The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Mehdi Safdari, L.M.T., committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint issued August 8, 2001, and, if so, to what extent should his license be disciplined or should he be otherwise penalized.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Department of Health, Board of Massage Therapy (hereinafter referred to as the "Board") is the state agency charged with the authority and duty to regulate the practice of massage therapy in the State of Florida. Pursuant to Subsection 20.43(3)(g), Florida Statutes, the Department of Health has contracted with the Agency for Health Care Administration to provide consumer complaint, investigative, and prosecutorial services required by the Board, as appropriate. Respondent, Mehdi Safdari, was a licensed massage therapist in the State of Florida at all times material to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint. Respondent's license number is MA 11488. He was originally certified on January 14, 1991; his current license will expire on August 31, 2003. The complainant, R.C., a 44-year-old female who has an associate's degree in social services from Hesston College in Hesston, Kansas, is a certified activities director. At all times material to the allegations in this matter, she was employed as an activities director at an assisted living facility, Altera Wynwood. On May 4, 2000, Respondent and another person presented an educational program on occupational therapy, physical therapy, and speech and massage therapy for the residents of Altera Wynwood. Incidental to the program, Respondent brought his massage chair and performed massages at the facility. On that day, Respondent performed a chair massage on R.C. R.C. had not known Respondent prior to that day. R.C. advised Respondent that she had been involved in an automobile accident and had injured three discs in her neck. Respondent suggested that she allow him to perform massage therapy on her to alleviate discomfort incidental to the neck injury. On May 15, 2000, R.C. presented herself to Respondent's place of employment for massage therapy. After disrobing, R.C. dressed herself in a hospital gown and towel which was provided. She wore the towel like a diaper. Respondent massaged R.C.'s head and neck and around her breasts. R.C. testified that Respondent "touched her genital area in a very, very subtle manner, almost as if it was an accident." The remainder of the "full body" massage consisted largely of leg stretching. On May 17, 2000, R.C. presented herself for a second massage. On this occasion she found no gown, but was provided a sheet and towel. During this massage, Respondent pulled down the sheet and exposed R.C.'s breasts without her consent. During the massage, Respondent touched R.C.'s breasts, but she was uncertain as to whether the touching was "out of line." Her next massage was on May 19, 2000. She again found only a sheet and towel in which to dress. During this massage, Respondent got up on the massage table and straddled R.C., sitting on her hips and buttocks with his legs on each side of her body. She advised him that the pressure of him sitting on her buttocks was causing her pain in the back, so he got off. At all times she was covered by the sheet and had the towel between her legs. Respondent did not advise her that he was going to straddle her nor did he have her permission to do so. On her fourth and final visit, she dressed herself in the sheet that was provided, but left her underpants on because she was having a menstrual period. After massaging R.C.'s upper body, Respondent turned her over on her stomach. He then got up on the massage table, straddling R.C., and pulled her underwear back. He then unzipped the zipper of his trousers and placed his penis between R.C.'s buttocks. Respondent was leaning up against R.C. and pumping against her. She advised Respondent that he was hurting her and, as a result, he got off. He then told her to lie on her side and face the wall; he then got up on the massage table beside her and with his full body began pushing up against her from behind. She was afraid she was going to be raped and was afraid to say anything. Respondent remained behind R.C. for a short period of time and then left. R.C. went to the bathroom and washed herself but did not discover any semen on herself. She then left, seeking to avoid Respondent. R.C. believed that she had been sexually assaulted and filed a report with an appropriate law enforcement agency. R.C.'s testimony in this matter was clear, consistent, and credible.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Health, Board of Massage Therapy, finding that Mehdi Safdari violated Rule 64B7-26.010(1) and (3), Florida Administrative Code, Section 480.0485, Florida Statutes, and Subsection 455.624(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1999), as alleged in the Administrative Complaint issued on August 8, 2001; it is further RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health, Board of Massage Therapy, suspend Mehdi Safdari's license to practice massage therapy for a period of three (3) years, during which time he must present himself for examination and/or treatment by a psychiatrist licensed to practice medicine in the State of Florida, who, upon conclusion of his examination and/or treatment, shall opine to the Board of Massage Therapy that Respondent is not a threat to his patients as a prerequisite to Respondent returning to the practice of massage therapy; impose an administrative fine against Respondent of $3,000; and assess against Respondent the costs of investigating and prosecuting this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of May, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JEFF B. CLARK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of May, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Scott L. Richardson, Esquire 126 East Jefferson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Ruby Seymour-Barr, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Building 3, Mail Station 39 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 William H. Buckhalt, Executive Director Board of Massage Therapy Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C06 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
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 ultimate issue for determination at formal hearing was whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in Petitioner's Administrative Complaint, and if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent's massage license.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints filed pursuant to Chapters 455 and 480, Florida Statutes, and rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Respondent is a Florida licensed massage therapist and has been at all times material hereto, having been issued license number MA 0012000. Respondent had been licensed for one (1) year prior to the alleged incidents and has performed approximately 700 massages, with approximately 300 of them being performed on women. In August 1992, P. G. was suffering from tension in her neck, so she contacted Respondent for a massage. P. G. was acquainted with Respondent as a result of them attending the same church and participating for six weeks in "prosperity classes" which met once a week. Respondent agreed to give her a massage at her home. At no time prior to this had P. G. had a massage. In the afternoon, on a day in August 1992, Respondent came to P. G.'s home to give her the massage. He brought with him a table and a sheet. P. G.'s husband was at home when Respondent arrived and was in another room in the home during the first half of the massage. The massage lasted approximately one hour and 15 minutes. Before beginning the massage, Respondent did not obtain any medical or health history from P. G. Also, Respondent gave P. G. the option of being draped with her underwear on or nude. P. G. chose to keep her underwear on. Respondent massaged P. G.'s neck, arms, shoulders, back, legs, feet and breasts. Throughout the massage, P. G. and Respondent conversed continuously. At one point, Respondent told her that she had a great body and that if she ever wanted to get rid of her husband he was available. P. G. did not take Respondent's comments seriously and dismissed them. When Respondent was massaging P. G.'s arms and shoulders, she was lying in a prone position with her arms and hands outstretched forward and with him standing in front of her. Several times, during this part of the massage, when Respondent leaned forward, he brushed his penis against her hands. Prior to massaging P. G.'s breasts, Respondent did not discuss massaging her breasts with her. Also, throughout the massage of P. G.'s breasts, Respondent used his hands to manipulate her breasts and manipulated her nipples. At one point during the massage, Respondent touched P. G.'s vaginal area and began stroking her clitoris. P. G. described Respondent's action as a "stimulation" of her clitoris in a sexual manner "like your husband would do." When Respondent did this, P. G. immediately asked Respondent if this was part of the massage. He asked her if she wanted him to do this and she said no. Respondent ceased and did not do it again. After the massage was over, P. G. paid Respondent $20 or $30, she did not recall which. Additionally, she walked Respondent to his vehicle and requested that he leave some of his advertising material with her, which he did. P. G. reported the incident to Petitioner after her twin sister informed her that Respondent should not have touched her vaginal area and nipples. Approximately two months later, on or about October 1, 1992, S. K. came to Fort Lauderdale, Florida, from California for her father's funeral. After his funeral, she was very stressed and wanted to get a massage. For S. K., massages were therapy, relieving her of stress, and she had been receiving massages for approximately 10 years. Also, S. K. is a licensed massage therapist in the State of California. On or about October 3, 1992, a Sunday, S. K. called Respondent after selecting him from his advertisement in the yellow pages. Respondent agreed to perform a massage on her that same day in the afternoon at his home. After arriving at Respondent's home, he directed S. K. to a small room which contained a massage table. She undressed completely and was provided with a small rectangular sheet about the width of her body for draping. Prior to the massage, S. K. and Respondent discussed areas in particular that S. K. wanted massaged, i.e., shoulders, neck, and lower back. Further, she requested that Respondent use a special oil that she brought with her, and he agreed to do so; she felt "safe" with the smell of the oil. At no time did Respondent take any medical or health history from S. K. S. K.'s massage lasted for approximately one hour. Respondent talked continuously during the entire massage, relating his real estate dealings. Respondent began the massage by having S. K. lie on the massage table in a prone position. He placed the small sheet on her, leaving her buttocks uncovered. In the course of massaging the top of S. K.'s legs, Respondent brushed S. K.'s genital area, specifically her labia, very briskly at least six or eight times (three or four times on each leg). S. K. began to become suspicious of Respondent but did not object to Respondent's action. While S. K. was still in the face down position, Respondent massaged S. K.'s buttocks. During the massage of her buttocks, Respondent brushed his fingers over S. K.'s anus several times, causing her to believe that Respondent was doing this intentionally. However, S. K. did not object to Respondent's action, wanting to believe, instead, that what was happening really wasn't. Additionally, while in the prone position, Respondent massaged S. K.'s shoulders. She was lying with her arms and hands outstretched in the front of her and with Respondent standing in front of her. Several times, while manipulating S. K.'s shoulders, Respondent would brush his stomach and penis against her hands. Each time the brushing occurred, either with his stomach or his penis, S. K. would move her hands back, but the massage procedure would cause her hands to move forward again. S. K. objected to Respondent's action, and he stopped. When Respondent had S. K. to lie on her back, he did not cover her genital area with any kind of draping. She became angry, accused Respondent of not properly draping her, and proceeded to drape her genital area herself. While S. K. was still lying on her back, Respondent massaged her breasts with his hands. Respondent had not discussed massaging S. K.'s breasts before doing so. During the massage of S. K.'s breasts, Respondent manipulated her nipples with his hands. At the conclusion of the massage, S. K. paid Respondent $20 for the massage and gave him a $10 tip. Neither S. K. nor P. G. were acquainted with one another. Expert testimony was that draping is not universally taught in Florida's massage schools and that there is no universally accepted method of draping by massage therapists in Florida. When a massage therapist performs a massage on a client for the first time, the minimum standard of practice, according to expert testimony, requires the massage therapist to take the client's medical history. Obtaining the medical history guides the massage therapist in the client's massage, such as informing the therapist which areas of the body are appropriate for massage and which are not. A massaging of the breasts is not prohibited; however, according to expert testimony, the minimum standard of practice requires the massage therapist to (a) inform the client, prior to the massage, that the breasts will be massaged, (b) obtain the client's consent, and (c) use the client's hand to massage the breasts (massage through the client's hand). Additionally, the minimum standard of practice prohibits the manipulation of the nipples. Massaging of the genital area, according to expert testimony, is prohibited by the minimum standard of practice, unless the client's physician has ordered such a massage. No physician ordered a massage of the genital area for either P. G. or S. K. According to expert testimony, the anus is involved in a massage procedure referred to as colonic irrigation which is a gloved procedure and requires special equipment. The minimum standard of practice requires a massage therapist to obtain the client's consent for the procedure and requires the client to go through an advance procedure prior to the colonic irrigation massage. No colonic irrigation was performed on either P. G. or S. K.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Board of Massage enter a final order: Determining James J. Maes guilty of violating Subsection 480.046(1)(k), Florida Statutes, by violating Board of Massage Rule 21L-30.001(1)(d), Florida Administrative Code, as set forth in the Administrative Complaint; and Imposing an administrative penalty of five years suspension. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 16th day of April 1993 ERROL H. POWELL 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 16th day of April 1993. APPENDIX Rulings on findings proposed by the Petitioner. 1-6. Rejected as subordinate to Findings of Fact 23-27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 25, except for the reference to appropriate draping which is rejected. Expert testimony revealed that there was no universally accepted method of draping. See Finding of Fact 23. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. Rejected, see Finding of Fact 23. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17, except the reference to the clitoris which is rejected. Taking the deposition testimony about S. K.'s clitoris and labia indicates that S. K. meant her labia, not her clitoris. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20, except the reference of failing to properly drape which is rejected. See Finding of Fact 23. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. Adopted in Finding of Fact 21. Rulings on findings proposed by the Respondent. Client I Adopted in Findings of Fact 3 and 4, except the reference to the date which is rejected as contrary to the evidence presented. Rejected as contrary to the evidence presented. Rejected as contrary to the evidence presented. Rejected as contrary to the evidence presented. Rejected as contrary to the evidence presented, except as to P. G. wearing panties throughout the massage which is adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Rejected as contrary to the evidence presented, except as to the last sentence which is adopted in Finding of Fact 10. Client II Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Rejected as contrary to the evidence presented, except for the expert testimony on draping which is adopted and modified in Finding of Fact 23. Rejected as contrary to the evidence presented. Rejected as contrary to the evidence presented, see Finding of Fact 17. Rejected as contrary to the evidence presented, see Finding of Fact 20. Rejected as contrary to the evidence presented, see Finding of Fact 18. Rejected as unnecessary and contrary to the evidence presented, except the reference to the tip which is adopted in Finding of Fact 21. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan E. Lindgard, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 James J. Maes 1498 Northeast 34th Court Oakland Park, Florida 33334 Anna Polk, Executive Director Board of Massage Department of Professional Regulation Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
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 The issues to be determined in this case are whether the Respondent, Lauren Dillman-Bell, obtained her Florida license to practice massage therapy through fraud or error, in violation of section 456.072(1)(h), Florida Statutes (2009), or made misleading, untrue, deceptive, or fraudulent representations on her application for licensure, in violation of section 456.072(1)(w), both of which constitute violations of section 480.046(1)(o); and if so, the appropriate sanction. (Unless otherwise indicated, citations to the Florida Statutes and rules of the Florida Administrative Code refer to the versions in effect when the Respondent’s license was issued on July 1, 2009.)
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner 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 (2016). At all times material to the Administrative Complaint, the Respondent was licensed to practice massage therapy in the State of Florida, having been issued license number MA 56509 on or about July 1, 2009. When the Respondent applied for licensure in June 2009, she answered “no” to a question whether she had “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.” When the Respondent’s license was issued, the Petitioner was unaware that the answer to the question on the application should have been “yes.” This was not brought to the Petitioner’s attention until June 2013. The Petitioner investigated, and the Administrative Complaint was filed. It is clear from the evidence presented at the hearing that the Respondent entered the following pleas in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, in December 2005: guilty to one count of possession of a controlled, dangerous substance with intent to distribute; guilty to one count of possession of a controlled, dangerous substance (methamphetamine) with intent to distribute; guilty to one count of possession of a stolen vehicle/receiving stolen property; and guilty to two counts of possession of a weapon. Although the Respondent did not appear or testify at the hearing, it can be inferred that she knew or should have known that her answer to the question on her license application about criminal convictions and guilty pleas was false. Even if the answer were unintentionally false, the Petitioner relied on it when it issued the Respondent’s license without conducting any investigation into the Respondent’s fitness for licensure notwithstanding the guilty pleas. (It also could be inferred from the Respondent’s failure to pursue her request for a hearing, and her failure to provide effective contact information so as to receive notices regarding the case, that she has withdrawn and waived her disputes as to the facts alleged in the Administrative Complaint.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued: (1) finding that the Respondent violated section 480.046(1)(o) by violating sections 456.072(h) and (w); and (2) revoking her massage therapy license. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of May, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of May, 2017. COPIES FURNISHED: Lauren Dillman-Bell, L.M.T. 5033 Lords Avenue Sarasota, Florida 34231 Lealand L. McCharen, Esquire Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 (eServed) Jaquetta Johnson, Esquire Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 (eServed) Claudia Kemp, JD, Executive Director Board of Massage Therapy Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-06 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3257 (eServed) Nichole C. Geary, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 (eServed)
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence received at the hearing, the following facts are found: The Respondent, Dana Carlos, is a licensed massage therapist in the State of Florida, having been issued license number MA 0002811. The Respondent has been so licensed at all times material to this proceeding. On December 10, 1986, the Respondent was the co-owner of a massage establishment known as Massage by Dana and Jan, which at that time was located at 721 U.S. Highway 1, Suite 222, North Palm Beach, Florida 33408. That establishment was licensed by the State of Florida, having been issued license number MM 0000202. When Inspector Jean Robinson inspected that establishment on December 10, 1990, Gemma V. Koder was massaging a client without being supervised by either the Respondent or Jan Carlos. The client had come in early and Ms. Koder had called the Respondent by telephone to ask what she should do. The Respondent had told Gemma V. Koder to go ahead and start massaging the client and that she (the Respondent) would be there as soon as possible. The Respondent was approved as a sponsor for Gemma V. Koder, which sponsorship terminated on May 14, 1987. Gemma V. Koder was an apprentice for Dana Carlos. Gemma V. Koder had an apprentice license that allowed her to perform massages only when either the Respondent or Jan Carlos were physically present to supervise her. Either the Respondent or Jan Carlos could supervise Ms. Koder, because they were "co-sponsors." The Respondent later moved her massage establishment to 3700 Georgia Avenue, West Palm Beach, Florida. At that location she practiced massage under the name Massage by Dana and Jan. Dana Carlos leased the premises at that location. On April 13, 1988, the premises at 3700 Georgia Avenue were inspected by Inspector Jean Robinson. On that day Tammy Coxey was working as an unlicensed apprentice for the Respondent. The Respondent had applied for an apprentice license for Tammy Coxey, but the apprentice license was never approved by the Board of Massage. Therefore, the Respondent was never approved as a sponsor for Tammy Coxey and the Respondent knew that Tammy Coxey did not have an apprentice license or any other type of license. Nevertheless, admittedly motivated by profit potential, the Respondent disregarded the licensing requirements and put Tammy Coxey to work. On April 13, 1988, the room in which Tammy Coxey was performing massages as an employee of the Respondent was across the hall from the licensed massage establishment the Respondent was authorized to operate. The room in which Tammy Coxey was performing massages as an employee of the Respondent was never a licensed massage establishment. On the 6th and 7th of October, 1988, Sergeant Harvey Starr, of the West Palm Beach Police Department, called the establishment known as Massage by Dana and Jan and spoke to the Respondent on the telephone. He inquired about a "full body treatment" and was told that "all her girls gave full body treatments that included a release." In street jargon, a massage that includes "full body treatment including release," means a massage that includes masturbation to climax. On October 11, 1988, Sergeant Starr made an appointment for a massage and went to the premises of Massage by Dana and Jan, where he was met by the Respondent. Sergeant Starr told the Respondent that his name was "Richard," that he was the one who had called her on the telephone, and then asked what the charge was for a "full body treatment." The Respondent said it would be $25. Sergeant Starr than asked if that included a "release" and the Respondent told him that would cost $28. Sergeant Starr then specifically asked the Respondent if a "release" meant that he would be masturbated, and the Respondent answered that it did. Sergeant Starr then asked if the Respondent wanted to be paid. She, answered in the affirmative, Sergeant Starr handed her $30, and at that time he identified himself as a police officer and told her that she was under arrest. The Respondent was arrested on the charge of soliciting for the purpose of prostitution. Beginning in 1974 and for several years thereafter, in an effort to compete effectively, attract repeat business, and maintain market share in the Palm Beach County massage market, the Respondent engaged in the practiced of regularly masturbating massage clients.
Recommendation Upon consideration of all of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Board of Massage enter a Final Order in this case to the following effect: Dismissing all charges of violations set forth in Count II of the Amended Administrative Complaint; Dismissing the charges in Count III of the Amended Administrative Complaint that allege violations based on Section 480.47, Florida Statutes (the violations alleged at subparagraphs (a) and (c) of Paragraph 18 of the Amended Administrative Complaint); Finding the Respondent guilty of the violation charged in Count I of the Amended Administrative Complaint; Finding the Respondent guilty of the violations of Section 480.046(1)(e) and 480.046(1)(k), Florida Statutes, alleged in subparagraphs (b) and (d) of Paragraph 18 of Count III of the Amended Administrative Complaint; and Imposing a penalty , for the foregoing violations consisting of the revocation of the Respondent's license. DONE AND ENTERED at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 4th day of June, 1990. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of June, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NUMBER 89-6091 Consistent with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, the following are my specific rulings on the proposed findings of fact contained in the Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order. Paragraphs 1 through 5: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 6: Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law rather than a finding of fact. Paragraph 7: Rejected as irrelevant to charges in this case. Paragraphs 8 through 14: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 15: Rejected because only record basis is uncorroborated hearsay. Paragraphs 16 through 23: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 24: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary, even though supported by record evidence. Paragraph 25: Accepted in substance. With regard to the post-hearing submissions of the Respondent, it is first noted that, even after a deadline extension of over a month, the Respondent's post-hearing submissions were filed late. Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, requires a ruling on each proposed finding only where proposed findings are submitted "in accordance with agency rules." Rule 22I-6.031(1), Florida Administrative Code, provides for the filing of proposed findings of fact and other proposed matters "within a time designated by the Hearing Officer." The Respondent's post-hearing materials were not submitted in accordance with the cited rule because they were filed beyond the extended deadline. Therefore, Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, does not require a specific ruling on each and every random sentence that might arguably constitute a proposed finding wherever found within the 47 pages of assorted post-hearing material submitted by the Respondent. Accordingly, while I have carefully read each of the 47 pages of post-hearing material submitted by the Respondent, I have not attempted the herculean task of gleaning through the Respondent's eclectic accumulation of papers and attempting to sort out the few statements that might arguably be construed as proposed findings of fact from the morass of arguments, statements of law, total irrelevancies, inappropriate documents (such as rejected exhibits), and other documents that serve no useful purpose. Suffice it to say that it is clear that the Respondent is of the view that the Petitioner has failed to prove its case, and it is clear from the findings of fact made in the Recommended Order that the Hearing Officer is, for the most part, of the view that the record in this case warrants an opposite finding. COPIES FURNISHED: Cynthia Gelmine, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Ms. Dana Carlos 4425 Rachael Way West Palm Beach, FL 33406 Mildred Gardner Kenneth D. Easley, Esquire Executive Director General Counsel, Department Board of Massage of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
The Issue The issue to be decided is whether Respondent violated the provisions of chapters 456 and 480, Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact The Department of Health 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 times material to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent, Giuseppe Chiarizia, was licensed as a massage therapist in the State of Florida, having been licensed on August 26, 2008, and issued license number MA54313. At the time of the alleged incident in this case, his license was clear and active. Teri Ingram and M.C. are close friends who reside, with their respective spouses, in Illinois. In late September, early October of 2008, the two couples were vacationing in Panama City. On or about October 1, 2008, Ms. Ingram and T.C. went to the Salon Baliage and Spa for a massage. Upon arriving at the spa, the women were led to a room to fill out paper work, and offered some refreshments, which they declined. Each woman was then taken back for the services they were receiving. Ms. Ingram was called back first, and had a facial and a massage. M.C. was having similar services. After Ms. Ingram's massage was finished, she returned to the waiting room to wait for M.C. At some point, an employee at the spa came to her and told her that M.C. was in another room and wanted to see her immediately. As Ms. Ingram approached the room, M.C. came out. She was dressed, but was shaking and crying hysterically. Ms. Ingram described her as "all hunched over, more like hugging herself." M.C. wanted to call the women's husbands and leave the spa. Ms. Ingram notified the manager that something had happened but she was not sure what, and that they were leaving the spa. Ms. Ingram paid for her services; she did not know if M.C. did so as well. The two women went outside, and while waiting for their husbands, M.C. told Ms. Ingram that the massage therapist, Respondent, had touched her. Ms. Ingram asked her what she meant by that statement, and M.C. told Ms. Ingram that the massage therapist had rubbed his genitals across her hands and her shoulders during her massage, and that once he began the massage he slipped his finger inside her vagina. M.C. stated that she told him to leave the room and to leave her alone, and in response, he held her down and told her he was sorry. She asked him repeatedly to leave the room and he finally did so. Once their husbands arrived, the two couples drove to the Panama City Beach Police Station to report the incident. Deputy Andrew LoTurco was employed by the Bay County Sheriff's Office. He was dispatched to the Panama City Beach Police Department to respond to M.C.'s complaint of sexual battery. When he encountered M.C., she was very distraught and embarrassed. After hearing her complaint and speaking with M.C., her husband and a lady, presumably Ms. Ingram, Deputy LoTurco transported M.C. to the Bay Medical Center for examination, and turned over the investigation to Deputy Jason Larson. Deputy Larson met with M.C. and also observed that she was extremely upset and had been crying. During the interview, she was withdrawn. M.C. related to Deputy Larson an account of what happened that was essentially the same as what she had stated to Ms. Ingram. She identified the massage therapist as Respondent. At some point, Respondent was taken to the Sheriff's Office, and Deputy Larson interviewed him and advised him of his Miranda rights. Respondent declined to give a taped statement, but did speak with Officer Larson. Initially, he denied M.C.'s report, but as the interview continued, he stated that it was possible he may have accidentally penetrated M.C.'s vagina with the tip of his finger. He also stated that if he was in his country, M.C. would have given him a tip and thanked him. At the hospital, a rape kit was administered. M.C. continued to be very upset by the incident, and the two couples shortened their planned vacation to return home as a result. Respondent claims that M.C. was a difficult client to massage because she was heavy-set. By contrast, Ms. Ingram testified that she thought M.C. was approximately five feet, four inches tall, and weighed approximately 140 pounds. Respondent also testified that during the massage, M.C. brought her hands out too far, making it difficult for him to continue massaging her and also avoid intimate contact with her hands. Finally, he claimed, essentially, that M.C. was masturbating during the massage. Respondent's testimony is not credited. Massage therapy training often involves blindfold massage, and 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 Florida Administrative Code 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 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.
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 Respondent guilty of violating sections 456.063(1); 456.072(1)(v); 480.046(1)(h) and(o); and 480.0485, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B7-26.010; finding Respondent not guilty of violating rule 64B7-30.001(5); and imposing a fine of $1,000 and revoking his license to practice massage therapy. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of September, 2011, 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 1st day of September, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Greg S. Marr, Esquire Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 Manshi Shah, Esquire Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 Giuseppe Chiarizia P.S.C. 451, Box 490 FPO, AE 09834 (giuseppechiarizia@hotmail.com) Nicholas W. Romanello, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32299-1701 Anthony Jusevitch, Executive Director Board of Massage Therapy Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32299-1701
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of massage (Chapters 20.30, 455, and 480, Florida Statutes). The Respondent is a licensed massage therapist, holding license number MA 0004771 (P's Exh. 2). The Respondent holds a massage establishment license for Massage by Olga, license number MM001233 (P's Exh. 1). Massage by Olga is located at 643 Tanglewood, Daytona Beach, Florida 32114. No other businesses are located at that address (T-31). The Petitioner is charged with inspecting the establishment premises. Section 480.043(9), Florida Statutes, and Rule 21L-26.005, Florida Administrative Code. It is the usual and common practice of inspectors to make unannounced inspections (T-10-11). To make announced inspections would contravene the reason for the inspection, giving licensees time to clean up their licensed premises (T-11, 28). The Petitioner's inspector, Linda Mantovani, who works out of Jacksonville, Florida, attempted to make an inspection of the establishment, Massage by Olga, on January 30, 1991 (T-13). She knocked on the front door and waited seven (7) minutes. No one came to the door. Ms. Mantovani observed two cars in the driveway of the establishment (T-14). Ms. Mantovani heard noise coming from inside the establishment (T-14- 15). Ms. Mantovani went around to the side entrances and windows, and again knocked on the front door (T-15-16). Ms. Mantovani's knocks were unanswered (T-15). Ms. Mantovani waited outside the establishment for another 15 to 20 minutes to see if anyone left. She observed no one leaving or entering the establishment (T-16). Ms. Mantovani observed a sign on the front door of the establishment which said: Appointments & Information by telephone-only No appointments, No knock!!!! Do not ring bell unless on time (+ or - 5 min.) Phone number....lost it, find it! Inspectors see rule #2. No exceptions (T-14, 23-24; P's Exh. 4). Ms. Mantovani formed the impression that people were inside the establishment (T-15, 18) The Respondent told Ms. Mantovani that although she parked her car at the licensed premises, she frequently walked to lunch in the neighborhood. Ms. Mantovani contacted the Respondent by telephone without difficulty. The Respondent told Ms. Mantovani that she did not live at the licensed premises; that she was there only for appointments; and she would make herself available for Ms. Mantovani for inspection purposes. Ms. Mantovani advised the Respondent that the Petitioner made unscheduled inspections. The Respondent told Ms. Mantovani that she could not promise that she would be at the licensed premises when Ms. Mantovani was in Daytona. The Respondent also stated that it was her practice not to answer the door, except to receive scheduled patrons. Ms. Mantovani refused to schedule an inspection, or to call and ascertain that the Respondent was available and inspect at that moment.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that the charges be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of February, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of February, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 91-6559 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-15. Adopted. 16-17. Rejected as contrary to more credible portion of Ms. Mantovani's testimony. 18. Adopted and moved to Paragraph 3. COPIES FURNISHED: Anna Polk, Executive Director Board of Massage Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Jack McRay, Esq. General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Lois B. Lepp, Esq. Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Rita Brigugulio 643 Tanglewood Daytona Beach, FL 32114
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.
