Findings Of Fact During the period from September 3 through September 7, 1974, the Respondent, Dr. Thomas A. Mullin, undertook to perform audiological testing on various patients and staff at University Convalescent Center West (UCCW) and University Convalescent Center East (UCCE) in Deland, Florida. These two convalescent centers, although owned by the same corporation, were at that time separate and distinct facilities, each having its own administrator. UCCW was located at 545 West Euclid Avenue in Deland, Florida, and its administrator was Arthur Anderson. UCCE was at that located at 991 East New York Avenue in Deland, Florida, and its administrator was Gelatha Koranda. Dr. Mullin obtained permission from Arthur Anderson to conduct audiological tests at DCCW and through Anderson's recommendation obtained access to UCCE. Anderson's permission was obtained by Dr. Mullin subsequent to a discussion between Mullin and Anderson in which Dr. Mullin discussed audiological screening of the convalescent center's patients by audiology students from Florida Technological University under Dr. Mullin's supervision. In addition, Dr. Mullin and Andersen discussed a new Medicaid program under which hearing testing and hearing aids could be provided to Medicaid patients. The acquisition of hearing aids under this program was dependent upon the recommendation of an audiologist approved by Medicaid. Dr. Mullin advised Anderson that he wad so approved by MedicaId and would be glad to provide this service to patients of the nursing home at the time the audiological screening was done. Mullin told Anderson at this initial conference that he would test Medicaid patients and bill Medicaid for his professional services and that the nursing home would not be billed. It was further agreed that Dr. Mullin would provide Anderson a report on the patients. These audiological tests were subsequently conducted on Anderson's authority and without the permission and knowledge of Dr. Rauschenberger, house physician for the two nursing homes and in some instances personal physician of some of the patients. Prior medical authorization is not required for audiological testing in general practice or under the Medicaid program. After the testing program was completed, Dr. Mullin reported in writing to Mr. Anderson the results of the residents and staff at UCCW. Koranda, the administrator at UCE, had not requested a report be filed with her regarding Dr. Mullin's findings, and no report was rendered to her by Dr. Mullin. In neither instance did the administrators request or authorize Dr. Mullin to enter his findings in the patient's medical records maintained at the centers and no such entries were made. Expert testimony varied regarding the obligation of an audiologist to make entries in a patient's record. How ever, it was generally agreed that an audiologist would not make entries on a patient's record without authorization by the administration of the health care facility when testing was not the result of medical referral. As a result of his testing at UCCW, Dr. Mullin prescribed hearing aids for Alfred Miller, Sallie Porter, Ruby Allen, Minnie Jennings, Florence Rogers, and Agnes Flowers, all of whom were Medicaid patients. As a result of audiological testing at UCCE, Dr. Mullin prescribed hearing aids for Jessie Robinson, Maggie Smith, Clara Brown, Emma Van Landingham, Emily Burkhart, Della Stone, and Lenora Gell, all of whom were Medicaid patients. Dr. Mullin prepared prescriptions for hearing aids on the persons named above, and forwarded these prescriptions to Orange Hearing Aid Center in Orlando, Florida which provided and fitted the hearing aids to the individuals. Dr. Mullin submitted the bill directly to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services for his professional services in screening Medicaid patients' hearing and for his professional services in screening and prescribing heading aids for Medicaid patients. Dr. Mullin's basic hearing evaluation test consisted of a pure tone air conduction test. Dr. Mullin conducted further testing if necessary to include a pure tone bone conduction test, speech discrimination test, and speech reception threshold test. A master hearing aid was used for the hearing aid selection process and an audiometer used for the basic testing. Dr. Mullin prescribed hearing aids on the basis of these latter tests Dr. Mullin had planned to conduct all testing in a specially adapted trailer, but was unable to use this trailer because of the immobility of the patients. A bathing facility or "tub room" in each of the nursing homes was provided by the nursing home administration for conducting the tests, and represented to be the only facility available for the testing. These facilities were not ideal in terms of their construction and location for conducting audiological testing. However, Dr. Mullin took what measures he could to reduce ambient noise levels, to include the use of aural domes. No clear and convincing evidence was introduced that the noise conditions during Dr. Mullin's tests were so bad that his test results were invalid. In fact, subsequent tests made by the Board revealed that the patients tested by Dr. Mullin were hard of hearing, although some of the results differed slightly in degree of loss. Subsequent to the testing, as mentioned above, Dr. Mullin filed a written report with Arthur Anderson, administrator of UCCW. This report was rendered on the letterhead of Florida Technological University. This report revealed that Rogers, Silfies, Bowen, Covington, Peppett, Trodden Turner, Farrow, Howard, and Tidson had normal hearing. The report contained specific comments with regard to Rolle, Rigsbee, Goodrich, Rosato, VonDohler, Shalhoub, Thompson, Owens, Murkinson, Tholl, and Hocker. Silfries, Rolle, Owens, Peppett, Goodrich, and Hocker were Medicaid patients upon whom Mullin submitted billings to Medicaid through the Department of Health and Rehabilitative services. The comments on Thompson, Owens, Murkinson and Tholl indicate referral to otolaryngologists. The specific comments with regard to Rolle, Goodrich, Rosato, and Shalhoub indicate a hearing loss but no recommendation for a hearing aid due to some specific contra-indication. The billings submitted to Medicaid through the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services are consistent with the findings reported in Exhibit 3. The billings were for basic hearing evaluations on those Medicaid paie:ts who were determined to have normal hearing and for selective amplification procedures in addition to basic evaluation for those patients whose hearing was not normal. The billings are substantiated by the report filed with Anderson and the audiograms prepared. However, the report does reveal that Herman Owens, who was referred to an otolaryngologist for removal of impacted cerumen in the right ear, received both basic hearing tests and selective hearing amplification procedures, both of which were billed to Medicaid; and J. L. Hocker received selective amplification testing although Mullin's comments indicated that Hocker's right ear had recently undergone surgery for removal of a carcinoma. However, Medicaid's criteria for testing were not introduced and no evidence was introduced, that a patient with impacted ears should not be tested. Also this report contains no reference to the patients for whom Dr. Mullin had prescribed a hearing aid. The report does reveal that where contra-indicated, whether because of the nature of the hearing loss, as indicated with Rolle and Rosato, or patient attitude, as in the case of Goodrich, Dr. Mullin did not prescribe a hearing aid. This relates particularly to the allegation that Dr. Mullin prescribed hearing aids for certain patients who did not want hearing aids, and an implication made that Dr. Mullin recommended hearing aids for patients who could not benefit from them. This report which is on Florida Technological University letterhead is the sole support of the charge that Dr. Mullin misused his connection with Florida Technological University. It is clear that this report was rendered after the testing had been concluded. Clearly, his report rendered after the testing on the letterhead of Florida Technological University could not have been an inducement to Anderson to permit Mullin access to the convalescent center. However, the fact is clear that Dr. Mullin did make a personal profit for a venture undertaken in connection with an otherwise authorized university activity. The evidence indicates that the hearing aids prescribed by Dr. Mullin and provided by Orange Hearing Aid Center were fitted by Merrill Schwartz. Schwartz fitted these hearing aids at UCCW and UCCE. There is no indication that UCCE or UCCW failed to cooperate in any way with Schwartz gaining access to the patients and fitting them with aids. To the contrary, the evidence indicates that both centers cooperated fully in providing Schwartz the opportunity and facilities to fit the hearing aids. The fact that both centers did not question the fitting of the hearing aids substantiates Dr. Mullin's assertion that Anderson expected hearing aids to be fitted to patients under the Medicaid program. Expert testimony was received that the only positive evaluation of the utility of the hearing aid to a patient is a trial by the patient using the aid to include counselling on the use and benefits of the hearing aid to overcome a patient's possible aversion to the aid. Dr. Mullin testified that he had prescribed the aids on a thirty day trial basis, and his audiograms substantiate this. However, his prescriptions to Orange Hearing Aid Center did not reflect any trial period. Merrill Schwartz, the hearing aid salesman for Orange Hearing Aid Center, stated that he fitted the aids from the prescriptions and no trial period was stated. However, the current owner, Irwin Pensack, stated that during his transitional period in taking over Orange Hearing Aid Center from Emmanuel Gitles, that Gitles had impressed upon him the importance of maintaining good customer relationships and providing trial periods routinely when requested. Why the 30 day trial was not included in the prescription was not explained by Dr. Mullin, who stated it was his understanding they were for a 30 day trial. However, in this same regard, the evidence further reveals that none of the staff at UCCW or UCCE contacted Dr. Mullin or Orange Hearing Aid Center with regard to followup counseling or return of the hearing aids when the patients failed to properly use them. It is questionable how effective a 30 trial period would have bean under the circumstances. No evidence was presented to show hat Dr. Mullin received any type of "kickback" or other benefit from Orange Hearing Aid Center. Although substantial and competent evidence was introduced that some of the patients who were fitted with the hearing aids were senile, expert testimony was received that such a condition is not a contra-indication of the need and benefit to the patient of the use of a hearing aid. This is particularly true since the effects of deafness and senility subjectively reinforce one another. Expert testimony was also received that an audiologist would not routinely provide followup services subsequent to audiological testing and the prescription of a hearing aid unless requested to do so by the patient or the hearing aid dealer. The evidence indicates that Dr. Mullin did not receive any requests for followup from either UCC er UCC on behalf of any of the patients for whom hearing aids were prescribed, from patients themselves, or the dealer. The one call made from a patient who had received a hearing aid was made to Orange County Hearing Aid for followup services or repair. Said services were provided by Orange Hearing Aid Center, and indicates that this patient was using the hearing aid. The bills submitted to Medicaid through the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services were in accord with Medicaid's published schedules for the professional services rendered by Dr. Mullin. There is no substantial and competent evidence that Mullin charged for work he did not do or overcharged for the work that he did.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that no action be taken against the certificate of Thomas A. Mullin as a speech pathologist and audiologist. DONE and ORDERED this 26th day of October, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Howard R. Marsee, Esquire Post Office Box 20154 Orlando, Florida 32814 Gene Sellers, Esquire General Counsel's Office Department of Education Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 James M. Russ, Esquire 441 First Federal Building 109 East Church Street Orlando, Florida 32801
Findings Of Fact Until August 24, 1974, Petitioner was holder of Certificate of Registration No. 173-06-68, and Renewal Certificate No. 466, which authorized him to act as a hearing aid fitter and salesman in the State of Florida. In 1974, as a result of investigations and conferences conducted by representatives of HRS, it was determined that Petitioner had falsified his application for the above referenced licenses in 1968 when he failed to reveal that in 1955 he had been arrested and convicted of armed robbery, and had served one year in confinement for that offese. Petitioner was duly served with notice (Hearing Officer's Exhibit #3) that proceedings had been commenced to revoke his license to fit and sell hearing aids. In the course of proceedings to revoke his license, Petitioner and HRS entered into a Consent Order (Hearing Officer's Exhibit #1) dated March 19, 1974. In that order, Petitioner agreed to a suspension of his license for a period commencing February 1, 1974, and ending May 2, 1974, and further agreed that thereafter he would be "on a period of supervision for a five-year period. The conditions of this "supervisory period were that Petitioner would submit quarterly reports to HRS containing copies of all contracts for hearing aids sold by him in the State of Florida, the name and address of his employer, and Petitioner's residence address. Under the terms of the Consent Order, any failure by Petitioner to comply with the terms of the agreement constituted grounds for cancellation of his license. Petitioner failed to file the necessary report due on August 1, 1974, with HRS, and, on August 21, 1974, HRS served a Notice of Revocation (Hearing Officers Exhibit #2) advising him that his license had been cancelled for noncompliance with the Consent Order. At the time Petitioner's initial report was due under the terms of the Consent Order he had left Florida to seek other employment in California. At the time of the entry of the Consent Order, Petitioner was employed by Lunex, Inc. in St. Petersburg. He left that position shortly after entry of the order, and was unemployed for a period of approximately six months. Since Petitioner was unemployed, and had made no sales of hearing aids during the period covered by the report which was to have been filed August 1, 1974, his only technical violation of the Consent Order was failure to report his residence address to HRS. Even so, when the August 1, 1974, report became due, Petitioner had no permanent residence address in Florida or elsewhere in that he was actively engaged in seeking employment, both in Florida and in California. Petitioner is now a legal resident of the State of Florida, and has had over ten years experience in the fitting and selling of hearing aids. He is presently employed by Ray Black, Inc., a company qualified to engage in the fitting and selling of hearing aids in Florida. Since his license was revoked in 1974, Petitioners's activities with his present employer are necessarily limited to hiring and training hearing aid salesmen. Ray Black, Inc. is an established hearing aid business, open during normal business hours with a permanent business address at 8001 North Dale Mabry, Tampa, Florida. A representative of Petitioner's current employer testified that his work had been very satisfactory since joining Ray Black, Inc. in March, 1978. Petitioner is now 42 years old. The reasons for the initial revocation of his license were his failure to disclose an arrest and conviction for armed robbery which occurred when he was 18 years old, and his subsequent failure to abide by the terms of the Consent Order (Hearing Officer's Exhibit #1). There has been no evidence of any violation of the laws of this or any other state since his conviction in 1955, and his failure to disclose that conviction in 1968. Neither is there any evidence that Petitioner''s performance as a fitter and seller of hearing aids prior to revocation of his license, and as a teacher of salesmen since that time has been less than satisfactory.
The Issue The issue is whether the Petitioner, Caroline T. Davis, is entitled to licensure as a hearing aid specialist by virtue of a passing grade on the September, 1989, examination.
Findings Of Fact Caroline T. Davis was an applicant for licensure as a hearing aid specialist and took the September, 1989, examination. Ms. Davis received an overall score of 71%. A score of 75% is required to pass the examination. As a result of sanctions imposed for failure to produce, Ms. Davis was awarded 2 points. (See Order Imposing Sanctions entered July 24, 1990.) As a result, Ms. Davis has a score of 73% and needs only 2 points to pass the examination. While she challenged numerous portions of the examination, at the hearing Ms. Davis raised specific challenges only to the scoring on Procedures 7-9, 11, and 13 of the earmold impressions portion of the practical examination. Procedure 7 relates to the examination of the ear after removal of the impression. The candidate instructions given prior to the examination advise the candidate to "[d]emonstrate all procedures followed prior, during, and after making an impression." The tape of the examination makes it clear that Ms. Davis stated that she would go back and examine the ear after removing the earmold. However, Ms. Davis did not demonstrate the activity of examining the ear after removing the impression. Ms. Davis did not satisfy the requirements for credit on Procedure 7. Procedure 8 relates to the execution of a correct order form. The instructions required the candidate to fill out an order form for an earmold. Ms. Davis incorrectly filled out the order form for an in-the-ear hearing aid. While the rest of the form was correctly executed, the one error is sufficient to deny credit for a correct answer on Procedure 8. Procedure 9 relates to an explanation by the candidate of how to put on a hearing aid. Ms. Davis did not perform this task. She simply stated that she would explain or demonstrate the way to put on a hearing aid. She did not satisfy the requirements for credit on Procedure 9. Procedure 11 requires the candidate to give the functions of at least three parts of a hearing aid. The candidate instructions advise the candidate to tell the client "the function of the parts of the hearing aid that are important for client use." Ms. Davis explained the functions of two parts: the battery and its proper insertion and the volume control. She named three other parts, but she failed to explain the functions of these parts. Procedure 11 requires more than the simple naming of parts of a hearing aid. Again Ms. Davis failed to perform the required tasks for credit on Procedure 11. Procedure 13 requires the candidate to tell the client about the warranty on the hearing aid. Ms. Davis did state that she would tell the client about the warranty, but she did not do so during the examination. She argues that she should not have to state the warranty information because that would be provided in a written form to the client when the aid is delivered. The candidate instructions make it clear that the candidate is to select one of the aids provided at the examination, is to use that aid in performing various procedures, and is to perform the procedures as if that aid were being delivered to the client. The candidate is required to state the warranty information as to the hearing aid he selected. The very terms of the examination require that the candidate tell about the warranty information, not state that she would do so in a real situation. Ms. Davis did not tell about the warranty and is not entitled to credit for Procedure 13.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Professional Regulation enter a Final Order dismissing the examination challenge of Caroline T. Davis to the September, 1989, examination for licensure as a hearing aid specialist. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of September, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of September, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Caroline T. Davis Proposed findings of fact 1, 2, 4, 5, 14, and 16 are unsupported by the competent, substantial evidence. Proposed findings of fact 3, 6-10, 15, and 17-21 are irrelevant. Proposed findings of fact 11-13 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Department of Professional Regulation Proposed findings of fact 1 and 4-9 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Proposed findings of fact 2, 3, and 10 are unnecessary or irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: See Next Page Caroline T. Davis 2401 West 15th Street Panama City, FL 32401 Vytas J. Urba Staff Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 LouElla Cook Executive Director Board of Hearing Aid Specialists Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Respondent's license as a hearing aid specialist in Florida should be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Administrative Complaints filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to the issues herein, the Board of Hearing Aid Specialists has been the state agency in Florida responsible for the licensing of hearing aid specialists and the regulation of the hearing aid provider profession in Florida. The Respondent has been a licensed hearing aid specialist in this state, holding license number AS 00010006. Stanley I. Williamson is an 84-year-old blind and arthritic retiree who has worn hearing aids since the early 1980's. He has known Mr. Conley since that time and has purchased his hearing aids from the Respondent both when the Respondent was working for other suppliers and when he went into business for himself. In the summer of 1997, Mr. Williamson went to the Respondent to get the wax cleaned out of his hearing aids. Mr. Williamson did not feel he needed new aids at the time. However, on June 6, 1997 Respondent Mr. Conley called him and tried to sell him some new aids. Mr. Williamson told the respondent he didn't want new aids because his were working well, but Mr. Conley suggested he bring them in anyway. Mr. Williamson went to the Respondent's office and tried the new ones the Respondent showed him but decided he did not want them because he felt they did not work properly. Nonetheless, on that same day, June 6, 1997, Mr. Williamson took them, signed a contract for the new aids, and gave the Respondent a check for $1,095. At that time, the Respondent told Mr. Williamson he could bring the aids back within 30 days if they were not acceptable. The Argosy hearing aids Mr. Williamson got from the Respondent on June 6 did not work properly, and when Mr. Williamson complained, the Respondent agreed to get him another pair. Mr. Williamson picked up this second pair of aids at the Respondent's office, Conley's Hearing Aid Center in Clearwater on June 20, 1997. At that time Mr. Williamson signed a second contract and gave the Respondent a second check for $1,095. On June 24, 1997, the Respondent had Mr. Williamson, who was still not satisfied with the performance of the Argosy aids, sign a third contract with his company under which the Respondent agreed to provide a pair of 3M Single Pro hearing aids for a total price of $3,390. The Respondent gave Mr. Williamson credit for the two prior payments of $1,095 each, and Mr. Williamson gave the Respondent an additional check for $1,200. According to Mr. Williamson, the 3M aids, which the Respondent delivered on July 8, 1997, also did not work to his satisfaction, so after just a few days, on July 10, 1997, he exchanged them for a different pair of 3M aids, Dual Pro. The sales receipt for the aids that the Respondent gave to Mr. Williamson on July 10, 1997 did not contain the buyer's signature, nor did it list the serial numbers for the hearing aids provided. Mr. Williamson thought he was getting the top of the hearing aid line but in fact, the Dual Pro aid was the middle line. According to a pamphlet he saw later, the top of the line is called Multi Pro; the middle, Dual Pro; and the bottom, Single Pro. Though a new contract was signed reflecting the Dual Pro aids, there was no additional charge. The Respondent guaranteed all hearing aids sold to Mr. Williamson to be acceptable or, if returned within 30 days of purchase, a full refund would be given. The Dual Pro aids also did not work to Mr. Williamson's satisfaction, and he returned them to the Respondent on or about August 4, 1997, an act witnessed by the Respondent's associate, Michelle Pfister. None of the hearing aid sets was kept by Mr. Williamson for more than 30 days. Mr. Williamson contends that when he returned the second pair of Argosy aids and received the 3M Single Pro aids in exchange, he asked Mr. Conley for a refund. At that time, Mr. Conley said he didn't have the money. When Mr. Conley delivered the Single Pro aids, and again when he delivered the Dual Pro aids, Mr. Williamson asked for a refund instead. Each time the Respondent claimed he didn't have the money. On October 4, 1997, Mr. Williamson wrote to Conley's Hearing Aid Center, the Respondent's business, and threatened recoupment action if the Respondent did not return the money he had paid for the aids he had returned. The hearing aids Mr. Williamson purchased were all returned to the Respondent, but no refund was ever made. According to Ms. Pfister, the returned hearing aids were subsequently sent back to the manufacturer for credit. The credit was not to her account with the manufacturer, however, and she does not know who received it. Ms. Pfister, also a licensed hearing aid specialist since 1998, bought Conley's Hearing Aid Center from the Respondent on July 27, 1997. At the time of the purchase, Ms. Pfister was not employed by the Respondent, but she had worked for the Respondent on and off since 1995. On June 26, 1997, the Respondent signed a form to sponsor Ms. Pfister as a hearing aid specialist trainee and served as her sponsor until she passed the examination and was licensed on June 23, 1998. Respondent continued to work on the premises after the sale until Ms. Pfister was licensed. When Ms. Pfister took over the business, the sales contract called for all hearing aids on site to be sold to her as inventory, She also received a statement from the Respondent that there were no unresolved issues with clients, and she did not assume any liabilities incurred by the business prior to her take over. When she assumed active management of the practice, Ms. Pfister received all of the Respondent's patient files. Katherine Sadilek is a 93-year-old retiree who purchased a pair of pre-owned 3-M Model 8200 hearing aids from the Respondent on April 8, 1997 for $1,800. The aids were paid for in full on April 9, 1997. The receipt for this sale that the Respondent gave to Ms. Sadilek did not contain the serial numbers of the aids, nor did it describe any of the terms and conditions of the sale or a guarantee. Ms. Sadilek returned the aids to the Respondent exactly 30 days after the purchase date because she was not satisfied with them. The Respondent did not refund her money but agreed to try to re-sell them for her. He offered her $100.00 for them, which she refused. The Respondent retained the aids and never returned them to Ms. Sadilek or paid her for them. A review of the documentation relating to the sales to both clients show them to be devoid of any information showing any improvement to the clients' hearing as a result of the hearing aids sold to them by the Respondent. A showing of improvement is required to form the basis for non-refund of amounts paid for hearing aids. The Respondent filed for bankruptcy in December 1998. The Respondent was licensed as a hearing aid specialist in Indiana in 1970 and in Florida in 1978. He has practiced in Florida for almost 20 years without any complaints being filed against him except those in issue here. The Respondent attributes most of his problems to his marriage dissolution in 1979, the settlement relating to which caused his financial problems and his bankruptcy. He claims he offered to make periodic payments to Mr. Williamson but Mr. Williamson refused that offer. The Respondent is 61 years old and presently receiving worker's compensation. Though he is not presently in the hearing aid business, he hopes to be in the future and needs to keep his license to earn a living.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board of Hearing Aid Specialists enter a final order suspending the Respondent's license for a period of six months and thereafter placing it under probation for a period of three years under such terms and conditions as may be deemed appropriate by the Board. It is also recommended that the Board impose an administrative fine of $3,000, and assess appropriate costs of investigation and prosecution. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of September, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of September, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Gary L. Asbell, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Building 3, Mail Stop 39 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Donald Conley 3377 Southwest Villa Place Palm City, Florida 34990 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Susan Foster, Executive Director Board of Hearing Aid Specialists Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
Findings Of Fact Daniel C. Throneburg, Sr. (Respondent) is, and has been at all times material hereto, a licensed hearing aid specialist in the State of Florida, having been issued license number AS-0000675. On January 30, 1985, Opal Holbrook agreed to purchase two "Nu Ear" rechargeable hearing aids from Respondent after he had tested her hearing and recommended this hearing aid. The total price of the hearing aid was $1,990. The following was included on the order form signed by both Respondent and Holbrook: If within 7 days of the date of delivery you are not completely satisfied, you will receive a refund less $50.00 fee provided you have kept a scheduled appointment within 72 hours of the date of delivery, to allow the specialist to make necessary adjustments for fit, comfort and personal listening pleasure. Respondent received the "Nu Ear" hearing aids from the manufacturer on or about February 26, 1985, and Holbrook thereafter kept her scheduled appointment within 72 hours of delivery, was fitted, and completed payment in full on February 26, 1985 in the amount of $1,990. Four days after receiving the hearing aids, Holbrook returned to Respondent because she still could not hear. Respondent made some adjustments, and told her to try them for another three or four days. She still could not hear, however, and therefore Holbrook requested a refund from Respondent after attempting to use the hearing aids for about a week. Respondent again asked that she try them a little longer. Holbrook returned numerous times during March, 1985 because her hearing aids had not improved her hearing. Respondent referred her to Mark Krywko for counseling, and adjustments, and she asked Krywko for a refund. Instead, he took an impression of her ears, and made some adjustments in the hearing aids, including boring a hole in them and adding an air hose. Respondent was usually not present when Krywko made these adjustments, counseled her on the use of hearing aids, or when Krywko took the impressions. After numerous attempts to adjust the Nu Ear hearing aids had failed, Respondent agreed to "remake" the hearing aids. Basically, he agreed to exchange the Nu Ear aids for another make. On or about April 19, 1985 Holbrook signed a receipt for Electone hearing aids which she received as replacement for the Nu Ear aids. This receipt states: Any modifications necessary will be performed based upon acceptable industry standards and the manufacturers' warranty. I understand the specialists' responsibility is fitting the hearing instrument(s) and to counsel me in the use of the aid and to mail any aid to the manufacturer for custom modifications. In the unlikely event, I am not happy with the instrument, I understand, I can request and receive another instrument from a different manufacturer at no additional charge within 60 days. Requests for any and all refunds are not allowed. I also understand that if my hearing loss has been progressive and has deteriorated, it will be necessary to return to the office for counseling which will be provided by the hearing aid specialist at "NO EXTRA COST". Holbrook was still unable to hear with the Electone hearing aids and requested a refund. To date, no refund has been provided by Respondent to Holbrook. Respondent stipulated that Holbrook received his business card at his place of business. The card represents that Respondent is a certified hearing aid audiologist, which he is not. Mark Krywko is not a licensed hearing aid specialist in the State of Florida, but at all times material hereto he was in an approved trainee program. At the request of Respondent, he repeatedly made adjustments on Holbrook's hearing aids, took an impression of her ears, gave her the receipt referred to in Finding of Fact 6 when the replacement hearing aids were delivered to her, and counseled her on the use of hearing aids. As such, he engaged in dispensing hearing aids, as defined by Section 484.041(3), Florida Statutes, at the request of Respondent who knew that Krywko was not licensed at the time. Respondent was not present most of the time Krywko performed these services for Holbrook. The receipts which Respondent provided to Holbrook for the Nu Ear and Electone hearing aids did not refer the buyer to the Board of Hearing Aid Specialists for the resolution of complaints, and also did not contain the disclaimer required by Section 484.051(2), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that Petitioner enter a Final Order imposing an administrative fine on Respondent in the amount of $1,000, and placing Respondent on probation for a period of six months, conditioned upon his refunding to Opal Holbrook $1940, the full amount she paid for the hearing aids less a $50.00 fee; in the event Respondent does not pay the administrative fine and complete the refund required herein within thirty days of entry of the Final Order, it is further recommended that Respondent's license be suspended for one year in lieu of the six month period of probation and administrative fine. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of December, 1986 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of December, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Ray Shope, Esquire Staff Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 2301 Daniel C. Throneberg 8104 Brit Drive Orlando, Florida Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida Wings S. Benton, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues in these two consolidated cases concern whether Respondent committed several violations alleged in two separate administrative complaints and, if so, what penalties should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to these consolidated cases, Respondent was a licensed hearing aid specialist in the State of Florida, having been issued license number AS 2169. On or about February 8, 2001, S. K. visited Respondent's business located at 3971 Jog Road, Suite 7, Greenacres, Florida, in order to buy hearing aids. On that day S. K. purchased two Audibel brand hearing aids. The invoice provided to S. K. clearly indicates that he was purchasing Audibel brand hearing aids. There is no mention of Beltone anywhere on the invoice. The two hearing aids purchased by S. K. on February 8, 2001, were delivered to S. K. on February 23, 2001. Hearing aids of the type purchased by S. K. are specially manufactured to address the specific needs of each patient. Accordingly, the hearing aids must be manufactured after the contract is entered into. At the time of the delivery of the hearing aids, S. K. was provided with an invoice that contained the name of the manufacturer, the serial numbers of the hearing aids, and the two-year warranty by Audibel. S. K. returned several times for adjustments to the new Audibel brand hearing aids. On March 20, 2001, the hearing aids were sent to the factory to change the volume control to a screw set control. The repair agreement document filled out by Respondent on March 20, 2001, contains the Beltone name and logo in one corner, but does not otherwise mention Beltone. The hearing aids were returned to S. K. on March 29, 2001. Sometime thereafter, S. K. decided to spend the summer in Connecticut. Before leaving for Connecticut, S. K. asked Respondent's secretary for the name of a Beltone dealer near his Connecticut address. The secretary provided the requested information. S. K. mistakenly thought he had purchased Beltone brand hearing aids from Respondent until June 24, 2001, when S. K. visited a Beltone dealer in Connecticut for adjustments. On or about June 24, 2001, a Beltone dealer in Connecticut wrote a letter to Respondent on S. K.'s behalf requesting a refund for S. K. Respondent did not state or imply to S. K. that Respondent was selling Beltone brand hearing aids to S. K. To the contrary, Respondent specifically told S. K. that Respondent was selling Audibel brand hearing aids to S. K.
Recommendation On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Hearing Aid Specialists enter a Final Order concluding that all counts in both Administrative Complaints in these two consolidated cases should be dismissed because the evidence is insufficient to prove the violations alleged by clear and convincing evidence. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of July, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 24th day of July, 2003.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto Respondent was licensed as a Hearing Aid Specialist having been issued license number 0000804. During the period 1985-1986 the license of T. Ray Black was displayed on the wall at East Pasco Hearing Aid Center in Zephyrhills, Florida, but Respondent never worked at this address. East Pasco Hearing Aid Center is owned and operated by Arvina Hines whose license as a Hearing Aid Specialist was revoked circa 1981. Ms. Hines hired people to work at East Pasco Hearing Aid Center and trained them in selling and fitting hearing aids. Pamela Strife worked at the East Pasco Hearing Aid Center from 1981 until 1986 and never met Respondent nor did she ever see him at the center. She did see Raymond J. Black and Cynthia Sue Bennett, the father and sister of Respondent, working at the center. Raymond J. Black's license was revoked January 26, 1981. Arvina Hines submitted an application for training program for Hearing Aid Specialist on April 21, 1986. (Exhibit 5), in which Respondent signed the sponsor affidavit as the sponsor of Ms. Hines. He did not provide any supervision to Hines. Sheila Louise Thomas submitted as application February 25, 1985, for a training program as a Hearing Aid Specialist (Exhibit 4), on which Respondent signed as sponsor. Ms. Thomas was trained by Ms. Hines. Thomas does not recall completing the application for training, but identified her signature thereon. She has never met Respondent. Peggy Goodman worked at East Pasco Hearing Aid Center for three weeks in 1985. During the time she was employed she never saw Respondent at the center.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated Subsections 484.056(1)(g) and (h), Florida Statutes (1999), respectively, by committing fraud, deceit, negligence, incompetence, or misconduct in the dispensing of a hearing aid and by failing to provide a sales receipt and other required information; and, if so, what penalty, if any, should be imposed against Respondent's license as a hearing aid specialist. (All chapter and section references are to Florida Statutes (1999) unless otherwise stated.)
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for regulating the practice of hearing aid specialists in Florida pursuant to Chapter 484. Respondent is licensed as a hearing aid specialist in Florida pursuant to license number AS0002712. The Administrative Complaint involves the sale and service of an original pair of hearing aids and replacement hearing aids to a single customer. The record identifies the customer as C.P. in order to preserve the customer's confidentiality. C.P. is an elderly gentleman who is hearing impaired. C.P.'s wife accompanied and assisted C.P. in most of his dealings with Respondent. On February 16, 1999, Respondent performed a free hearing test on C.P. at Elfers Optical and Hearing Company (Elfers). Elfers is located on State Road 54 in New Port Richey, Florida. C.P. had heard of Respondent from a friend and responded to a newspaper advertisement by Elfers for a free hearing test. Respondent advised C.P. that C.P. needed two hearing aids. Respondent concluded that C.P. needed a hearing aid for each ear for balance. Respondent recommended programmable hearing aids for several reasons. Respondent represented that programmable hearing aids could be programmed for hearing needs that change over time and therefore would not have to be replaced. However, programmable hearing aids are more expensive than others. C.P. stated that he wanted to think about it. C.P. left the office and subsequently made an appointment for a return visit on February 19, 1999. When C.P. returned to Elfers on February 19, 1999, Respondent was sick and not in the office. Ms. Phillys Strand (Strand), Respondent's employee, saw C.P. and his wife. C.P. stated that he had decided to purchase the programmable hearing aids recommended by Respondent. Strand fitted C.P. for two hearing aids and had C.P. execute a contract for the purchase of two Philips Encanto II programmable hearing aids (Encantos) at the total price of $3,832 (the contract). C.P. paid $3,832 on February 19, 1999. The contract states that there was a one-year warranty on the hearing aids. The one-year warranty covered replacement or repair but not a refund of the purchase price. The contract specifically states that C.P. had only 30 days from the date of delivery (the 30-day trial period) in which to obtain a refund of the purchase price. Respondent delivered the Encantos to C.P. on March 1, 1999. C.P. returned to Elfers on March 3, 1999, complaining that the hearing aids hurt his ears. Respondent ground down the hearing aids, and C.P. left Elfers with the modified hearing aids. C.P. returned to Elfers on March 10, 1999, and requested a refund from Respondent. C.P. explained that he had recently learned that he needed surgery on one of his ears to remove a cancerous legion and would be unable to use the hearing aids before the expiration of the 30-day trial period for obtaining a refund. On March 10, 1999, Respondent stated to C.P. that under Florida law C.P. had one year in which to obtain a refund. Neither Florida law nor the manufacturer provides a warranty that authorizes a refund for one year. The provisions in the contract pertaining to a refund of the purchase price merely reflect the terms of the applicable section of Florida Statutes. In relevant part, the purchase contract provides: Unless otherwise stated, the hearing aid is new and warranted for one year by dispenser . . . . The guarantee shall permit the purchaser to cancel for a valid reason within 30 days of the receipt of the hearing aid(s). A valid reason shall be defined as failure by the purchaser to achieve satisfaction from use of the hearing aid(s), so long as the hearing aid(s) is returned to the seller within the 30-day trial period in good working condition. In the event of cancellation within the 30-day trial period, [Elfers] will retain $150 plus 5% of total purchase price on monaural fitting, or $200 plus 5% of total purchase price on binaural fitting for ear molds and services provided to fit the hearing aids, pursuant to 484.0512FS. . . . On March 10, 1999, C.P. properly tendered the Encantos to Respondent in accordance with the requirements of the contract and Section 484.0512. C.P. had a valid reason, within the meaning of the contract and applicable law, for the failure to achieve satisfaction with the Encantos. C.P. properly requested a refund within the 30-day trial period that began on March 1, 1999, when Respondent delivered the Encantos to C.P. On March 10, 1999, Respondent had actual knowledge that C.P. had properly tendered the Encantos for a valid reason and properly requested a refund. Respondent had actual knowledge of the falsity of the statement that Florida law allowed C.P. one year in which to obtain a refund. Respondent had actual knowledge that neither Florida law nor any warranty amends the 30-day trial period prescribed in the contract and Section 484.0512 for obtaining a refund. In any event, Respondent had constructive knowledge that his statements to C.P. were false. The misrepresentation by Respondent on March 10, 1999, induced C.P. to retain the Encantos. The false statements by Respondent on March 10, 1999, induced C.P. to unknowingly allow the lapse of his statutory and contractual right to a refund. Respondent had actual, or constructive knowledge, of the effect of Respondent's false statement to C.P. C.P. underwent surgery on March 24, 1999, and could not wear the Encantos again until May 21, 1999. When C.P. began wearing the Encantos again on May 21, 1999, the left hearing aid hurt his ear. C.P. compared the two hearing aids and discovered that the left hearing aid was longer than the right. On May 27, 1999, C.P. and his wife returned to Respondent. Respondent made a new impression, using a substance different from that used by Strand for the initial impression, and told C.P. that Respondent would send the impression to the manufacturer for a new set of hearing aids. C.P. and his wife would be traveling in New York when Respondent received the new hearing aids, and Respondent agreed to mail the new hearing aids to C.P. in New York. C.P. received the new hearing aids while he was in New York. C.P. heard a "swishing" noise in the new hearing aids when people around him were talking. C.P. advised Respondent of the bothersome noise. Pursuant to Respondent's instructions, C.P. returned the hearing aids to Respondent. C.P. received hearing aids directly from the manufacturer on July 21, 1999, while C.P. was still in New York. The hearing aids created a pulsating sound. The volume wheel did not work, and the left hearing aid fell out of C.P.'s ear on at least one occasion. Respondent told C.P. that Respondent would have Betty Lou Gage (Gage), Respondent's assistant, locate a hearing aid specialist in New York where C.P. could take the hearing aids. On August 6, 1999, C.P. took the hearing aids to Genesee Hearing Aid in Buffalo, New York (Genesee), pursuant to Gage's instructions. Genesee advised C.P. that they did not work on Phillips programmable hearing aids and charged C.P. $15. On September 30, 1999, C.P. and his wife went to Respondent's office. C.P. complained that the hearing aids were whistling and falling out of his ears. While C.P. was in Respondent's office on September 30, 1999, C.P. requested a refund of the purchase price for a valid reason and tendered the hearing aids to Respondent in good condition. The tender and request for refund was within the one-year period previously represented by Respondent as required by Florida law. Respondent advised C.P. that the warranty was over. Respondent asked C.P. if C.P. wanted Respondent to send the hearing aids back to the manufacturer and have the manufacturer make the hearing aids automatic. C.P. agreed. On October 21, 1999, C.P. returned to Respondent's office for the new hearing aids. The toggle switch used for adjusting hearing aids was still on the outside of the hearing aids, but C.P. accepted the hearing aids anyway. Respondent advised C.P. not to wear the hearing aids while hunting. C.P. did not wear the hearing aids in November 1999 because he was hunting in New York. In December 1999, C.P. asked his wife to check the serial numbers on the hearing aids. C.P. and his wife discovered that the hearing aids were not Encantos. When C.P. and his wife returned to Florida, they went to Hearx, the provider of hearing aids under C.P.'s new insurance policy with Humana. A specialist at Hearx examined the hearing aids and confirmed that the hearing aids were not Phillips programmable hearing aids. Rather, they were half- shell conventional hearing aids with a retail value that ranged from $700 to $900. C.P. telephoned Elfers on January 19, 2000. A representative at Elfers advised C.P. that C.P. would need to speak to Respondent and that Respondent was no longer employed at that location. The representative advised C.P. to try reaching Respondent at the Holiday office. C.P. and his wife found Respondent at the Holiday office. C.P. advised Respondent that the hearing aids were not the Encantos C.P. had purchased and requested a refund. The request for refund was made within the one-year period represented by Respondent on March 10, 1999, in which C.P. could request a refund. C.P. also requested the telephone number for Phillips. Respondent told C.P. that Phillips was out of business and left the office. Jeff Ruff, another employee at the Holiday office, offered to try a new substance to put a seal around the hearing aids for a better fit. C.P. left the hearing aids with Ruff and obtained a receipt. C.P.'s wife telephoned Phillips, provided the serial numbers for the Encantos, and asked whether Respondent had returned the Encantos. The representative for Phillips stated that Respondent had returned the Encantos on October 8, 1999, and that Phillips had sent the half-shell conventional hearing aids back to Respondent. The serial numbers of the half-shell conventional hearing aids sent to Respondent matched those on the hearing aids that C.P.'s wife checked in December 1999. The market value of the half-shell conventional hearing aids is more than $2,000 less than that of the Encantos. Respondent should have refunded the difference in market value to C.P. Respondent did not refund the difference in market price to C.P. Respondent did not provide C.P. with any written documentation, including a sales receipt, for the half-shell conventional hearing aids; did not provide C.P. with a warranty for the half-shell conventional hearing aids; did not advise C.P. that Respondent had changed the hearing aids provided to C.P.; and did not advise C.P. of the difference in market value between the Encantos and half-shell conventional hearing aids. Respondent has not refunded any money to C.P. Respondent has not otherwise made restitution for the harm suffered by C.P. This is not Respondent's first offense. Petitioner has previously disciplined Respondent's license in two cases in which Respondent either allowed the 30-day trial period to lapse before taking action requested by the customer or refused to refund the entire amount of the purchase price. Petitioner imposed administrative fines in those two cases that totaled $1,000; required Respondent to pay costs of $805; and required Respondent pay a refund to the customer in the amount $544. A substantial period of time has not lapsed since Respondent's previous discipline. Petitioner entered a final order in the previous two cases on April 15, 2002.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Subsections 484.056(1)(g) and (h); revoking Respondent's license; assessing an administrative fine of $2,000 and the costs of investigation and prosecution; requiring Respondent to make restitution to C.P. in the amount of $3,832; and requiring Respondent to pay all fines, costs, and restitution within 30 days of the date of the Final Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of September, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 6th day of September, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathryn E. Price, Esquire Bureau of Practitioner Regulation Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 Gage Davey 6521 Berea Lane New Port Richey, Florida 34653 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Susan Foster, Executive Director Board of Hearing Aid Specialists Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue The issues posed for decision herein are whether the license to dispense hearing aids issued to the Respondent should be suspended or revoked, or whether the Respondent should be otherwise disciplined for reasons which will be set forth hereinafter in detail as contained in the Administrative Complaint issued by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services on or about May 7, 1979.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the arguments of counsel and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. By its Administrative Complaint filed on or about May 7, 1979, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (Department), Petitioner, alleged that Ralph F. Heller, Respondent, violated certain provisions of the Florida Hearing Aid Law, Chapter 468, Florida Statutes, and regulations promulgated thereto, and that he violated the terms and conditions of a Stipulation and Final Order entered in a previous administrative proceeding before this Division, Case No. 78-1222, involving the same parties. During the final hearing herein, Respondent admitted that he was the Respondent in Case No. 78-1222 and that copies of that Final Order and Stipulation were properly received and admitted without objection (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 1). The Stipulation incorporated into the Final Order in Case No. 78-1222 provided in pertinent part that Respondent admitted that he had been or is currently in violation of Chapter 468, Part III, Florida Statutes, and that he (Respondent) would be suspended from the fitting and selling of hearing aids in the State of Florida for a period of forty-five (45) days commencing twenty (20) days after the entry of the Final Order by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, and that Respondent would be on a period of supervision and/or probation by the Department for a period of two (2) years beginning at the end of the forty-five (45) day suspension period during which time Respondent was to furnish to the Department copies of all contracts for hearing aids sold by him in the State and audiograms performed on any person, whether a hearing aid is sold or not, and that contracts were to comply with the provisions of Chapter 468, Part III, Florida Statutes. Such reports were to be submitted monthly commencing on the tenth day of the month succeeding the commencement of the probation and supervision period. That Stipulation provided further that Respondent's failure to comply with the requirements imposed during the period of supervision and probation would be grounds for cancellation of his license to sell and fit hearing aids in the State. The Final Order was adopted by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services on November 27, 1978. Respondent's testimony reflects that he performed an audiogram and sold a hearing aid on January 17, 1979, to a Beatrice K. Patterson of Dunnellon, Florida. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2.) Respondent also performed a hearing test on Mrs. Alfred E. Hull, Sr., on or about February 18, 1979, in his office. Respondent did not report the results of these audiograms and/or hearing tests to the Department, nor did he report the sale of the hearing aid to Mrs. Patterson to the Department. In this regard, Respondent attempted to defend his actions on the basis that the Hull test was not reported because it was not a complete hearing test and that the Patterson test and sale were not reported because prior to the reporting time the Department had independently learned of the Patterson transaction and that the sale to Mrs. Patterson had been rescinded. During the month of August, 1979, Respondent performed an audiogram and sold a hearing aid to a Mr. A. J. Bullinger, of Dunnellon, Florida, and rescinded the sale after Mr. Bullinger developed an ear infection from certain foreign material left in his ear during the fitting. Respondent voluntarily paid Mr. Bullinger's medical expenses incidental to the ear infection and although he (Respondent) claimed that the test and sale were reported to the Department, an examination of the reports submitted to the Department and Mr. Gray's testimony show that this was untrue. Mr. Ralph Gray, Director of the Hearing Aid Licensure Program, testified during the hearing and indicated that he received some of the required monthly reports from Respondent on audiograms and sales of hearing aids. Pursuant to the parties' agreement during the hearing, these reports were not introduced into evidence en masse although the evidence reveals that the Respondent failed to file reports for the months of November and December, 1979. Additionally, an examination of the report submitted by the Respondent for the month of August, 1979, reveals that Respondent failed to report the hearing examination and sale to Mr. A. J. Bullinger. As to these events, Respondent's defense is that he instructed his secretary to file such reports with the Department although when questioned by the undersigned, Respondent was evasive and was unable to recall the secretary to whom he gave such instruction. During the hearing, Respondent also evidenced a policy of not reporting to the Department those hearing tests and audiograms conducted by himself which did not result in a sale. The Department's Administrative Complaint also alleged that the Respondent violated specified sections of Chapter 468, Florida Statutes, in connection with the sale of a hearing aid to Mr. Alfred E. Hull, Sr., on or about June 24, 1977. Mr. Hull has died since the inception of these proceedings; however, the transaction was testified to by the Respondent and by Mrs. Alfred E. Hull, Sr. An examination of the contract of sale introduced into evidence fails to indicate whether the hearing aids were new, used or reconditioned although the Respendent represented that the hearing aids were new when sold to Mr. Hull. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 3 and the testimony of Respondent and Mrs. Hull.) The deposition of Ellery L. Childers, taken pursuant to notice at a distance of more than one hundred (100) miles from the place of hearing, was introduced into evidence by the Department. Mr. Childers has a background in the manufacturer's history of sale and warranty of the Hull hearing aids. Some of this information is also recited in a letter-affidavit of Mr. George A. Shymanik, Sales Manager of Beltone Electronics Corporation, which letter was introduced into evidence without objection. (Petitioner's Exhibit 5.) The evidence reveals that a certain Beltone Rondo hearing aid, Serial No. 95898, was sold in April, 1975, to one Lloyd Jennings, a Beltone dealer in Meridian, Mississippi, and was subsequently registered for warranty to a Lucille Wortham of Louisville, Mississippi. The contract of sale between Respondent and Mr. Hull, dated June 24, 1977, recites the sale of the same Beltone hearing aid to Mr. Hull. Evidence also reveals that the Beltone company did not use the same serial number on more than one instrument. (Deposition of Ellery L. Childers.) 2/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, forwith REVOKE the license of Respondent, Ralph F. Heller, to fit and sell hearing aids within the State of Florida. ENTERED this 13th day of March, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. James E. Bradwell, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
