The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent engaged in sexual misconduct in the practice of massage therapy, in violation of chapter 480, Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what is the appropriate sanction.
Findings Of Fact The following Findings of Fact are based on the testimony presented at the final hearing, exhibits accepted into evidence, and admitted facts set forth in the pre-hearing stipulation. Petitioner is the State agency charged with regulating the practice of massage therapy pursuant to section 20.43, Florida Statutes; chapter 456, Florida Statutes; and chapter 480, Florida Statutes. At all times material to the Complaint, Respondent was licensed to practice massage therapy in Florida since April 27, 2016, having been issued license number MA81902. Respondent’s address of record is 3830 Williamsburg Park Road, Jacksonville, Florida 32257. She also maintains an address of 121 East Norwood Avenue, Apartment C, San Gabriel, California 91776. Respondent moved from her native country, China, to the United States in 2012. Respondent’s native language is Mandarin Chinese and her ability to communicate in English is very limited. The JSO Vice Unit is the law enforcement office which investigates prostitution at massage therapy establishments in Jacksonville. Detective N.E. has been a civilian law enforcement officer for approximately 13 years. He was working in the JSO Vice Unit on June 29, 2017. As a member of the vice unit, Detective N.E. has conducted approximately 10 to 20 undercover prostitution investigations of massage therapy establishments. On or about June 29, 2017, JSO conducted an undercover prostitution investigation at Luxury Massage located at 3830 Williamsburg Park Road, Suite 4, Jacksonville, Florida. Detective N.E. entered Luxury Massage undercover, posing as a client. Detective N.E. requested a 30-minute massage from Respondent, for which he paid Respondent $50. Respondent escorted Detective N.E. to a massage room where Detective N.E. completely disrobed and laid face down on the massage table. As Detective N.E. lay on his stomach, Respondent began performing a massage on him. A towel was covering him as he lay on his stomach. Respondent massaged Detective N.E.’s back, and she later asked him to flip over onto his back, which he did. While Detective N.E. was on his back, Respondent began massaging his chest. At some point, Respondent pointed to Detective N.E.’s penis. Then Detective N.E. asked Respondent “is $60 good?” Respondent nodded her head indicating, “yes.” Detective N.E. continued to ask Respondent questions, for example, whether Respondent would use oil and Respondent verbally responded, “yes.” When asked whether she had towels to avoid making a mess, Respondent again verbally responded, “yes.” Although Respondent did not testify at hearing, Respondent’s verbal responses were recorded on a concealed recording device as part of the investigation. At hearing, Detective N.E. testified that Respondent grabbed his penis after she pointed to it. However, there was no allegation that Respondent touched Detective N.E.’s penis in the police report, which was prepared following Respondent’s arrest. On cross-examination, Detective N.E. explained that Respondent’s touching of his penis is not routinely included in the police report. The undersigned finds it unusual that touching of genitalia would be excluded from a police report when conducting a prostitution investigation. Detective N.E.’s testimony on this point is not accepted. Respondent denied that she engaged in any sexual activity in her response to the Complaint. Based on the totality of the circumstances, the undersigned finds that Respondent offered to massage Detective N.E.’s penis for $60.00. After the encounter, Detective N.E. gave a signal and Respondent was arrested by other law enforcement officers who came on the scene. Respondent was positively identified by Detective N.E. on the scene and at the final hearing. Katelin Reagh is a licensed massage therapist and based on her education, training, and experience, she is accepted as an expert in massage therapy. Ms. Reagh opined that offering to massage a patient’s genitalia is not within the scope of practice for massage therapy. As noted in the deposition testimony of Ms. Reagh, there is no accepted practice within the scope of licensed massage therapy that allows a therapist to ever touch, or offer to touch, the genitalia of a patient. Respondent’s actions on June 29, 2017, were outside the scope of generally accepted treatment of massage therapy patients. Respondent used the massage therapist-patient relationship to attempt to engage Detective N.E. in sexual activity when she offered to massage Detective N.E.’s penis, by pointing at the detective’s penis and agreeing to accept $60 payment for the service. There is no evidence that Respondent has had any prior discipline imposed against her license.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Health, Board of Massage Therapy, enter a final order finding the following: Ms. Fengyan Liu, L.M.T. in violation of section 480.0485 and rule 64B7-26.010; Revoking her license to practice massage therapy; Imposing a fine of $2,500; and Assessing costs in an amount to be determined by the Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of November, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S YOLONDA Y. GREEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of November, 2018.
The Issue 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 section 480.046(1)(i); and, if so, what is the appropriate sanction.
Findings Of Fact The Department, 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. Pruneda is a licensed massage therapist within the state of Florida, having been issued license number MA 63779. Mr. Pruneda's current address and address of record is 18 Walcott Drive, Boynton Beach, Florida 33426. On or about November 13, 2016, Mr. Pruneda was employed at Shanti Ohm Spa at 321 Northeast Second Avenue, Delray Beach, Florida 33444. On or about November 13, 2016, Patient L.G., a 29-year- old female, received a massage from Mr. Pruneda. Patient L.G. had received massages about 20 times before, and had received a massage from Mr. Pruneda on one prior occasion. The spa was normally closed on Sundays, but Patient L.G. called and requested massage appointments for massages for herself and her fiancé for Sunday, November 13, 2016. Mr. Pruneda testified that when an appointment for a massage is made, the receptionist gives the names of the massage therapists and the patient chooses among them. However, Patient L.G. testified that she did not request Mr. Pruneda. In any event, the spa made special arrangements for Mr. Pruneda and another massage therapist to come in to the spa on that Sunday. On November 13, 2016, Patient L.G. said that after filling out some paperwork, Mr. Pruneda came into the reception area and that was when she first learned he would be her massage therapist. Before the massage began, Patient L.G. disrobed and lay face-down on the massage table and covered herself with a large draping. Patient L.G. was wearing her underwear but no bra. Patient L.G. testified that at the beginning of the massage, Mr. Pruneda spent an excessive amount of time massaging the backs of her legs and that the strokes were coming very close to her buttocks, making her feel uncomfortable. After he moved on to her lower back, the massage went quickly, and she said that she remembered wishing he would spend more time on her back. After her back, he massaged her arms. Then Mr. Pruneda asked Patient L.G. to turn over onto her back, and Patient L.G. complied. Patient L.G. credibly testified that when she turned over, Mr. Pruneda did not avert his eyes and that he then failed to properly drape her, so she had to cover her breasts with the blanket herself. She did not give consent for him to leave her undraped. Patient L.G. testified that Mr. Pruneda again spent an excessive amount of time massaging the tops of her legs and that she felt his hand going under the strap of her underwear. She testified that he then moved her underwear aside and touched her genital area. She testified that she told him "no, no, no, no." She said that her eyes were closed and that she was in shock and fear. Patient L.G. testified that he had his hand on her shoulder and said to her, "If you say no it is no, if you say yes it is yes." She said that he did not try to improperly touch her again. She said that she felt uncomfortable and she adjusted the blanket. She testified that Mr. Pruneda continued the massage on her arms, up to the top, and then massaged her shoulders. Patient L.G. did not give informed consent for Mr. Pruneda to remove the draping from her breasts. Patient L.G. did not give informed consent for Mr. Pruneda to adjust or remove her underwear. Mr. Pruneda agreed that he had performed a massage on Patient L.G. on one prior occasion, but his testimony was otherwise contrary to that of Patient L.G.'s in every relevant aspect. He denied that he exposed Patient L.G's breasts, failed to appropriately drape her breasts, pulled aside her underwear, or touched her genital area. He testified that he simply performed a deep tissue massage with the appropriate level of care and professionalism. Mr. J.N., Patient L.G.'s fiancé, testified that although he and Patient L.G. each had an appointment for a 60-minute massage, his massage was completed first, and he had to wait for 10 to 15 minutes for his fiancé to complete hers. He said that when she came out, he noticed discomfort on her face and asked her if everything was okay. She replied that it was. On the way home, he asked her two more times if everything was okay, receiving the same response. He testified that when they had almost arrived at the house, she finally told him that she had been the victim of sexual misconduct. Patient L.G. confirmed this account, explaining that she said nothing to her fiancé in response to his questioning until they were close to the house to avoid an incident at the spa. Patient L.G. testified that after she returned to the house, she called the spa to report what had happened and, a couple of days later, also contacted the police. Mr. Pruneda introduced Exhibit R-3, a "Square Sales List" from Shanti Ohm Spa, which contained entries dated November 13, 2016, showing a tip of $20 from Patient L.G. to "Jorge," and a tip of $20 from J.N. to his therapist. The list also shows a single line drawn through the tip of $20 from Patient L.G. There was speculation at hearing that this was because the tip was later returned to Patient L.G., but no evidence from spa personnel was offered to explain the entries on the list. Mr. Pruneda argues that Patient L.G. would not have left a tip had she actually been sexually assaulted. Patient L.G. admitted at hearing that she did leave a $20 tip for Mr. Pruneda. She stated that she believed if she failed to do so, her fiancé would realize something was wrong and that she wished to avoid an incident while at the spa. Mr. Pruneda introduced into evidence a copy of a November 14, 2016, posting from a social media internet site belonging to a business specializing in cosmetic makeovers. The document showed Patient L.G. after a cosmetic makeover and contained her comment stating, "Thank you so much . . . I had so much fun today and feel amazing!! Off to rock this photo shoot thanks to you ladies!!" While Mr. Pruneda argues that this social media posting showed that Patient L.G.'s attitude on November 14, 2016, was completely inconsistent with that of a person who had actually suffered a sexual assault on the previous day, this argument is not accepted. Patient L.G. admitted the posting, but explained that the appointment had been made some time before, could not be rescheduled, and that she was obliged to go on with the session in order to meet deadlines for her upcoming wedding. Both the original and the Amended Administrative Complaint also charged that Mr. Pruneda touched Patient L.G.'s breasts without her consent. Further, Ms. Mason, expert witness of Petitioner, testified by deposition, based in part upon her review of the administrative report that had been prepared, that she was of the opinion that Mr. Pruneda's improper touching of Patient L.G.'s breasts constituted sexual misconduct. Yet at hearing, no evidence of Mr. Pruneda improperly touching or trying to massage Patient L.G.'s breasts was presented.1/ At that time, Patient L.G., the only person who could have made such an accusation, testified: Q: Did Mr. Pruneda ever try to massage anywhere on your chest? A: He was massaging my shoulder area. But no. Patient L.G. testified that after the incident, she was very upset for a very long time. Mr. J.N. testified that Patient L.G. felt nervous and had breakdowns. He testified that their relationship had changed a little bit, but that they were working to make it better and improve it going forward. Patient L.G.'s testimony as to the events that took place at the Shanti Ohm Spa on November 13, 2016, was precise, clear, and convincing. Ms. Mason credibly testified that she was familiar with the standards of practice of massage therapists in Florida and that the failure to properly drape a patient without express permission falls below those standards. Mr. Pruneda was fired from Shanti Ohm Spa.2/ He was restricted from the practice of massage therapy on female patients and, at the time of hearing, was no longer working as a massage therapist. Ms. Escalas testified that she has been married to Mr. Pruneda for 20 years and had been with him several years before they were married. She testified that the charges against him have damaged their lives and that it has been shameful to have to admit that he was being investigated. She testified that he was now working in a cleaning company, and eventually, would be working at a shower door company, but was making less money than he made as a massage therapist. Ms. Lima testified that although Mr. Pruneda is not her biological father, he has been just like her father for 20 years. She said that he has always demonstrated high values as a person and that he has never acted badly in all of that time. She testified that the accusations have greatly damaged the family. Mr. Pruneda has been licensed as a massage therapist for 30 years. Mr. Pruneda has never had any prior discipline imposed in connection with his massage therapy license. The case management system of the Clerk and Comptroller of Palm Beach County, Florida, contains no record of felony, criminal traffic, or misdemeanor charges involving Mr. Pruneda.
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 Jorge L. Pruneda in violation of sections 480.0485 and 480.046(1)(i) and rule 64B7-26.010; imposing a fine of $3,500; revoking his license to practice massage therapy; and imposing costs of investigation and prosecution. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of November, 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 1st day of November, 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; 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.
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 Sections 480.46(1)(h),(k), Florida Statutes, and Rule 64B7-30.001(1)(d) (formerly 61G11- 30.001(1)(d), Florida Administrative Code, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Health, Board of Massage Therapy (Department), is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of massage therapy pursuant to Chapter 480, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Morton Wexler (Wexler), is and has been at all times material to this proceeding a licensed massage therapist in the State of Florida, having been issued license number MA 0021664. In November, 1996, Wexler began working at Beauty Dynamics as a massage therapist. Wexler is 71 years old and has been blind since approximately 1990 due to glaucoma; however he can make out shapes and forms. On or about, January 10, 1997, C. C. went to Beauty Dynamics to receive a massage. Wexler was assigned to perform the massage on C. C. Wexler massaged the back of C. C.'s legs and arms and C. C.'s back. He asked C. C. to turn and lie on her back. A towel covered C. C.'s body from her shoulders to her feet. Wexler began to massage the back of her neck. C. C. told Wexler that she had a knot in her neck area and asked him to work on the knot. Instead of working on the knot, Wexler slipped his hands under the towel, down C. C.'s chest and touched her breasts. C. C. told him not to do that. Wexler again put his hands on and around C. C.'s breasts, pinched her nipples, and moaned. At that juncture, C. C. pulled the towel up and told him to get out of the room. Wexler did not leave at that time. He apologized and said that he did not know what came over him. He said, "I couldn't help myself. I stopped being a massage therapist and became a man." Wexler still did not leave the room, but started to massage C. C.'s feet. C. C. got face to face with him and told him to get out. Wexler went to his employer, Darlene Heckelmoser Sanders, and told her not to charge C. C. for the massage because there had been a misunderstanding. He did not fully explain the situation at that time. C. C. was not charged for the massage. After C. C. left Beauty Dynamics, Wexler told Ms. Sanders that he had touched C. C.'s breasts. He explained that the towel fell off, exposing C. C.'s breasts and that he could not help himself. He told her, "I guess I became a man instead of a massage therapist." Later in the day, C. C. called Ms. Sanders and told Ms. Sanders that Wexler had touched her breasts, squeezed her nipples and moaned. Ms. Sanders terminated Wexler's employment with Beauty Dynamics. At the final hearing, Wexler acknowledged that it was not appropriate for a massage therapist to touch the erectile tissue of a client, including the client's nipples.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Morton Wexler guilty of violating Sections 480.046(1)(h), (k), Florida Statutes, and Rule 64B7-30.001(1)(d), Florida Administrative Code, and suspending his massage therapist license for two years. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of May, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building COPIES FURNISHED: Joe Baker, Executive Director Board of Massage Therapy Department of Health 1940 North Monroe Street 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 8th day of May, 1998. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 6, Room 136 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Craig A. McCarthy, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Division of Medical Quality Assurance Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32319-4229 Morton Wexler, pro se 171 South Hampton Drive Jupiter, Florida 33458
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a state licensing and a regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, in particular, Section 20.30 and Chapters 120 and 480, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Respondent, Albert Abrev, is now and at all material times hereto was a licensed masseur in the State of Florida having been issued license number MA0007125 on December 19, 1986. Respondent's license is valid through December 31, 1990. Beginning in September of 1988, Respondent worked at an establishment known Geisha Massage, located 3222 South Dixie Highway in West Palm Beach, Florida. Geisha Massage has not been issued a license by the Board of Massage. Geisha Massage is a Florida corporation which was officially incorporated on July 5, 1988. Respondent is not an owner, incorporator or officer of Geisha Massage. On or about September 27, 1988, Officer Olsen of the West Palm Beach Police Department was directed by her supervisor, Detective David E. Henry, to perform an undercover investigation at Geisha Massage. The purpose of the investigation was to determine whether the establishment was involved in prostitution. On or about September 27, 1988, Officer Olsen entered Geisha Massage and posed as an applicant looking for work. Officer Olsen claimed to be responding to an ad placed in the newspaper. Officer Olsen was interviewed by the Respondent who advised her that she did not need a license because she would only being doing "body treatments or Swedish shampoo." Officer Olsen was requested to undress so that Respondent could determine how she reacted in front of a male without clothing. During the job interview, Respondent indicated to Officer Olsen by pointing to his mouth and to his groin and shaking his head that she would not be expected to engage in sexual intercourse or oral sex. However, Respondent indicated by a hand gesticulation that she would be expected to provide "hand jobs." Officer Olsen's interpretation of Respondent's gestures were confirmed by one of the other employees of Geisha Massage. Officer Olsen was told by Respondent that she was hired and that she was to return to work that evening. Respondent was the only licensed massage therapist on the premises at Geisha Massage. There were at least three female employees of Geisha Massage who provided "body treatments" to customers. None of these employees were licensed massage therapists at the time of the incidents in question. One of them, Victoria Ann Seely, was in the process of obtaining licensure. She took the examination in November of 1988 and received her license in December, 1988. Ms. Seely was a ten percent owner of Geisha Massage. The evidence established that patrons of Geisha Massage were masturbated for a fee upon request after their initial visit. On or about September 30, 1988, a customer of Geisha Massage, Kenneth Barnes, was masturbated and massaged by an employee of Geisha Massage. On September 30, 1988, Officer Olsen, and Detective Daniel Henry of the West Palm Beach Police Department entered Geisha Massage with a search warrant and arrested Respondent, Victoria Ann Seely and two other female employees of the establishment. On or about December 8, 1988, the Respondent pled guilty to a felony charge of operating a house of ill-fame. Adjudication of guilt was withheld and he was placed on two years probation. He has successfully completed probation. Respondent's plea of guilty was a "Alford" plea whereby he did not specifically admit the allegations against him but agreed to plead guilty because it was in his best interest to do so. Respondent testified that he agreed to plead guilty because he did not want to subject his wife and children to the publicity of a trial and further court proceedings.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Massage enter a Final Order finding the Respondent, Albert Abrev guilty of Counts I, II and IV of the Amended Administrative Complaint and that the Board of Massage revoke the Respondent's license. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 28 day of September, 1990. J. STEPHEN MENTON 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 28 day of September, 1990. APPENDIX Both parties have submitted Proposed Recommended Orders. The following constitutes my rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in the Findings of Fact of Fact Number in the Recommended Order Where Accepted or Reason for Rejection. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 2. Rejected as irrelevant and not established by competent substantial evidence. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 6. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 7. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 7. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 8. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 7. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 8. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 8. 12.-14. Rejected as irrelevant. No evidence was introduced to establish that Respondent hired the employee in question or delegated any responsibilities to her. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 11. Rejected as irrelevant. 17.-18. Rejected as irrelevant. No competent substantial evidence was introduced to establish that Respondent any dealings with this particular customer. The customer was unable to positively identify Respondent. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 13. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 10. The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in the Findings of Fact of Fact Number in the Recommended Order Where Accepted or Reason for Rejection. Rejected as constituting legal argument rather than a finding of fact. The evidence did establish that Respondent entered a plea of guilty. See, Findings of Fact 13. As set forth in Paragraph 5 of the Conclusions of Law, the sealing of Respondent's criminal record is not retroactive and competent substantial evidence was introduced regarding the guilty plea. Rejected as subordinate to Findings of Fact 5 through 8. Addressed in Conclusions of Law 8. Addressed in Conclusions of Law 10. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael A. Mone, Esquire Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Robert P. Foley, Esquire Foley & Colton, P.A. 406 North Dixie Highway West Palm Beach, Florida 33401-4298 Mildred Gardner Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue The issues presented in this case are whether Respondent has violated the provisions of Chapters 456 and 480, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapters 64B7-26, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of massage therapy pursuant to Section 20.43 and Chapters 456 and 480, Florida Statutes. At all times material to the allegations in this case, Respondent was an applicant for or licensed as a massage therapist in the State of Florida, having been issued license number MA52091 on or about December 7, 2007. Respondent's Application for Licensure Respondent applied for a license as a massage therapist in July 2007. His application for licensure was signed and submitted to the Department on or about July 12, 2007. The application includes the following question: 20. Have you ever been convicted of, or entered a plea of guilty, nolo contendere, or no contest to, a crime in any jurisdiction other than a minor traffic offense? You must include all misdemeanors and felonies, even if the court withheld adjudication so that you would not have a record of conviction. Driving under the influence or driving while impaired is not a minor traffic offense for purposes of this question. Respondent answered "no" to question 20 quoted above. At the end of the application is a place for a picture of the applicant and a section labeled "Affidavit of Applicant" which the applicant completes and signs. The affidavit states: AFFIDAVIT OF APPLICANT: I, Marcus McCastler, affirm that I am the person referred to in the foregoing massage therapy licensure application, and that the attached photograph is a true likeness of myself. I understand that it is my duty and responsibility as an applicant for licensure to supplement my application after it has been submitted if and when any material change in circumstances or conditions occur which might affect the Board's decision concerning my eligibility for examination or licensure. Such supplement is required by Chapter 456.013(1), F.S. Failure to do so may result in disciplinary action by the Board including denial of licensure. I have carefully read the questions in the foregoing application and have answered them completely, without reservation of any kind, and I declare that my answers and all statements made by me herein and in support of this application are true and correct. Should I furnish any false information on or in support of this application, I understand that such action shall constitute cause for denial, suspension, or revocation of any license to practice in the state of Florida in the profession for which I am applying. I have read, understand, and agree to comply with the statutes and rules applicable to the practice of my profession in Florida. Respondent signed and dated his application immediately following the declaration quoted above. The answer to question number 20 on his application was false. On August 28, 2002, in Case No. 2001-CT-30030 (Fourth Judicial Circuit, Duval County, Florida), Respondent pleaded nolo contendere to the second-degree misdemeanor of driving on a suspended or revoked license, in violation of Section 322.34(2), Florida Statutes. Adjudication was withheld and court costs were paid. On April 6, 2004, in Case No. 2003-CT-031996-AXXX (Fourth Judicial Circuit, Duval County, Florida), Respondent pleaded nolo contendere to driving with no valid driver's license, in violation of Section 322.03, Florida Statutes. Adjudication was withheld and court costs paid. 11. On December 15, 2004, in Case No. 2004-MM-041686 (Fourth Judicial Circuit, Duval County, Florida), Respondent pleaded nolo contendere to possession of less than 20 grams of cannabis, a first-degree misdemeanor, in violation of Section 893.13(6), Florid Statutes. Adjudication of guilt was withheld and court costs paid. On December 18, 2006, Respondent pleaded nolo contendere to the misdemeanor of permitting an unauthorized minor to drive, in violation of Section 322.35, Florida Statutes. In Case No. 2006-CT-004817 (First Judicial Circuit, Escambia County, Florida), Respondent was adjudicated guilty, fined $200.00, and ordered to pay court costs. On February 14, 2007, Respondent pleaded nolo contendere to possession of less than 20 grams of cannabis, a first-degree misdemeanor. In Case No. 07-00255-MM-MA (Fourth Judicial Circuit, Clay County, Florida), adjudication was withheld and Respondent was ordered to pay $205 in costs. On July 3, 2008, Respondent was arrested and charged with simple battery, in violation of Section 784.03(1)(b), Florida Statutes, a first-degree misdemeanor. On July 4, 2008, Respondent pleaded nolo contendere to the lesser included offense of fighting. In Case No. 2008-MO-18280 (Fourth Judicial Circuit, Duval County, Florida), the Court withheld adjudication and imposed a fine of $250.00. All of the offenses listed above with the exception of the offense described in paragraph 14 occurred before Respondent signed the application for a license as a massage therapist. Respondent claims that he answered question 20 no "reluctantly" on advice of a lawyer at his school. Respondent's claim is not credible. The July 6, 2008 Incident In July 2008, Respondent was employed as a massage therapist by Summit Regency, d/b/a Massage Envy, in Jacksonville, Florida. On or about July 6, 2008, Respondent gave a massage to A.M., a female client of Massage Envy. A.M. has been a licensed R.N. since 1979 and works as a public health nurse at the Duval County Health Department. A.M. had received massages before and Respondent had given her a massage on a previous occasion. On this particular day, she came to Massage Envy with her husband, W.M., who was also getting a massage. Both were using a prepaid plan whereby they received a set number of massages over a defined period of time. A.M.'s massage was scheduled for and took place at approximately 2:00 p.m. Upon entering the room, A.M. was provided with a sheet/drape and Respondent left the room while A.M. undressed, got on the table face down and covered herself with the drape. A.M. testified that, while she was face down on the table and during the massage, Respondent removed the drape, leaving her completely exposed. She testified that about 20 minutes into the massage, Respondent inserted his bare finger into her rectum and pushed his finger to the side of the rectum without her consent and without telling A.M. what he was doing or why. According to A.M., she did not say anything and did not attempt to get down from the table because she was in shock and frightened, and mortified at what Respondent had done. She did not ask him to return the drape until he instructed her to turn over. At that point, he handed her the drape and she turned over onto her back. He massaged her arms and then the massage was over. Respondent, on the other hand, denied removing the drape from A.M.'s body during the massage and adamantly denied inserting his finger into her rectum. A.M. and her husband left Massage Envy after their massages and returned home. A.M. did not tell her husband about the incident until they arrived home, at which time she told him that Respondent had "stuck his finger up her butt." W.M. advised her to report the matter to the police and to call the owner of Massage Envy, which she did. With respect to the owner of Massage Envy, she reported what she believed Respondent had done, and asked for her money back. Her money was refunded to her, and she was provided a copy of the complaint paperwork to file a complaint with the Department of Health. A.M. also reported the incident to the Jacksonville Police Department at approximately 7:00 p.m. that evening, but did not wish to file charges against Respondent. She said she simply wanted to "report it so that it would be on record." She also went to her family physician the next day because her hemorrhoids were bleeding, which she attributed to the incident with Respondent. Respondent was not charged with any crime as a result of events taking place July 6, 2008. However, he was terminated from his employment based on A.M.'s complaint. After careful review of all of the evidence presented at hearing, there is not clear and convincing evidence that Respondent removed the drape inappropriately during the exam or that he intentionally inserted his finger into A.M.'s rectum.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Board of Massage Therapy enter a Final Order finding that Counts I and II of the Administrative Complaint were not proven by clear and convincing evidence; that Respondent committed the acts charged in Counts III and IV of the Administrative Complaint and by doing so, violated Sections 456.072(1)(h) and (m); 480.046(1)(o); and 480.047(1)(f), Florida Statutes (2007); and revoking his license to practice massage therapy. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of October, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON 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 18th day of October, 2010.
