The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent engaged in sexual misconduct in the practice of massage therapy, in violation of provisions of Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B7- 26.010 and sections 480.046(1)(o) and 480.0485, Florida Statutes; and, if so, what is the appropriate sanction.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Health, Board of Massage Therapy, is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of massage therapy in the state of Florida, pursuant to section 20.43 and chapters 456 and 480, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this proceeding, Ms. Xu was a licensed massage therapist in the state of Florida, holding license number MA56426. During all times relevant to the complaint, Ms. Xu was employed by Massage Elite, located at 800 East Hallandale Beach Boulevard in Hallandale Beach, Florida. On November 22, 2010, Officer F.C., working in an undercover capacity with Officer C.T., went to Massage Elite, where they were greeted by Ms. Xu, who introduced herself as Diana. Ms. Xu stated that a one-hour full body massage was $70.00. They each paid, and Officer F.C. was taken to a separate room and told to disrobe and lie face down. Minutes later, Ms. Xu came into the room and began a massage. After some time, Ms. Xu asked Officer F.C. to turn over. After he did so, Ms. Xu began touching Officer F.C. on his penis, asking, "Do you want me to massage this?" Officer F.C. asked her, "How much?" Ms. Xu replied, "Sixty dollars." Officer F.C. said he only had $30.00, and Ms. Xu replied, "No, not for thirty, maybe next time." The massage was then completed. On November 23, 2010, Officer F.C. returned to Massage Elite. Other arrests were made at that time, but Ms. Xu was not on the premises. On November 30, 2010, Officer F.C. returned to Massage Elite with Officer R.A. He asked for Diana, and they called her from the back. Ms. Xu came in. Officer F.C. made a positive identification, based upon her appearance, that Ms. Xu was the same woman who had earlier introduced herself to him as Diana, and had given him the massage. She was placed under arrest. Ms. Xu's contrary testimony, to the effect that she was not at work on November 22, 2010, that she had never seen Officer F.C. before November 30, 2010, is not credible, and is rejected. Ms. Wei Zhou, Ms. Xu's daughter, testified through deposition that she came to Florida for Thanksgiving in 2010, and that her mother stayed with her the entire time in a hotel. She said she could not remember exactly when she was there or if she arrived before or after Thanksgiving Day. At another point in her testimony, she said she arrived around the 19th or 20th of November. She said she couldn't remember if her grandmother traveled with her or not. She indicated that she did not know what kind of work her mother did. Her testimony, to the extent it was intended to establish that Ms. Xu did not work at Massage Elite on November 22, 2010, was not credible. Her vague account of events did not cast doubt on Officer F.C.'s clear and convincing testimony. As noted in the deposition testimony of Ms. Jennifer Mason, there is no reason for a licensed massage therapist to ever touch the genitalia of a patient. Officer F.C. paid for a massage, and Ms. Xu began to give him a massage. She was governed by the requirements of the massage therapist-patient relationship. Ms. Xu's actions on November 22, 2010, were outside the scope of generally accepted treatment of massage therapy patients. Ms. Xu used the massage therapist-patient relationship to attempt to induce Officer F.C. to engage in sexual activity and to attempt to engage him in sexual activity. Ms. Xu engaged in sexual misconduct in the practice of massage therapy. There is no evidence that Ms. Xu has ever had any prior discipline imposed against her license.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health, Board of Massage Therapy, enter a final order finding Ms. Ranjie Xu in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B7-26.010 and section 480.0485, Florida Statutes, constituting grounds for discipline under section 480.046(1)(o), Florida Statutes; revoking her license to practice massage therapy; imposing a fine of $1000.00; and imposing costs of investigation and prosecution. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of April, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of April, 2017.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent engaged in sexual misconduct in the practice of massage therapy in violation of section 480.0485, Florida Statutes, and if so, what is the appropriate sanction.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Health, Board of Massage Therapy, is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of massage therapy in the state of Florida, pursuant to section 20.43, and chapters 456 and 480, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this proceeding, Mr. John D. Nielsen-Collins was licensed as a massage therapist in Florida, having been issued license number MA 63151. At all times material to this proceeding, Mr. Nielsen- Collins worked as an independent contractor at VCHAC in West Palm Beach, Florida. S.T., an adult female, started receiving massages at VCHAC in 2012. Her physical therapist had recommended massage to help manage some scarring associated with endometriosis and pelvic adhesive disease. S.T. would receive a standard “deep tissue” full body massage about every week or ten days, almost always from Mr. Nielsen-Collins. On September 22, 2014, S.T. went to VCHAC for a massage. She greeted Mr. Nielsen-Collins. He then left the room while she got undressed. She laid face-up on the massage table, covered with draping. Mr. Nielsen-Collins began the massage as usual, massaging her neck, arms, and legs. She then flipped over to a prone position and he massaged her back and upper portions of her buttocks with firm kneading, as he always did. Mr. Nielsen-Collins then began to massage the lower portions of her buttocks. Rather than kneading, it was more of a light rub, which S.T. described as much more “sensual” in nature. Mr. Nielsen-Collins used both hands on either side of S.T.'s buttocks to spread the cheeks and expose her anus. In progressive steps, he moved his hands closer and closer toward S.T.’s anus, finally rubbing it through her thong. This contact was not accidental. S.T. flinched, and Mr. Nielsen-Collins removed his hands from her buttocks. S.T. felt uncomfortable, but she was trying to convince herself that it was just a mishap. She “let it go because when I flinched, he did move away.” The draping was moved to expose S.T.’s right leg, and Mr. Nielsen-Collins began massaging it, beginning at the calf and moving up toward her thigh. She noticed he was gradually pulling her right leg apart from her other leg, further exposing her. He started to rub her inner thigh, and then began to massage S.T.'s vagina through her underwear. S.T. testified that it did not feel like a massage, but like an “attempted arousal.” This contact was not accidental. Mr. Nielsen-Collins then asked her, “How is the pressure?” S.T. reached behind her in an attempt to remove Mr. Nielsen-Collins’s hand. Mr. Nielsen-Collins took S.T.’s hand and held onto it, preventing her from removing his other hand from her vagina. S.T. then tried to move her right shoulder to twist around, and then the hand that was holding her hand pressed down on her back, steadying her in position. S.T. closed her legs tighter, and Mr. Nielsen Collins removed his hand. Mr. Nielsen-Collins let go of S.T.’s shoulder and covered her to the waist. He rubbed her back for a moment. He fanned out the cover and put in on her back. He said that the massage was complete and left the room. S.T. was confused and extremely hurt. She testified that she had trusted Mr. Nielsen-Collins for a year-and-a-half. She was in a vulnerable position and he was supposed to be professional, but he had absolutely violated her trust. She got up, got dressed, left a tip on the counter as she always did, and walked out. She left the building, got in her car, and drove off. When she got to the corner, she determined she had to report the incident, pulled to the side of the road, and called VCHAC on her cell phone. She asked the person who answered to let her speak with the manager. She then told Ms. Samantha Trevegno, the office manager, that she had had an “inappropriate experience” during her appointment, and explained how she had been touched inappropriately by Mr. Nielsen-Collins. S.T. never returned to VCHAC for another massage. Mr. Nielsen-Collins had left VCHAC to go to a local supermarket. When he returned, Ms. Trevegno told him she wanted to talk to him in the pilates studio. She told Mr. Nielsen- Collins that she had received a call from S.T. alleging an inappropriate massage. Mr. Nielsen-Collins did not ask Ms. Trevegno what S.T. had claimed happened, but instead immediately became visibly upset, teared up, and stated, “I thought she was sweet on me, too.” He told Ms. Trevegno that he knew that she needed to end his contract with VCHAC. Ms. Trevegno left and talked to Dr. Horowitz, the chiropractic doctor at VCHAC. When she returned she told Mr. Nielsen-Collins that he should leave. Mr. Nielsen-Collins asked if he should talk to the doctor. Ms. Trevegno said, “No, he wants you to go.” S.T. did not request that Mr. Nielsen-Collins massage the area between S.T.’s buttocks, her anus, or her vagina. Mr. Nielsen-Collins did not request permission to touch the area between S.T.’s buttocks, her anus, or her vagina and she did not give him consent to do so. Consistent with the testimony of Ms. Iris Burman, L.M.T., Mr. Nielsen-Collins’s touching of the area between S.T.’s buttocks, her anus, and her vagina, as described here, was outside the scope of generally accepted examination or treatment of massage therapy patients. Mr. Nielsen-Collins’s contrary contention, to the effect that he only performed standard massage techniques on patient S.T., and that her perception that she had been inappropriately touched must have been based upon transfer of sensation was not credible, and is rejected. Mr. Nielsen-Collins used the massage therapist-patient relationship to engage in sexual activity and to attempt to induce patient S.T. to engage in sexual activity. Mr. Nielsen- Collins engaged in sexual misconduct in the practice of massage therapy. Mr. Nielsen-Collins has never had any prior discipline imposed against his license.
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 John D. Nielsen-Collins violated section 480.0485, constituting grounds for discipline under section 480.046(1)(p), imposing a fine of $2,500.00, revoking his license to practice massage therapy, and imposing costs of investigation and prosecution. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of June, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of June, 2015. COPIES FURNISHED: John D. Nielsen-Collins, L.M.T. 321 Fordham Drive Lake Worth, Florida 33460 Lindsay Annette Wells Grogan, Esquire Louise Wilhite-St Laurent, Esquire Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Jennifer A. Tschetter, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Christy Robinson, Executive Director Board of Massage Therapy Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-06 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed)
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the allegations of this case, the Respondent has been licensed as a massage therapist in the State of Florida, license no. MA 0007093. The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility under Florida law of regulating massage therapists. At all times material to the allegations of this case, the Department required that licensees obtain continuing education credits in order to renew massage therapy licenses. The license renewal card sent by the agency to the licensee requires verification that the licensee has met all continuing education requirements. Respondent executed a renewal notice form that represented she had met all requirements for license renewal, including the continuing education commitment. On November 5, 1993, the Department issued a letter to Respondent advising her that her license had been randomly selected for audit for the continuing education requirements for the period January 1, 1991 through January 31, 1993. By such notice, Respondent was requested to complete an audit form and to attach proof of attendance for the continuing education courses attended for the audit period. In order to qualify for acceptance, continuing education courses must be approved by the Department. Courses which have not received approval may not be counted to fulfill continuing education requirements. The Respondent filed a response to the audit including courses which had not been approved by the agency. In follow-up, the Department, by form notice dated December 7, 1993, advised the Respondent that her audit was incomplete. More specifically, the Department advised Respondent that the provider of the continuing education (CE) identified by Respondent was not an approved provider and that the number of courses of approved CE did not show attendance of at least twelve hours. To date, the Respondent has not provided proof of compliance with the CE requirements of the Department. Courses which Respondent attended in connection with another license held by Respondent (nurse), do not comply with the criteria for her license as a massage therapist. Respondent is aware of the different Boards and regulations pertaining to the licenses she holds.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Board of Massage, enter a final order revoking Respondent's license as a massage therapist and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000.00. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 29th day of August, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of August, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-0148 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner: 1. Paragraphs 1 through 14 are accepted. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent: 1. None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan Lindgard Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Diana Wentworth 1500 Pelican Lane Vero Beach, Florida 32963-2644 Anna Polk Executive Director Board of Massage Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Respondent violated provisions of chapter 480, Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and; if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and documentary evidence presented at hearing, the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses, and the entire record of this proceeding, the following factual findings are made: The Department is the state agency charged with the licensing and regulation of massage therapists pursuant to section 20.42 and chapters 456 and 480, Florida Statutes. At all times material to the allegations in this proceeding, Respondent was a licensed massage therapist in the State of Florida, having been issued license number MA 80938. During May 2016 Respondent worked at Massage Envy (“M.E.”) as a massage therapist. M.E. is a spa facility offering massage services. D.W. is a 46-year-old female with significant back issues. D.W. was in a boating accident as a child, and has had at least eight back surgeries in attempts to alleviate her back pain. Since 2012, D.W. has had numerous massages to help ease her back pain. She initially received massages through her chiropractor’s massage therapist. The chiropractor’s massage therapist was unable to continue, and D.W. started obtaining massages at M.E. D.W. obtained free massages from M.E. when she participated as a “mystery shopper”4/ for M.E. Following that experience, D.W. became a client of M.E. D.W. usually received full-body massages on a monthly basis,5/ except when she had the back surgeries. On May 27, 2016, D.W. contacted M.E. requesting a massage appointment. She was assigned Respondent as her regular masseuse was unavailable. D.W. arrived for the massage and met Respondent. The massage was scheduled for two hours. D.W. and Respondent discussed D.W.’s back pain. Respondent left the treatment room to allow D.W. time to completely disrobe and cover herself with the drape cloth or sheet. During the first half of the massage, D.W. was face down while Respondent stretched her out. She was comfortable with this part of the massage as she remained fully covered by the sheet. Approximately half way through the massage, Respondent briefly left the room, and D.W. turned over to be face up for the remainder of the massage. In the face-up position, Respondent began the next phase of the massage. While he was working on D.W.’s left leg, Respondent bumped her vagina. D.W. initially thought the touching was an accident; however, Respondent kept touching her clitoris. Respondent then put two to three fingers inside D.W.’s vagina. D.W. was “very scared,” and initially felt frozen in fear. After a few minutes Respondent asked if he needed to stop the massage. After a few seconds, D.W. was able to say, “It’s making me feel like I have to pee, please stop.” Respondent stopped. Respondent then asked if D.W. wanted to have her hands or feet massaged as there were a couple of minutes remaining in her appointment. D.W. did not want Respondent’s hands touching her hands; she indicated he could message her feet. Respondent finished the massage by working on D.W.’s feet. After the massage ended, D.W. dressed. D.W. went to the restroom, received a cup of water from Respondent and checked out at M.E.’s front desk. D.W. went to the parking lot, called the M.E. manager, and told the manager what happened. D.W. then went home. D.W. told her husband what had happened and the two of them returned to M.E. The Largo Police Department was called and a report was filed. While testifying about this very intimate type of contact, D.W.’s demeanor was distressed. She cried as if it were painful to recount. D.W. now is unable to use massage therapy to treat her back pain. Additionally, D.W. has trouble sleeping, and is unable to have sex because she considers what Respondent did to her was “foreplay.” Respondent denied that he engaged in any form of sexual activity with D.W. Respondent attempted to blame D.W.’s allegation as either a “counter-transference” or “transference” event. Respondent postulated that the counter-transference or transference is “where the client imposes a negative feeling or a negative association upon their therapist after something is awoken during massage.” Respondent agreed that D.W. had been getting massages for years, and that she would be accustomed to the massage experience. Respondent also agreed that there was nothing special about the massage he gave to D.W. Respondent’s testimony is not credited. Massage therapy training teaches that massage in the vicinity of the genital area is to be conducted very carefully. If a massage therapist properly draped a patient consistent with the requirements of rule 64B7-30.001, it would not be possible to inadvertently touch a client's genital area. The placement of a massage therapist's finger (or fingers) into the vagina of a massage client is outside the scope of the professional practice of massage therapy and is below the standard of care. There is no therapeutic value to massaging or penetrating the vagina, and there is no circumstance by which a massage therapist should touch a client’s vagina.
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 section 480.0485 and rule 64B7-26.010; and imposing a fine of $2,500 and revoking his license to practice massage therapy. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of February, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK 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 February, 2017.
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent committed the offense set forth in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent, 339 Health Studio, Inc., was licensed as a massage establishment, having been issued license number MM0005810, and conducted business at 339 Northeast 167th Street, North Miami Beach, Florida. On December 19, 1995, Denise Quintela, an inspector employed by the Department of Business and Professional Regulations, visited the licensed premises to conduct an inspection. Ms. Quintela identified herself to the "front desk clerk," who allowed her admission ("opened the door") to the premises. (Transcript, page 10). Apparently, in the "office where the front desk clerk was sitting down," there was a sign posted which listed the services, and their prices, offered by the establishment, including a massage for $80.00. (Transcript, page 17). Following admission, Ms. Quintela "started opening the curtains to make sure there was people working," and, upon opening one of the curtains, she observed "a lady working there with a gentleman," "the lady was standing, and the gentleman was lying down, and she was performing a massage." (Transcript, pages 10 and 11). Observing such activity, Ms. Quintela asked the lady for her massage license, but received no response. Thereupon, the "front desk clerk" volunteered that "she doesn't have a license."1 (Transcript, page 11). By examination of the lady's driver's license, Ms. Quintela identified her as You Won Park. According to the Department's records, You Won Park was not then, nor had she ever been, licensed as a massage therapist in the State of Florida. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). Apart from any inferences that could be drawn from the foregoing findings, the only proof offered regarding You Won Park's relationship with the Respondent was the following testimony of Ms. Quintela: DIRECT EXAMINATION * * * Q. And did you determine whether Ms. Park was employed at the 330 Health Studio? A. Yes. * * * CROSS-EXAMINATION * * * Q. Were there any documents showing that that lady was employed there that you saw? A. No. Q. Was the sole basis for your determining that she was employed there your seeing her there? A. She was working there, yes. Q. Do you know if she was paid a salary? A. At the moment, I didn't see any money exchanged, no. Q. Not just at the moment, I mean in the whole world: Have you any indication that she received payment -- either cash, checks -- A. No. Q. Anything of that nature? A. No. * * * Q. . . . So is the answer you don't know if she was employed there or not? A. Well, she was employed because she was working there. Q. Well -- A. And the lady -- the front desk clerk told me that she was an employee there. And I believe I put down how long she worked there. Did I? Q. You noted in the report three weeks. But you don't know that she was an employee, do you? A. (No response.) Q. I mean, you don't have any evidence that she was an employee or that she was being paid other than the fact that she was there; is that true? A. Right. * * * Q. You do not know, do you, whether any money was exchanged between the supposed patron or the person allegedly getting the massage and the lady supposedly giving the massage? A. No. * * * REDIRECT EXAMINATION * * * Q. Was there any discussion with regard to a fee? A. No. Q. In your investigative report, there's a reference to the amount of time that Ms. Park was working there. How did you make a determination how long Ms. Park was working at the establishment? A. I asked the person in charge -- the front desk clerk. . . . (Transcript, pages 13 through 16, and 18). Apart from the statements attributed to the "front desk clerk," the results of Ms. Quintela's inspection, as evidenced by her testimony, are ambiguous, and are not sufficiently detailed to provide a reliable foundation on which to base a conclusion, with any degree of confidence, as to what relationship, if any, existed between the Respondent and You Won Park. Notably, based solely on Ms. Quintela's observations, You Won Park's presence and activities were equally consistent with what one would expect of an employee practicing massage or a non-employee who Respondent was permitting to practice massage on the licensed premises.2 You Won Park's activities were also consistent with those of a volunteer, as where one would accord an acquaintance a rub down. As for the comments Ms. Quintela attributes to the "front desk clerk" regarding You Won Park's status on the premises, they too are ambiguous and lacking in adequate detail. In this regard, it is observed that the statements of the "front desk clerk" may have simply meant that You Won Park had "worked" on the premises for three weeks, which is not necessarily the same as being engaged as an "employee." Apart from the ambiguity of the statements attributed to the "front desk clerk," they are also hearsay, and not subject to a hearsay exception.3 Consequently, the clerk's comments cannot support the conclusion that You Won Park was Respondent's employee. In sum, it must be concluded that, due to the paucity of proof, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that You Won Park was Respondent's employee.4
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be rendered which dismisses the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of June, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of June, 1998.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent engaged in sexual misconduct in the practice of massage therapy, in violation of section 480.0485, Florida Statutes; engaged in improper sexual activity, in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B7-26.010; or failed to appropriately drape a client, in violation of rule 64B7-30.001(5); and, if so, what is the appropriate sanction.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Health, Board of Massage Therapy, is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of massage therapy within the state of Florida, pursuant to section 20.43 and chapters 456 and 480, Florida Statutes. Mr. Rodriguez is a licensed massage therapist within the state of Florida, having been issued license number MA 75735. He has been licensed since 2014. Mr. Rodriguez's current address and address of record is 812 Northeast 2nd Street, Apartment 1, Hallandale, Florida 33009. On or about January 9, 2017, Mr. Rodriguez was employed at Om'echaye Wellness & Fitness Center (Om'echaye) located at 1100 East Hallandale Beach Boulevard, Hallandale Beach, Florida 33009. On or about January 9, 2017, Patient R.A., a 24-year- old female, received a body scrub and a massage from Respondent. Patient R.A. had never received a massage at Om'echaye before, though she and her boyfriend lived close by and had eaten lunch at the Om'echaye restaurant a few times. It was on one of these earlier visits that she saw a special promotion for a body scrub and Swedish massage. She bought a gift card for the promotion for her boyfriend for his birthday. He was not enthusiastic about getting a massage there, however, so they decided that Patient R.A. would use the card herself. She reported what happened during the massage shortly after the incident. Her testimony at hearing was detailed and was consistent with previous accounts. These factors, along with her demeanor at hearing, made her testimony clear and convincing, and her testimony is credited. Patient R.A.'s appointment was at 6:15 p.m., and she arrived a few minutes early. The receptionist introduced her to Mr. Rodriguez. In the massage room, Patient R.A., having never received a body scrub before, asked Mr. Rodriguez whether she should leave her underwear on, as she had always done during massages she had received. He told her that no one did that, saying that otherwise it would be difficult to perform the body scrub. Patient R.A. asked if she should go under covers, but he directed her not to. He asked her to lie face up on the massage table and left the room so that she could undress. There were two 16" x 24" towels on the table, with which she covered herself notwithstanding his instruction, placing one over her lower body and one over her breasts. Mr. Rodriguez returned to the room and began to wet her skin with a hot towel. He asked her how she heard about Om'echaye. She told him about the gift card she had originally bought for her boyfriend's birthday, and that it was almost her birthday and that she was using the card. He learned that she was a foreign student from Germany studying psychology. He told her that his sister-in-law was a psychologist in Brazil. Patient R.A. asked him if he was from Brazil, and he told her no, that he was from Peru. He began the body scrub as they were talking. He applied a coconut and sugar body scrub solution, pushing her legs apart as he quickly worked up her legs, the back of his hands touching her vagina several times. As he bent her leg at the knee the towel slid onto her stomach, exposing her. He removed the towel completely, touched her vagina again, and then scrubbed the front part of her vagina with the body scrub. Mr. Rodriguez continued working up her body, removing the upper towel and, without asking her, began scrubbing her breasts. Afterwards, he removed the scrubbing solution from the front of her body with a hot towel. He then asked her to turn over. Mr. Rodriguez scrubbed the back body of Patient R.A. He scrubbed her buttocks and touched her anus with the side of his hands. After wiping off the body scrub solution, he told her that he would begin the Swedish massage. Mr. Rodriguez did not receive consent from Patient R.A. that she would remain undraped. He dripped hot oil onto Patient R.A. and rubbed it over her body, rubbing her buttocks, with his hands frequently against her anus, spilling oil down her buttocks. He then asked her to turn over. He massaged Patient R.A.'s front, including her breasts, and touched her vagina. He then began to rub his finger against her clitoris. Patient R.A. grabbed his wrist and told him not to touch her down there. He then returned his massage to her breast area and began to tickle her nipples. He moved his hands to her lower body several other times, touching her vagina. He came close to her clitoris, but did not touch her there again. Less clear and convincing was Patient R.A.'s testimony that Mr. Rodriguez pressed his penis against her elbow at some point during the massage. In cross examination, she stated: Q: Now, did you say in your direct testimony that there was an erect penis that touched you? A: At first was the--I believe so, but I'm not sure. That's what I said first. And even--then I mentioned I felt his genitals, but I don't think he was erect. I'm not sure. I felt it, but if he was erect-- Q: Okay. So something-- A: --I'm not sure-- Q: --something touched you, but you don't know whether it was his penis or his arm or-- A: His genitals. Patient R.A. stated at the hearing that she did not see Mr. Rodriguez touch her, but felt him touch her right arm. She did not remember how many times. Her testimony that Mr. Rodriguez pressed his penis against her was not clear and convincing. After the massage, Mr. Rodriguez asked Patient R.A., "How was it?" Patient R.A. responded that it was not a Swedish massage and that he needed to be careful about the way he performed massages. She asked him if he always did his massages like that. He responded saying, "That's how I do it with my clients. I don't know what other massage therapists do." She again said that he needed to be very careful with what he was doing. He apologized, saying, "Thank you for being cool." He gave her his business card. He offered to give her a deep tissue massage for free at his studio. He said that all of his clients come there because "it is too expensive here." Patient R.A. declined. The door to Om'echaye was locked because of the late hour that she was leaving, and Mr. Rodriguez had to open the door to let her out. At hearing, Patient R.A. said that she did not do more to prevent the assault because at first she refused to believe it was happening and later she was afraid. Patient R.A. was ashamed of herself when she got outside Om'echaye, thinking she should have stood up for herself more. At first, she was not going to tell anyone that she had been sexually assaulted, but ended up telling her boyfriend and going back to Om'echaye early the next morning and talking to the owner. She met with police later that day and gave them statements. She later notified the Department. Respondent denied Patient R.A.'s account in every material element. He testified that he never touched her vagina, anus, breasts, nipples, or clitoris, either intentionally or accidently. He testified that he acted within the scope of massage therapy practice and that no sexual misconduct occurred. He testified that she remained properly draped the entire time. He suggested that Patient R.A. made up the entire incident and that there was no video recording or witnesses.1/ Respondent also asserted that he would not have committed sexual misconduct against Patient R.A. because she was a female and he was gay, and so was not attracted to her. Curiously, Mr. Rodriguez sought to bolster this claim with testimony that he had performed some massage therapy at Ed Logan's, represented to be a gay resort, and that at one time he had advertised in a gay publication. Since the massage therapist-patient relationship does not appropriately involve sexual motivation of any kind--whether homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual--it is not entirely clear why Mr. Rodriguez was suggesting that these activities, even had they been supported by additional documentary evidence of some sort, somehow confirmed his testimony. In any event, the assertion that he was gay, even if accepted, would not exonerate Mr. Rodriguez in light of the clear and credible testimony of R.A. in this case. The definition of sexual activity is not limited to physical contact intended to erotically stimulate the therapist, but also includes contact intended to erotically stimulate the patient, as well as contact which is likely to cause such stimulation, regardless of intention, as discussed further in the Conclusions of Law below. Respondent's touching of Patient R.A.'s breasts, nipples, anus, vagina, and clitoris, as described by Patient R.A., was direct physical contact likely to erotically stimulate either person or both. It was clearly outside the scope of practice of massage therapy. The touching described by Patient R.A. was sexual activity as defined under the rule. Patient R.A.'s testimony was clear and convincing and proved that Respondent used the therapist-patient relationship to engage in sexual activity. Patient R.A. testified that after reporting the incident, she "could not function anymore." She saw a poster saying "get a massage for $20 for 30 minutes" on campus, and she broke out in tears. She started counseling and soon after that was put on an antidepressant for a period of five months. Mr. Rodriguez testified that he depends on his massage business to make his living, that he is no longer working at Om'echaye spa, and that he has been painting buildings to pay his bills. There was no evidence to indicate that Mr. Rodriguez has ever had any prior discipline imposed in connection with his massage therapy license.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health, Board of Massage Therapy, enter a final order finding Ernesto Rodriguez in violation of section 480.0485, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rules 64B7-26.010 and 64B7-30.001(5), constituting grounds for discipline under section 480.046(1)(p), Florida Statutes; imposing a fine of $2,500.00; revoking his license to practice massage therapy; and imposing costs of investigation and prosecution. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of August, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of August, 2017.
The Issue Did Respondent, Cameron Kellogg, L.M.T., attempt to induce patient, L.R.A., to engage in sexual activity as prohibited by section 480.0485, Florida Statutes (2018)?1/
Findings Of Fact Section 20.43 and chapters 456 and 480, Florida Statutes (2019), charge the Florida Department of Health and the Board with licensing and regulating massage therapy. At all times material to the allegations of the Administrative Complaint, Mr. Kellogg was a licensed massage therapist. In August of 2018, Mr. Kellogg was providing massage therapy services for guests of the Opal Sands Resort and Spa (Opal Sands). L.R.A. and her husband G.A. were guests at Opal Sands. August 30, 2018, was their last full day there. L.R.A. scheduled a massage for that day. Before the scheduled time, L.R.A. and G.A. were relaxing at the pool. They had a drink at the pool. There is no credible evidence indicating that either became intoxicated. L.R.A. left the pool to attend her scheduled massage. G.A. stayed at the pool to wait for her. When L.R.A. arrived at the spa, she was directed to a changing area. She removed her clothes and bra, leaving on her underwear, and put on a robe supplied by the spa. Afterwards she met Mr. Kellogg in the waiting room, and he escorted her to the massage room. He left the room. She removed the robe and laid face down on the table covered with a drape. The massage began uneventfully. Midway through the massage L.R.A. turned over at Mr. Kellogg's request. This is typical in massages. During the massage, as is normal, L.R.A. became more and more relaxed, to the point of drowsiness. At the end of the massage period, Mr. Kellogg was standing at L.R.A.'s head massaging her shoulders and clavicle. He slowly moved his hands beneath the drape and began groping and fondling L.R.A.'s breasts. Then he pinched her nipples. L.R.A. was shocked and astonished. Naked and vulnerable, she was speechless and embarrassed. Then Mr. Kellogg asked her if she wanted him to perform oral sex saying, "Do you want me to eat your p---y?" Still speechless and shocked, L.R.A. shook her head no several times vigorously. Mr. Kellogg said "OK" and left the room. The actions described in findings six and seven are not part of an appropriate massage and were not invited or consented to by L.R.A. in any way. Mr. Kellogg violated the massage therapist-patient relationship and used it to attempt to induce L.R.A. in sexual activity. His actions were also sexual activity engaged in through direct contact with L.R.A. Still in shock, L.R.A. dressed, went to the front desk, and signed to charge the massage to her room account, leaving a $5.00 tip. She returned to the pool to meet her husband. She was in emotional distress and trying to decide how to tell her husband of Mr. Kellogg's assault. After meeting and talking a while at the pool, L.R.A. and G.A. went to their room to shower. Afterwards they left the resort and walked to a nearby souvenir and ice cream stand. After leaving the stand, L.R.A. asked her husband to sit down because she had something to tell him. This was only two hours after Mr. Kellogg groped her. During that time L.R.A. was processing her reactions and shock and thinking about how to tell her husband. She recounted the events to G.A., but did not repeat Mr. Kellogg's crass language, at first. She did not tell him about Mr. Kellogg pinching her nipples until a few weeks later. She thought those details would cause too much stress and anger on top of the other events. L.R.A. and G.A. decided that reporting Mr. Kellogg's behavior to the resort management was important and returned to Opal Sands. They told the front desk attendant that they needed to speak to the manager about something that happened in the spa. The attendant asked if they wanted the manager to come to their room. They said yes. The spa manager, Lexandra Gheradini, came to the room of L.R.A. and G.A. They told her about Mr. Kellogg's actions and request to perform oral sex. Ms. Gheradini apologized. But she did not ask them to complete any paperwork to document the assault. The resort only refunded the charge for the massage. L.R.A. reported Mr. Kellogg's actions within a reasonable period of time given her shock and embarrassment. At first she did not contact the police because of her embarrassment. Also, she and G.A. were preparing to leave the next day to return to their home in Pennsylvania. In Pennsylvania, L.R.A. told her friend K.E. about the incident. K.E. encouraged L.R.A. to report the incident to the police. L.R.A. reported it to the Clearwater police. She also reported the incident to the Florida Department of Health. The videotaped depositions provided clear and distinct views of the faces of L.R.A. and G.A. while testifying. Their facial expressions, body language, and reactions to Mr. Kellogg's questions made their testimony compelling and persuasive. Mr. Kellogg denied touching L.R.A.'s breasts. Mr. Kellogg, although he testified in person, was not persuasive. The majority of his testimony was argument about why L.R.A.'s testimony should not be accepted and complaints about how the charges have affected him. His denials were brief and unpersuasive. In addition, Mr. Kellogg testified that "I asked to eat her p---y." He minimizes this as "saying something stupid." Mr. Kellogg argues that L.R.A., G.A., and K.E. should not be believed because, when testifying a year after events, they do not remember some details. The argument is not persuasive. Forgetting some details peripheral to a shocking event a year afterwards is not unusual. The memories of L.R.A., G.A., and K.E. are distinct, clear, and consistent on the important facts. In addition, L.R.A.'s prompt reports of the incident to G.A. and the spa manager enhance her credibility. So too does the consistency of her description of events to K.E. Mr. Kellogg's testimony corroborates half of L.R.A.'s account. The record contains no evidence suggesting any motive for L.R.A. to fabricate her account.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Florida Department of Health, Board of Massage Therapy, enter a final order: Finding that Respondent, Cameron Kellogg, LMT, violated section 480.0485, Florida Statutes. Revoking the license of Cameron Kellogg, L.M.T. Imposing a fine of $2,500.00 on Cameron Kellogg, L.M.T. Assessing costs of the investigation and prosecution of this case against Cameron Kellogg, L.M.T.,to be paid to Petitioner, Florida Department of Health. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of September, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of September, 2019.
