.126(3)(a).
Recommendation Accept the application together with the required fee of $25 from the Petitioner and allow him to pursue the trainee program as provided in Section 468.126(3)(a). Date October 25, 1976 DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: J. Hodges, Esquire Post Office Box 210 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 John V. Russell, Esquire Suite 205 2 Commercial Boulevard Lauderdale-by-the-Sea, Florida 33308
The Issue The issue in these cases is whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in three Administrative Complaints, and, if so, what appropriate disciplinary action should be taken against him.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received in evidence and the entire record complied herein, the following relevant facts are made: At all times relevant to the issues herein, the Board of Hearing Aid Specialists has been the state agency in Florida responsible for the licensing of hearing aid specialists and regulation of hearing aid providers in Florida. Section 455, Florida Statutes (1999). Respondent, Robert F. Davidson, has been a licensed hearing aid specialist in this state, holding license number 0000740. From sometime in April and continuing through sometime in December 1998 Respondent was employed as a salaried store manager at Hearite Audiological ("Hearite"), a hearing aid establishment located at 2700 East Bay Drive, Largo, Florida, 33771, and owned by George Richards and Paula Rogers. Respondent engaged in testing the hearing of individuals and engaged in selling hearing aids to individuals for Hearite Audiological, Inc. To each individual Respondent sole a hearing aid, he provided that person with a written notice of the 30-day money back guarantee. Case No. 01-3536PL Patient C. L. D., a hearing impaired-person, visited Hearite on September 9, 1998, and entered an agreement to purchase a pair of hearing aids for $1,795.00, paying $500.00 deposit at that time. Patient C. L. D. was provided a sales receipt for her deposit signed by Respondent. On September 21, 1998, Respondent delivered the hearing aids to patient C. L. D. at Hearite and signed the receipt as the person who delivered the hearing aids to the patient. Patient C. L. D., after using the hearing aids, became dissatisfied with them and returned the hearing aids to Respondent at Hearite on October 8, 1998. Respondent accepted the hearing aids from Patient C. L. D. and, pursuant to the terms of the sales contract, Respondent promised Patient C. L. D. a full refund of her $500.00 deposit. Despite repeated phone calls to Respondent and repeated attempts to obtain the refund, Patient C. L. D. has never received her refund as promised, and Hearite was later sold to a new owner in January 1999. Case No. 01-3537PL On May 26, 1998, hearing-impaired Patient J. C. aged 95 years, and now deceased, along with his daughter, Chris Vidalis, visited Hearite and purchased a hearing aid for $1,345.00, paying $500.00 deposit upon execution of the sales contract. On June 5, 1998, Patient J. C. paid the remaining $845.00 and received his hearing aid. On June 12, 1998, being dissatisfied with its use Patient J. C. returned the hearing aid and requested a refund. Respondent accepted the hearing aid and promised Patient J. C. a refund of $1,345.00 within 120 days. Patient J. C.'s daughter, Chris Vidalis, who was with her father every time he visited Hearite, made numerous telephone calls and visits to Hearite in attempts to obtain the refund. The refund was never paid and Hearite was sold to a new owner in January 1999. Case No 01-3538PL On or about June 10, 1998, Patient R. L., after several unsolicited telephone calls from someone representing Hearite, visited Hearite for the purpose of having his hearing tested and possibly purchasing a hearing aid. After testing, Patient R. L. purchased a pair of hearing aids at Hearite for $3,195.00. A paid in full receipt signed by Al Berg was given to Patient R. L. On or about July 10, 1998, Respondent delivered the hearing aids to Patient R. L. and signed the sales receipt as the licensee who delivered the hearing aids. Upon being dissatisfied with using the hearing aids Patient R. L. returned them to Hearite on July 13, 1998. Kelly Dyson, audiologist employed at Hearite, accepted the hearing aids and promised Patient R. L. a full refund of $2,840.00, pursuant to the terms of the contract. Patient R. L. made repeated attempts to obtain his refund as promised but has not received one. Hearite was sold to a new owner in January 1999. Respondent's position, that each of the three patients herein above was aware or should have been aware that the sale of hearing aids, and, therefore, the guarantor of the refunds was Hearite Audiological, Inc., and, not himself, is disingenuous.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board of Hearing Aid Specialists enter a final order requiring Respondent to pay the following amounts: to Patient C. L. D., $500.00, DOAH Case No. 01-3536PL; to Patient J. C. (or his estate) $1,345.00, DOAH Case No. 01-3537PL, and to Patient R. L., $2,840.00, DOAH Case 01-3537PL. Further that Respondent be fined $1,000.00 and be required to pay the appropriate costs of investigation and prosecution. Further, ordered that Respondent's license be suspended and not reinstated until after all payments herein ordered are paid in full, and thereafter place Respondent on probation for a period of not less than one year under the terms and conditions deemed appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of February, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. FRED L. BUCKINE 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 1st day of February, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Gary L. Asbell, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Building 3, Mail Station 39 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 E. Raymond Shope, II, Esquire 1404 Goodlette Road, North Naples, Florida 34102 Susan Foster, Executive Director Board of Hearing Aid Specialist Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Theodore M. Henderson, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue The issue is whether the Petitioner, Caroline T. Davis, is entitled to licensure as a hearing aid specialist by virtue of a passing grade on the September, 1989, examination.
Findings Of Fact Caroline T. Davis was an applicant for licensure as a hearing aid specialist and took the September, 1989, examination. Ms. Davis received an overall score of 71%. A score of 75% is required to pass the examination. As a result of sanctions imposed for failure to produce, Ms. Davis was awarded 2 points. (See Order Imposing Sanctions entered July 24, 1990.) As a result, Ms. Davis has a score of 73% and needs only 2 points to pass the examination. While she challenged numerous portions of the examination, at the hearing Ms. Davis raised specific challenges only to the scoring on Procedures 7-9, 11, and 13 of the earmold impressions portion of the practical examination. Procedure 7 relates to the examination of the ear after removal of the impression. The candidate instructions given prior to the examination advise the candidate to "[d]emonstrate all procedures followed prior, during, and after making an impression." The tape of the examination makes it clear that Ms. Davis stated that she would go back and examine the ear after removing the earmold. However, Ms. Davis did not demonstrate the activity of examining the ear after removing the impression. Ms. Davis did not satisfy the requirements for credit on Procedure 7. Procedure 8 relates to the execution of a correct order form. The instructions required the candidate to fill out an order form for an earmold. Ms. Davis incorrectly filled out the order form for an in-the-ear hearing aid. While the rest of the form was correctly executed, the one error is sufficient to deny credit for a correct answer on Procedure 8. Procedure 9 relates to an explanation by the candidate of how to put on a hearing aid. Ms. Davis did not perform this task. She simply stated that she would explain or demonstrate the way to put on a hearing aid. She did not satisfy the requirements for credit on Procedure 9. Procedure 11 requires the candidate to give the functions of at least three parts of a hearing aid. The candidate instructions advise the candidate to tell the client "the function of the parts of the hearing aid that are important for client use." Ms. Davis explained the functions of two parts: the battery and its proper insertion and the volume control. She named three other parts, but she failed to explain the functions of these parts. Procedure 11 requires more than the simple naming of parts of a hearing aid. Again Ms. Davis failed to perform the required tasks for credit on Procedure 11. Procedure 13 requires the candidate to tell the client about the warranty on the hearing aid. Ms. Davis did state that she would tell the client about the warranty, but she did not do so during the examination. She argues that she should not have to state the warranty information because that would be provided in a written form to the client when the aid is delivered. The candidate instructions make it clear that the candidate is to select one of the aids provided at the examination, is to use that aid in performing various procedures, and is to perform the procedures as if that aid were being delivered to the client. The candidate is required to state the warranty information as to the hearing aid he selected. The very terms of the examination require that the candidate tell about the warranty information, not state that she would do so in a real situation. Ms. Davis did not tell about the warranty and is not entitled to credit for Procedure 13.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Professional Regulation enter a Final Order dismissing the examination challenge of Caroline T. Davis to the September, 1989, examination for licensure as a hearing aid specialist. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of September, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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 4th day of September, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Caroline T. Davis Proposed findings of fact 1, 2, 4, 5, 14, and 16 are unsupported by the competent, substantial evidence. Proposed findings of fact 3, 6-10, 15, and 17-21 are irrelevant. Proposed findings of fact 11-13 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Department of Professional Regulation Proposed findings of fact 1 and 4-9 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Proposed findings of fact 2, 3, and 10 are unnecessary or irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: See Next Page Caroline T. Davis 2401 West 15th Street Panama City, FL 32401 Vytas J. Urba Staff Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 LouElla Cook Executive Director Board of Hearing Aid Specialists Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for renewal of his certificate of registration to fit and sell hearing aids should be denied here he establishes that he satisfactorily completed the required continuing education course during the year of his application, rather than during the previous calendar year.
Findings Of Fact On January 29, 1980, the Applicant submitted to the Department a completed application for renewal of his 1979 Certificate of Registration to Dispense Hearing Aids in Florida. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). At the time of his application (January, 1980) the Applicant was unable to provide evidence of having completed at least ten hours of an approved continuing education course relating to the fitting and selling of hearing aids. He was, however, in the process of attending such a course at the University of Central Florida, which he successfully completed during February, 1980. (Petitioner's Exhibits 1 and 2, Testimony of G. L. BOOTHE) The Department proposed to deny the applicant's request for renewal on the sole ground that his application failed to show that the required continuing education course had been completed prior to his application, and during the prior calendar year 1979. (Testimony of G. L. Boothe) On July 21, 1978, and again on October 1, 1979 the Department notified all registered hearing aid dispensers, including the Applicant, of the new continuing education requirement enacted by the 1978 Florida Legislature. The Applicant received such notice, and was aware of this new requirement. (Respondent's Exhibits 1 and 2, Testimony of G. L. BOOTHE) Between 1969 and February, 1979, the Applicant was licensed by the State to fit and sell hearing aids, and was employed by the Beltone Hearing Aid Company. In February, 1979, he left the company and was considering retirement. (Testimony of G. L. BOOTHE) The Applicant failed to take the required continuing education course during 1979 because, from February 1979 through January, 980, he was uncertain whether he would surrender his license or continue in the business of fitting and selling hearing aids. During January and February, 1980, he entered the employment of the Orange Hearing Aid Center, Orlando, Florida for the purpose of fitting and selling hearing aids. He, therefore, applied far the renewal of his license, and successfully completed the required continuing education course. (Testimony of G. L. Boothe)
The Issue Whether Rules 21JJ-7.007(2), (3) and (3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, are invalid pursuant to Sections 120.54(2) and 120.56, Florida Statutes (1987)?
Findings Of Fact Section 484.0401, Florida Statutes (1987), provides the following: The Legislature recognizes that the dispensing of hearing aids requires particularized knowledge and skill to ensure that the interests of the hearing-impaired public will be adequately served and safely protected. It recognizes that a poorly selected or fitted hearing aid not only will give little satisfaction but may interfere with hearing ability and, therefore, deems it necessary in the interest of the public health, safety, and welfare to regulate the dispensing of hearing aids in this state. Restrictions on the fitting and selling of hearing aids shall be imposed only to the extent necessary to *protect the public from physical and economic harm*, and restrictions shall not be imposed in a manner which will unreasonably affect the competitive market. [Emphasis added]. The Legislature amended Section 484.0401, Florida Statutes (1987), during the 1986 Session to provide for the protection of the public against economic harm and to include the public welfare within the scope of the protection of Chapter 484, Florida Statutes. Section 484.044, Florida Statutes (1987), authorizes the Board of Hearing Aid Specialists (hereinafter referred to as the "Board"), to adopt rules it deems necessary to carry out the provisions of Chapter 484, Florida Statutes. On April 24, 1987, the Board caused to be published Rule 21JJ-7.007, Florida Administrative Code, in Volume 13, Number 17, Florida Administrative Weekly. On May 20, 1987, a public hearing was held to allow comments concerning the challenged rule. Following this meeting and a meeting before the Board on July 10 and 11, 1987, a Notice of Change, changing the challenged rules was published in the July 24, 1987, edition of the Volume 13, Number 30, Florida Administrative Weekly. Rule 21JJ-7.007, Florida Administrative Code, was filed with the Department of State on July 23, 1987. Volume 13, Number 31, Florida Administrative Weekly. It was effective August 12, 1987. Rule 21JJ-7.007(2), Florida Administrative Code, provides the following: Fraudulent, False, Deceptive or Misleading Advertising. An advertisement or advertising is fraudulent, false, deceptive or misleading, if it: (2) Conveys the impression that the licensee or trainee possesses qualifications, skills, or other attributes which are false, other than a simple listing of earned professional achievements and degrees. Rule 21JJ-7.007(3) and (3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, provide the following: Fraudulent, False, Deceptive or Misleading Advertising. An advertisement or advertising is fraudulent, false, deceptive or misleading, if it: Is misleading or deceptive because its content or the context in which it is presented makes only a partial disclosure of relevant facts. Specifically, it is misleading and deceptive to advertise a discounted price, without identifying the specific product or service against which the discounted price applies, and without specifying the usual price for the product or service identified. Advertising is an extremely important part of the hearing aid business. It is the principal manner in which hearing aid licensees attract clients. Advertising may assist consumers in making an educated decision about hearing aid products and services. It is common for licensed hearing aid specialists and businesses employing licensed hearing aid specialists to include information such as the following in advertisements: The length of service in a particular community or in the hearing aid profession. Such advertisements can be an indication of the stability of a hearing aid business; Statements such as the following: "trust your hearing to the professionals", "ethical professional practice", "ask the expert" and "factory- trained"; Other types of training, such as factory training; and Educational experiences, including research and teaching experiences. The type of information listed in finding of fact 10 may be beneficial to the public and is not necessarily false, deceptive or misleading. Advertisements used by licensed hearing aid specialists do not include every bit of information about a product. For example, the following type of information may be included in an advertisement: One of the smallest hearing aids, designed for nerve deafness to 40 db. Model E-50 complete with one year warranty. This type of advertisement is not false, deceptive or misleading. It does not, however, contain all the relevant facts concerning the product advertised. Additional relevant information concerning the product may be voluminous, technical and of no use to a consumer. To include all information which may be relevant could require a very large advertisement which would be expensive. Advertisements used by licensed hearing aid specialists commonly indicate a reduction of a certain dollar amount or a percentage reduction for individual hearing aids, lines of hearing aids or all products carried by a specialist. Such advertisements do not necessarily list the specific product or service to which a discount applies or the price for each product or service before the discount. Where discounts apply to several products or services, to list each product and the price before discount would require a large advertisement which would be expensive. As of May 15, 1987, there were 1,016 licensed hearing aid specialists in the State of Florida. Two hundred and forty-four of the total number of licensed hearing aid specialists were on inactive status. Of the 772 active licensed specialists, 670 were members of the Petitioner as of December 4, 1987, or approximately 88 percent of all active licensed practitioners. The Petitioner has an ethics committee and a grievance committee which are active in reviewing advertising used by hearing aid specialists. Members of the Petitioner are subject to discipline, including expulsion from the Petitioner, for improper advertising. The following Summary of Estimate of Economic Impact of the Rule was published by the Department: The implementation of this proposal will have minimal impact upon the Board or the Department other than the costs involved in promulgation. There should be no adverse economic impact or benefit to current licensees or potential applicants as a direct result of the proposed rules. The Board feels the rule is imperative to clarify statutory provisions within Section 484.056(1)(f), F.S., by delineating for the activities which constitute fraudulent, false, deceptive or misleading advertising. It is therefore impossible to determine exactly what impact the proposed rule will have upon current or potential licensees. It is not foreseeable that the proposal will place an economic impact upon competition among current licensees, the open market for employment, or upon entities falling within the definition of "small entities" as defined in Section 288.703(1), F.S.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, Craig Louis Schuette, committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaints in these cases, and if so what is the appropriate penalty to be imposed by the Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding Respondent has been a licensed hearing aid specialist in the state of Florida, having been issued license No. AS 2553 on June 9, 1994. Case No. 02-0520 On November 5, 1998, hearing impaired patient R.G., a resident of New York and part-time resident of Florida, visited Audiometric Hearing Center (Audiometric), a hearing aid establishment located on Fifth Avenue, North, in St. Petersburg, Florida. R.G. visited Audiometric after being contacted by postcard and telephone about a free hearing test offer. While at the Center on November 5, 1998, R.G. received a hearing test and signed an agreement to purchase a pair of hearing aids for $3,500.00. Respondent signed the sales receipt on behalf of Audiometric as the selling agent. R.G. paid the entire purchase price to Audiometric on November 5, 1998, by charging the entire amount on his Visa credit card. On November 20, 1998, R.G. returned to Audiometric to be fitted with the new hearing aids. At that time, R.G. noticed that the hearing aids he had purchased, as described in his contract, were a different model and smaller than the devices with which he was being fitted. Respondent persuaded R.G. to test the hearing aids, and R.G. took possession of the devices on that date. Twelve days later, on December 2, 1998, upon being dissatisfied with the hearing aids, R.G. returned to Audiometric with the devices and requested a refund. Audiometric accepted the hearing aids back and R.G. was advised for the first time that he would receive a refund within 90 to 120 days. Although R.G. was promised a refund of $3,125.00, on December 2, 1998, he never received it. R.G. made numerous attempts to obtain a refund but never received one. During an investigation of this matter by the Agency for Health Care Administration, Respondent did not accept responsibility for the refund. While Respondent agreed to assist the patient and provide a free refitting, he maintained that Audiometric was responsible for any and all refunds. Case No. 02-0522 Hearing impaired patient E.T., a resident of Canada who also resided in Florida part of the year, visited the Audiometric Hearing Center, a hearing aid establishment located on Walsingham Road, in Largo, Florida, on February 6, 1998. E.T. went to Audiometric for a free hearing test after being called and offered one by a telephone solicitor. E.T. received a hearing test on that date. On February 6, 1998, E.T. purchased a hearing aid for her right ear at Audiometric for $1,980.00. Respondent signed the sales agreement on behalf of Audiometric as the selling agent. He told E.T. she needed a hearing aid and showed E.T. three hearing aids. E.T. paid the entire purchase price on February 6, 1998, by charging it on her Visa credit card. On February 13, 1998, the patient accepted delivery of the hearing aid at Audiometric from someone other than Respondent. Upon experiencing an itching problem, E.T. returned the hearing aid to Audiometric on February 18, 1998, for a refund, stating that she was not satisfied with it. Someone at Audiometric, other than Respondent, accepted the returned hearing aid from E.T. and promised her a refund of $1,980.00. E.T. made numerous attempts to obtain the refund but never received any portion of it. In fact, she even filed a lawsuit and obtained a default judgment against Audiometric, but could not collect any of it. During an investigation of the matter by the Agency for Health Care Administration, Respondent denied responsibility for the matter, and indicated that Audiometric was culpable.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Hearing Aid Specialists enter a final order: Dismissing DOAH Case No. 02-0521 (DOH Case No. 98- 19487). Finding Respondent guilty as charged in the Administrative Complaints in DOAH Case Nos. 02-0520 (DOH Case No. 99-03437) and 02-0522 (DOH Case No. 98-20376). Imposing a letter of reprimand. Imposing a total fine of $1,000.00. Assessing costs of the investigation and prosecution not to exceed $500.00, and ordering Respondent to pay as corrective action $3,125.00 to patient R.G. and $1,731.00 to patient E.T., with all monetary payments to be paid within 90 days of entry of a final order. As to the corrective action, the Respondent should be ordered to provide proof thereof to the Board of Hearing Aid Specialists, Department of Health Compliance Unit within 90 days of the date of the final order. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of July, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. PFEIFFER 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 26th day of July, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Gary L. Asbell, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building 3, Mail Stop 39 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Craig Schuete 12300 Park Boulevard, Unit 220 Seminole, Florida 33772 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Susan Foster, Executive Director Board of Hearing Aid Specialists Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Gary L. Asbell, Esquire Post Office Box 326 Lloyd, Florida 32337
The Issue Whether Petitioner’s application to enter into a hearing aid specialist training program should be approved.
Findings Of Fact On or about October 16, 2013, Petitioner submitted to the Board a Hearing Aid Specialists Training Program Registration Application (Application). In response to section 6 of the Application, Petitioner answered “yes” to the question regarding his criminal history. Respondent determined that Petitioner’s Application should be denied. Respondent believes that denial of Petitioner’s Application is appropriate because Petitioner was convicted of crimes which relate to the practice of, or the ability to practice, dispensing hearing aids. In support of its denial of Petitioner’s application, Respondent notes that Petitioner “was found guilty of 92 felonies including racketeering, grand theft, and sale of unregistered securities, . . . was sentenced to prison time and probation covering a time period of 30 years, . . . and [Petitioner] has not completed his rehabilitation in that he is still serving probation.” On or about December 2, 1999, Petitioner entered a plea of nolo contendere to 92 felony counts. The Circuit Court, Twelfth Judicial Circuit, in and for Manatee County, Florida, accepted Petitioner’s plea and adjudicated him guilty of: One felony count of racketeering (§§ 895.02(3) and 895.03, Fla. Stat. (1996)); 31 felony counts of grand theft (§ 812.014, Fla. Stat. (1996)); 30 felony counts of sale of unregistered securities (§§ 517.12 and 517.301, Fla. Stat. (1996)); and 30 felony counts of sale of securities by an unregistered dealer (§§ 517.12 and 517.302, Fla. Stat. (1996)). Petitioner served three years in prison and was placed on probation for a period of 27 years. Petitioner will be on probation until 2029, and he owes $898,000 dollars in restitution. Sharon Yordon was accepted as Respondent’s expert for purposes of providing an opinion as to how Mr. Murphy’s criminal background relates to the ability to dispense hearing aids. Ms. Yordon has been a licensed hearing aid specialist in Florida since 1984. She has also been licensed by the National Board for Certification in Hearing Instrument Sciences (NBC-HIS) since 1993. Ms. Yordon has been on the board of the Florida Society of Hearing Healthcare Professionals for 22 years, and she is also a member of the International Hearing Society. She has worked as a hearing aid specialist in the Tampa Bay area, Daytona Beach, New Smyrna Beach, and the panhandle of Florida. Currently, in addition to dispensing hearing aids, she is the north Florida retail manager for the hearing aid company Beltone, which requires her to manage eight offices in 11 counties. Ms. Yordon has participated in the training of six hearing aid specialists, and she has also trained three hearing aid specialists to take the NBC-HIS examination. She has fit thousands of people with hearing aids over the course of her career. According to Ms. Yordon, the elderly comprise a majority of hearing impaired individuals in Florida. Ms. Yordon’s opinion in this regard is bolstered by the fact that the Legislature, in recognition of the important role that the elderly play in the hearing aid industry, requires that the Board of Hearing Aid Specialists include a lay member who “shall be an individual age 65 or over.” § 484.042(2), Fla. Stat. (2015).1/ According to Ms. Yordon, hearing loss due to aging, called presbycusis, is one of the most common causes of hearing loss, and in the elderly hearing loss is often linked with cognitive dysfunction. Ms. Yordon opined that based on her years of experience, it is common for a hearing aid specialist to fit for hearing aids elderly individuals who are cognitively impaired. The Legislature has recognized that elderly individuals who suffer from cognitive impairment may be vulnerable and in need of protection. See, gen., §§ 415.101-415.113, Fla. Stat. An examination to determine the need for a hearing aid must be conducted in a closed room, separated from any outer offices, because the examination must meet certain requirements for sound. The hearing aid specialist or trainee is often alone in the examination room with the client where sensitive information is often secured from the client. If the hearing aid specialist determines that a hearing aid is needed, he or she goes over all the options available to the particular client. According to Ms. Yordon, elderly clients cannot always decide which hearing aid to purchase, and they may not have a sound understanding of their own finances. These factors could allow an untrustworthy hearing aid specialist to take advantage of elderly individuals by selling them a more expensive hearing aid than what they need, can afford, or have the ability to use. Because of the interaction between hearing aid specialists and clients (especially the elderly), it is necessary that a hearing aid specialist be trustworthy. Section 484.0401, Florida Statutes, provides as follows: The Legislature recognizes that a poorly selected or fitted hearing aid not only will give little satisfaction but may interfere with hearing ability and, therefore, deems it necessary in the interest of the public health, safety, and welfare to regulate the dispensing of hearing aids in this state. Restrictions on the fitting and selling of hearing aids shall be imposed only to the extent necessary to protect the public from physical and economic harm, and restrictions shall not be imposed in a manner which will unreasonably affect the competitive market. Section 484.056(1)(d) provides that an application for licensure as a hearing aid specialist may be denied on the following grounds: Being convicted or found guilty of, or entering a plea of nolo contendere to, regardless of adjudication, a crime in any jurisdiction which directly relates to the practice of dispensing hearing aids or the ability to practice dispensing hearing aids, including violations of any federal laws or regulations regarding hearing aids. Consistent with the legislative goal of protecting the public from possible economic harm, the screening requirements found in section 484.056 help to ensure that individuals who are authorized to dispense hearing aids are trustworthy. As previously noted, Petitioner was found guilty of committing 36 felony violations of section 812.014 (1996), which provides in part, as follows: A person commits theft if he or she knowingly obtains or uses, or endeavors to obtain or to use, the property of another with intent to, either temporarily or permanently: Deprive the other person of a right to the property or a benefit from the property. Appropriate the property to his or her own use or to the use of any person not entitled to the use of the property. Section 812.014 is grounded in principles of trust, and a person who “knowingly” acts with the requisite “intent” to deprive another of his or her property in violation of the same, is, by definition, untrustworthy. Petitioner was convicted of racketeering under sections 895.02(3) and 895.03, Florida Statutes (1996). Petitioner’s conviction for racketeering was based on the fact that he was involved in a criminal enterprise that stole money from a number of individuals. Sections 895.02 and 895.03 are grounded in principles of trust, and anyone who violates these statutes is untrustworthy. Petitioner was found guilty of committing numerous violations of sections 517.301, 517.302, and 517.12, Florida Statutes (1996). Section 517.12 requires that any “dealer, associated person, or issuer of securities” in this state must register with the appropriate state department and the failure to do so, as provided in section 517.302, is a felony of the third degree. Section 517.301 prohibits fraud or deceit in connection with securities transactions and any person who engages in such conduct, as provided in section 517.302, commits a felony of the third degree. Section 517.301 is grounded in principles of trust, and a person who engages in fraudulent conduct in violation of section 517.301 is untrustworthy. A violation of the registration requirements found in section 517.12 does not, in itself, suggest untrustworthiness. When, however, the failure to register as a securities dealer is coupled with fraudulent conduct, as was done by Petitioner, then the otherwise benign conduct of failing to register as a securities dealer takes on the character of untrustworthiness because of its relatedness to the fraud. Petitioner was incarcerated until 2002. Since his release from incarceration, Petitioner has remained compliant with the terms of his probation. One of the conditions of Petitioner’s probation is that any violation of the conditions of probation could subject him to arrest, revocation of probation, and further sentencing. With his Application, Petitioner provided three letters of support from neighbors who each believe that Petitioner is a person of integrity. Petitioner also holds a private pilot’s license, which suggests that Petitioner can be trusted to operate certain types of aircraft. Denise Parrish is a licensed audiologist at the Manatee Ear Center in Bradenton, Florida, the facility where Petitioner is currently employed. Dr. Parrish has supervised Petitioner for approximately two years, and she believes that Petitioner is an “honest” person. Dr. Parrish testified that during the time that she has supervised Petitioner, he has handled sensitive patient information, including money, without incident.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Hearing Aid Specialists enter a final order denying Robert Paul Murphy’s application for licensure as a hearing aid specialist. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of January, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN 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 22nd day of January, 2016.
